Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput

Before making an edit request

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

Cause of death in light of Supreme court decision

Disputed or under investigation

There has been a lot of rumour and conspiracy mongering around this case questioning whether it was actually suicide. But with the Supreme Court asking for further investigation (BBC article on it), I wonder if it wouldn't behoove us to add a note to the cause of death in the infobox such as "under investigation" or "Disputed". Thoughts? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

btw, not watching this page, so ping me if you need me. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: The BBC News story to which you link does not cast doubt on cause of death. It reports: India's Supreme Court has directed the country's federal investigation agency to probe the death of Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput. It adds: The Mumbai police has been investigating what led to the actor's death. As I explained above, CBI will take over investigation of the FIR in Patna registered by SSR's father accusing the actor's girlfriend and her family of various infractions of the Indian Penal Code—but significantly not including murder. To date, no governmental authority at any level (city, state, national) has claimed SSR's cause of death is under investigation or disputed that he hung himself. Until that happens, our infobox should stay as is. At Wikipedia, we do not attribute cause of death to what you rightly call "rumour and conspiracy mongering." NedFausa (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, Thanks for the explanation Ned, can't say I'm super familiar with the case, just have had a lot of folks complaining to me about it. Guess people just can't believe that an actor could have been depressed, as this article points out [1]. Thus they're coming up with conspiracy theories. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: For context, in 2016 suicide was the leading cause of death in India among the age group 15–39 years. (Sushant Singh Rajput killed himself at age 34.) In 2012, hanging was the method of 26% of suicides in India. (Sushant Singh Rajput hanged himself.) Also in 2012, Mumbai ranked fourth in suicides among India's largest cities, only slightly behind Delhi. (Sushant Singh Rajput killed himself at his home in Bandra, a suburb of Mumbai.) Finally, in 2016 India accounted for 24% of global suicides among men. Yet Indians by the millions would rather pretend this man was murdered than to accept the reality of their country's appalling inattention to issues of mental health. NedFausa (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

One thing is clear from all the references cited about the cause of death / initial postmortem etc. The case is still under investigation and not even Mumbai police ever filed a closure report about the cause of death by suicide. So it is not only logical but also legal (wikpedia as well as country's law) to put the death / cause of death as under investigation. Could anyone of you provide where a conclusive report was filed by any competent authority stating that it was suicide? If not then putting a cause of death by suicide not only illegal as per wiki laws/rules but also as per country's law. Writing anything conclusively for a sub judice investigation is not what Wikipedia guidelines say. Please provide the above demanded links else change the cause of death as under investigation. Leave aside all the conspiracy theories but wait for the final closure report on the cause of death. Rohit klar (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The same newspaper site used as reference in the infobox raises doubt on the cause of death [2] so there is an inconsistency in the reference citation as well. If there is any official link of investigating authority stating the cause of death as suicide then provide that as reference. The current link is not good enough Rohit klar (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Rohit klar: I am the one who (on 4 August) added the inline citation to India Today′s 14 June story following Suicide by hanging in the infobox's Cause of death parameter. I agree that the same news magazine's 22 August story, to which you link, in effect nullifies the one published on the day of Sushant Singh Rajput's death—at least with regard to citing with confidence that it was unequivocally suicide. Given this turnaround, to leave the earlier reference in place would be dishonest. Therefore, I have removed it. NedFausa (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Asphyxia due to hanging

I don’t want to add to the conspiracy theory but it seems like there’s something fishy in this case. But to rest this controversy afloat on this article we can use the official reason mentioned in the autopsy report, "asphyxia due to hanging". Source : https://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/sushant-singh-rajput-s-autopsy-report-surfaces-online/story-BWf1Yi7kayb57lpua5M5DN.html GrantIngersollSolr (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

GrantIngersollSolr: We had previous discussion here about including asphyxia in the infobox parameter Cause of death, but there was no consensus to do so. NedFausa (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

If you look closely at the post Morten report, there is ligature marks on the neck which lower than the Adam’s apple which is technically not possible and points to strangulation rather than hanging. Ref - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2770036/ GrantIngersollSolr (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

GrantIngersollSolr: Usage in this article of the 1989 case report you link to would violate WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. NedFausa (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Grant, we are mere article editors, not armchair detectives, and it's beyond the scope of what we do here to decide what is "not possible". And, a case from decades ago has no relevance here. We write about what the reliable published sources say. The initial medical examination concluded suicide with no evidence of foul play. If the CBI has a different perspective, that will be reflected in this article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I still don’t hear any arguments against using “asphyxia due to hanging” as cause of death. I would like to make 2 points in favor of this, 1. this will satisfy both the views 2. This is actual cause of death marked in the official document. The argument that the initial report suggested suicide with no foul play, where did you got that information, from media right. The same media is now alleging that this was a murder. And I would not believe either their initial report or the current reports. I would rather look at the official autopsy report which clearly say “ asphyxia due to hanging” and I would suggest to keep that rather than murder/dubious/suicide. GrantIngersollSolr (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I would also suggest to be a little cautious with this pages changes and suggestion. The media is actively looking into this case and any unattributed and fake claim could seriously damage Wikipedia’s reputation in the country. GrantIngersollSolr (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Considering the average Indian seems to have some pretty serious misconceptions about Wikipedia in the first place, I'm not sure how much damage this would realistically do. However, I do agree that the CoD in the infobox should just be a plain "asphyxia due to hanging" since the actual manner of death is in dispute. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 04:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

GranIngersollSolr says: "The argument that the initial report suggested suicide with no foul play, where did you got that information, from media right." Multiple outlets reported that the cause of death, which was directly attributed to the three medical examiners who examined the corpse. Those three, along with the two others who signed off on the determination, called it a "clear case of suicide" with no evidence of foul play.[3][4][5][6] If that is incorrect, that's something for the CBI to determine. Grant's flimsy follow-up argument was: "The same media is now alleging that this was a murder". Grant provided no references at all, so "the same media" is pure sophism, since they provided no evidence that this alleged "same media" was quoting documented officials' on-record determinations. Grant's argument is meaningless. I appreciate Jéské Couriano's attempts to simplify the cause of death, I'm just really confused how we're supposed to decide which aspects of the death determination to accept. In a world where there is a large contingent of "stans" as you say, who think Rajput was murdered, did Rajput suicide at all? Was he choked? Did he actually asphyxiate to death? How do we know it wasn't on a chicken bone? Did he even die at all? Maybe we should leave all details blank for this one subject until the sleuths at CSI: India crack the case? While I'm being a bit dramatic, I really don't understand how we can pick and choose which facts related to the subject's death to accept as indisputable. Conspiracy stans will never be satisfied, so who are we trying to satisfy here? The claim "this will satisfy both the views" is a false dichotomy, since there are more than two views on how the subject died. Or didn't. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Support changing Cause of death from Suicide by hanging to Asphyxia due to hanging.

• Wikipedia's Template:Infobox_person is problematic in this regard. Instead of separate parameters for cause of death and manner of death, as Wikidata lays out for Sushant Singh Rajput, Wikipedia allows only one—death_cause—and provides an unhelpful explanation for its use: Cause of death. Should be clearly defined and sourced, and should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability, e.g. James Dean, John Lennon. It should not be filled in for unremarkable deaths such as those from old age or routine illness, e.g. Bruce Forsyth, Eduard Khil.
• It is presumably left to page-by-page consensus to determine the proper wording.
• On 15 June 2020, Mumbai's deputy commissioner of police announced that "Provisional post-mortem report has been submitted by doctors at Bandra Police Station. A team of three doctors conducted the autopsy of Sushant Singh Rajput. The provisional cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging."
• On 22 August 2020, Hindustan Times revealed, "The autopsy report, of which Hindustan Times also has a copy, mentions 'asphyxia due to hanging' as the cause of death."
  

I understand why most editors prefer Suicide by hanging, and I foresee no consensus to change it. But we really ought to be precise, and I applaud GrantIngersollSolr for initiating this reexamination at our talk page. NedFausa (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate someone who can look at data and change their opinions, but this seems like selective cherrypicking of data to arrive at some conclusion or moreso, a half-conclusion that assumes some facts as valid, but not others. If people legitimately think this guy was murdered, and there's a reasonable-enough doubt about that, then how are we deciding that "asphyxia due to hanging" is a cause of death? It seems like you're proposing that the encyclopedia selectively decide that it was not a suicide (despite the determinations that you were kind enough to dig up) but that we're still deciding that he died from asphyxia, (which was also part of those determinations that you were kind enough to dig up.) If the CBI reboot is enough to sway you from calling it a suicide, then wouldn't that be enough to sway you to leave that parameter blank? Maybe I'm misinterpreting your comments. But, I think a wider community input would be the way to go here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The mechanism of death - asphyxia due to hanging - isn't in dispute by any party. What is in question is the manner of death, i.e. was it homicide or suicide? (I agree it's most likely suicide, but I am hesitant to put that in the infobox while the autopsy report's being reviewed by the CBI.) As mentioned above, the infobox does not distinguish between mechanism and manner, so it's better for us to put what isn't seriously disputed there first, and then edit later once the CBI investigation has concluded. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 06:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: I opened a discussion at Template:Infobox person a while ago, and the community couldn't/wouldn't commit to any clarification for what the correct usage of the parameter should be. The two examples the template lists are James Dean and John Lennon. The former's cause of death is "car accident", and the other's is "gunshot wound". However, I don't think there was ever any detailed discussion about the appropriate usage. The instructions were added to the template on 6 September 2017, and the relevant discussion appears to be in this archive. However, even the editor who added James Dean and John Lennon suggested that there be a more diverse set of examples. One of the interests, though, was that death_cause should be included if the subject's death cause has significance for the person's notability. It would seem that the death cause here is significant to Rajput's notability. But then which death cause? Half of the swell of public outcry was blaming Bollywood for nepotistic practises, which people believed caused Rajput to become despondent and triggered his suicide. The other half of the population suspect foul play. It's certainly not the lack of oxygen that adds to the notability, it's the suicide aspect, or, if it is later determined to be a murder, that would be the noteworthy aspect. James Dean's death isn't indicated as "blunt force trauma", it's the manner of death that we're focussing on: "car accident". That's my interpretation, anyway. And I think the community dropped the ball here by yet again having insufficient instructions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb: If by wider community input you mean WP:RFC, I heartily agree and ask that you implement it. This issue is ripe for fresh perspective. And to clarify, I continue to believe, as the preponderance of sources support, that we should unreservedly call Sushant Singh Rajput's death suicide by hanging. I just don't think it belongs in the infobox as cause of death. I made that point here more than a month ago (pinging you, by the way) and haven't changed my mind. NedFausa (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

What I’m trying to suggest here is to take a step back, accept the non disputed, official facts and get away from the whole murder vs suicide controversy (after looking at the whole event I personally feel that it’s a suicide, but again if I push that theory I will be contributing to a personal point of view rather than a neutral one). I see that the talk page has been an active battlefield for the same and the article has been vandalized as well. GrantIngersollSolr (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

GrantIngersollSolr: For the record, the word murder appears in this article twice, both within reliably sourced quotations, and was added (by me) for the first time just two days ago. We have not engaged in the "whole murder vs suicide controversy." NedFausa (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

That’s good to hear, it’d be great if the article can stay away from that. And I also agree with your point in manner vs cause of death. As suicide is not mentioned in the wiki template of cause of death, it’d be technically appropriate to change suicide from infobox, Just my 2cents. GrantIngersollSolr (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@GrantIngersollSolr: It would be appreciated if you'd please properly indent your replies so that contributors know who you are responding to. These threaded discussions get complicated if people don't adhere to basic talk page structure. Thank you. As for your "technically appropriate", there is a lack of clarity in the template instructions, so "technically appropriate" is a stretch, especially for the reasons I've listed above in response to Jeske. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Could anyone of you provide a link where any conclusive report was filed on the cause of the death, even by Mumbai police? The case was never been put to closure so why should Wikipedia mention cause of death conclusively as suicide? Please provide reliable sources stating a closure report (postmortem report is just an evidence but can't be considered conclusive unless the investigating authority files a closure report). Leave aside all the conspiracy theories but until a closure report is filed for this sub judice matter the cause of death should be mentioned as under investigation. Rohit klar (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Before we get to that, could you provide a link to a guideline or policy at Wikipedia that requires us to wait for conclusive reports before updating the encyclopedia with information that is presented in reliable secondary sources? Since the premise of your argument is that we shouldn't do A until B is fulfilled, I want to be sure that the "we shouldn't do A" part is substantiated first. Because if you can't support that premise, the second part of the argument unravels. Also, you might want to rethink the word "conclusively". If three doctors do a forensic exam and then issue an opinion like "clear case of suicide" and say that there was no evidence of foul play, those would both be conclusions. And if they wrote that down in, say, a post-mortem report, then very literally that would be a conclusive report. Now whether or not the CBI investigation will arrive at a different conclusion is a different matter, but let's please not pretend like those aren't conclusive statements issued in report form. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

There isn't one. That's an argument that has repeatedly been thrown out in an effort to muddy the waters, and for a matter like this where BLP applies using such sources isn't acceptable. Government documents are pretty much never secondary sources as required by BLP. That is why we've been citing news reports, as opposed to the actual investigation documents and autopsies. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 19:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb We can't put anything on any wiki article without a reference to a reliable source, can we?. As far as the opinion on postmortem is concerned we need to understand that conduct of postmortem is a legal process in case of suspicious deaths which is being initiated by the investigating agency so postmortem is not the final word until the final closure report is submitted by the investigating agency which never happened in this case. Why are we rushing to declare that he died by suicide? Instead why can't it be mentioned like allegedly or from the first statement of police and then state that the further investigations are on? If wikipedia doesn't have a guideline in place for such disputed death cases to wait for the conclusive report then is it really difficult to apply common sense and use the right wordings in explaining that person's reason of death? Is it even mandatory to put reason of death (I am talking about the infobox), that too in case of a death of a person which is still under investigation? In the elaborated death section of the article various details can be mentioned from allegations to conspiracy theories etc. Let's not pretend that postmortem reports are conclusive in nature. Under section 293 of Code of criminal procedure in India these can be cross examined in the court of law. Postmortem reports have only evidentiary values and alone are not conclusive in nature, atleast not in Indian laws. You may read the details by searching those sources whatever you feel is reliable to you. Rohit klar (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Because what you're asking us to do is to interpret primary sources, which an encyclopaedia is emphatically not supposed to do. An encyclopaedia only ever is supposed to be a summary of what others have said about something. We are "rushing to declare" suicide because multiple third-party news sources have called it a suicide, some of which cite police officials on the record and autopsy reports, while absolutely none of them have thus far called it murder/homicide. We're not going to include a position that no sources are seriously advancing just because stans don't know how Wikipedia and encyclopaedias in general work and don't care to learn. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 23:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

No I am not asking for any original research. Your source of primary information is English news media from India and that now says that a CBI investigation is on so all you need to do is just update the same in wiki. Along side cause of death it could be mentioned like... Primary report of suicide by hanging and an investigation is going on. Since you have interpreted the postmortem report as definitive in nature so I pointed out the laws pertaining to the legal sanctity of postmortem report in Indian legal system. Those laws are written and no original research is needed for them. The laws I mentioned are easily available over internet. I would reiterate that my objection is only limited to the definitively writing the cause of death in the infobox but not mentioning few words which indicates an ongoing investigation. Rohit klar (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a finder of fact. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that takes what secondary sources like newspapers say, and regurgitates that. "Clear case of suicide" is what five doctors signed off on.[7][8][9][10] These weren't doctors that Wikipedia hired, mind you. These are the people the Indian legal system chose for the job. And I'd imagine that if they'd said it was a murder, this page would be a lot quieter. As for "such disputed death cases", which authorities are disputing the cause of death? I'm only aware of fans, conspiracy theorists, actors and some opportunistic politicians calling it disputed. How can someone dispute something if they have no first-hand knowledge of something? So far the CBI hasn't said anything, have they? I'd imagine they're under a lot of political and social pressure, so of course they'll take a look at the various possibilities, but which investigative officials are disputing the cause of death? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

As you said wiki is encyclopedic in nature that means a collection of information and information is something which keeps on evolving and needs to be updated as new and more accurate information keep coming in. The ultimate result of ongoing investigation may finally say that it was a suicide but current information from media sources which are the primary source of this wiki article update has changed their standing on what was reported on the day of death. It doesn't matter if this article is related to an Indian movie actor or related to any other person of any nationality what is the most appropriate action needs to be taken that must be taken. Let me clarify one fact here that I am not a fan of any film actor be it Indian or of any other nationality. Why am I writing this? As it is apparent from some of the comments in response to my previous comment seems assuming me this actor's fan. My only intent as a wikipedia editor is to try keeping only the most relevant information to be put in any article with neutral view. My argument was only for the infobox (I am not saying to change the cause of death completely but the infobox should give a clear information that the first information of the cause of death is not something which is been concluded and further investigation is on.) if you read my very first comment, in the detailed section which may start with primary report of suicide by hanging and subsequent views/conspiracy theories etc may be put in chronological order. Every detail received from the ongoing investigation may be and I could see that it is being put in. In fact a sub article has already been created for the same. As you said that had the doctors said that the actor was murdered then this page would have been quieter, probably yes but that wouldn't have stopped me from objecting to clearly writing it as a murder if the investigation was on. It is irrelevant if noise to object something written in wiki is more or lesser, even if one person objects to something and his/her objection is right then it must be accepted. My final word of objection is only limited to the infobox definitively writing the cause of death and not pointing towards an ongoing investigation. Rohit klar (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Rohit klar: You have today repeatedly advocated that Cause of death in the infobox should mention the ongoing investigation:

• I would reiterate that my objection is only limited to the definitively writing the cause of death in the infobox but not mentioning few words which indicates an ongoing investigation.
• My argument was only for the infobox (I am not saying to change the cause of death completely but the infobox should give a clear information that the first information of the cause of death is not something which is been concluded and further investigation is on.)
• My final word of objection is only limited to the infobox definitively writing the cause of death and not pointing towards an ongoing investigation.

But I'm still not clear about the precise wording you support. Are you saying the infobox should say Suicide by hanging (under investigation) or just Under investigation?

To me, the first option is illogical. How can it be called "suicide by hanging" if it's under investigation? NedFausa (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa "Under investigation" is more appropriate in my opinion but if other editors want to keep the original reporting (on wikipedia) of suicide by hanging then something like "Initial report states Suicide by hanging but under further investigation" or something in similar lines to avoid a definitive wording on cause of death until the investigating agencies finally declare the cause of death in due course. Rohit klar (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

My concern with doing that is that vacillating on this could end up being a camel-nose, given the conspiracy theories surrounding the death and the family's apparent EgyptAir 990-esque refusal to entertain suicide. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 20:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Rohit klar: Template:Infobox person provides guidance as to wording the parameter death_cause: Should be clearly defined and sourced… Your suggestion fails that requirement. "Initial report states Suicide by hanging but under further investigation" is not clearly defined. To the contrary, it is deliberately vague. Adding "but under further investigation" serves only one purpose: to undermine Suicide by hanging. I oppose this subterfuge. NedFausa (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, I agree with Ned, info box is not the right place to place suicide, as cause of death is different than manner of death and suicide is a manner of death and not cause of death. The article can go on to mention rest of the details. GrantIngersollSolr (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@GrantIngersollSolr: I checked the official list and yes, we already have you on record as agreeing with Ned. Please indent your replies properly so that people can figure out who you're talking to. If you repeatedly neglect to do this, other editors are allowed to ignore you. So if you care about your !vote being counted, please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Non-compliance and adhere to our talk page standards, please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb I see that you’re passionate about this topic and I’m asking you guys to reconsider your point of view which may be acceptable but not appropriate here as we're compromising neutrality. Coming to the indentation of reply, it’s a feature/bug of the wiki mobile platform. I don’t have the control over indentation. If you want to these standard to be adhered, please request wiki to provide such feature. GrantIngersollSolr (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing non-neutral about presenting the prevailing opinion about the death as determined by experts in the case. Non-neutral would be presenting fringe opinions in such a manner as to suggest that they are equal to the prevailing opinion about the death. That's the undue weight that Jéské keeps talking about above. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

No, compromising neutrality would be to claim, without any sources backing it up, that it was murder. No serious source is reporting that it is murder, and of the sources that do discuss the manner of death they're unanimous that it is suicide. We're not obligated to pay lipservice to claims that are only being advanced because the people pushing them refuse to accept the official and widely-reported on reports. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 00:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

that’s my exact point experts are not claiming that this was a suicide. At this point the only official report is the autopsy report which is talking about “asphyxia due to hanging”, as the investigation is still going on, calling it a suicide is leading us to all the controversy. If I silver lining in this, the editors are pretty active on protecting this page, which is great. Kudos guys !! GrantIngersollSolr (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Yet every single source we have that discusses a manner of death directly calls it a suicide. Hence, we do as they do, and call it a suicide. I would imagine the experts aren't saying anything because of the ongoing investigation; experts are not in the habit of mouthing off about ongoing investigations, especially in a case like this where emotions are extremely high. An incautious word can prejudice an investigation in the public sphere. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 03:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You’re contradicting your own point in the same answer. Experts are saying it’s a suicide and experts are not saying anything because an investigation is going on. I’ll take your second point, that experts are not saying anything coz of investigation and I would advocate the same for wiki, not to suggest anything. I’m fine keeping the cause as suicide as this is most reported thing, even if it’s wrong, we’re not here to investigate and make that decision. So I would suggest to keep an open mind for future and let the investigation unfold the details. GrantIngersollSolr (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

How am I contradicting myself? The newspaper sources we have and are citing are calling it a suicide. The actual experts who are in a position to comment aren't, for reasons which I presume are investigation-related. Nowhere in my comment above did I even imply we were citing experts directly (the experts involved would be primary sources at best, and BLP does still apply). While we do still have to be cautious, nothing in Wikipedia's voice has anywhere near the power to derail an investigation that a statement from someone in the weeds would. The issue here is the fact we're dealing with stans who don't care how Wikipedia works except to know how to use it to get it to reflect their theories, and as I have already explained elsewhere, there will be consequences for this sooner or later. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 23:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Grant's argument is obviously poor. Experts 1-5 said X. Experts 6 onward have said nothing yet. It's not a contradiction; they are different experts. So I would suggest to keep an open mind for future and let the investigation unfold the details. That's sort of a pointless suggestion. If new information develops, we will adjust accordingly. That's been said multiple times above. It doesn't require an "open mind", since we're not being persuaded. If new officials make official declarations, we will update. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I have read all the reference here, the only official statement came from police which says it’s suicide. To me that’s the only acceptable facts. For the rest 1-5 experts, can you name them? At this point I feel people who believe in suicide are as frantic as murder theory. So at this point I feel like I should take a step back and stay away from this whole controversy, as I feel you’re not having a open mind for discussion. I’ll wait for the investigation to get over and more official statement. GrantIngersollSolr (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe that's for the better since I don't really know what you're here to argue about. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Well I’m here to change cause of death from suicide (which is somebody’s opinion) to “ Asphyxia due to hanging” which documented and accepted valid proof of death, which is also admirable as a evidence in the court of law. GrantIngersollSolr (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not an opinion; the investigations that are now currently being challenged by the CBI initially concluded suicide, and the newspapers of record reported on, and have continued to report on, that. This is a matter of what the third-party sources are saying and thus far they're saying it's suicide. No serious source so far thinks or even hints that it's murder, with the only people believing it being conspiracy theorists (who won't trust the official reports no matter how many times they are checked, re-checked, verified, re-verified, filed, and re-filed), stans (cognitive dissonance), and Rajput's family (who seem unwilling to accept that he'd commit suicide). We are willing to discuss what the article should say in re his death, but we are drawing the line on bullshit that no responsible journalist is saying or implying. The murder angle will not be in the article, full stop, barring a sea change in the news despatches. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 04:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Read all of my reply, did I ever mention murder? If you missed it, read again. My only objection is using suicide in cause of death. Imagine this, if a soldier goes to war and dies, what’ll be the cause of death, war or gun wound? As a fellow editor, I would request you to keep calm and read through the suggestion. Let me reiterate my point, “It’s not a murder, it’s suicide but this can’t be the cause of death” GrantIngersollSolr (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Was James Dean's cause of death a broken neck, or a car accident? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Your arguments are basically the same ones that other editors who are quite clearly distraught fans have brought up to no avail, and some of those fans are with the family in thinking that this situation is homicide, not suicide. Thus, I am getting that matter out of the way right here and now so that it is on the record and so that we don't spend a lot of time arguing about this issue. And as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the sources outright call it suicide, and as we are an encyclopaedia that summarises what those sources say, we should to. The only reason I back removing it at this time is because the CBI investigation puts that in dispute, and thus we should not have that in the infobox. My concern is that this potentially turns into a camel-nose for "he was murdered" conspiracy theories and as such we need to be very vigilant with whatever goes into the infobox, whether that be just a plain mechanism of death or mechanism and manner. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 05:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

A little blue Bori: I totally agree with you, I have suggested the same thing in one of my reply earlier that any change like that should be thought off as this might lead to further fanning the murder theory. GrantIngersollSolr (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

So, what will be in the infobox?

Since this discussion largely seems to have sputtered out, I think it's time we discuss in more length what should actually be in the infobox, with an informal request for comment. Bearing in mind what the reliable sources are reporting, our options boil down to:

1. Mechanism only: The infobox just reads "Asphyxia due to hanging", with sources to back it up.
2. Mechanism and manner: The infobox reads "Suicide by hanging", with sources to back it up.
3. Mechanism, with an investigation note: The infobox reads "Asphyxia due to hanging, manner under investigation", with sources to back both up.

Since no credible source is even considering it as a possibility, "he was murdered" is not an option and will not be entertained. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 18:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• Mechanism only. There's no benefit to adding a manner of death which is (1) technically disputed and (2) going to spark an edit war once protection is removed from the page. Adding an investigation note, while it seems like it would placate the people coming here, runs a substantial risk of being a camel-nose in the tent for the EgyptAir-inspired conspiracy theories around his death, which reliable sources won't consider and thus we shouldn't include. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 18:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Mechanism only. We must go with what reliable sources report the forensic medical investigation has found to date.

> 15 June – Mumbai Police announce receipt of a provisional postmortem report conveying results from the 14 June autopsy at Cooper Hospital. "The provisional cause of death," said Mumbai's deputy commissioner of police, "is asphyxia due to hanging."

> 25 June – Final postmortem report confirms cause of death as asphyxia due to hanging.

> 22 August – Having obtained a copy of the autopsy report, Hindustan Times verifies it states asphyxia due to hanging as cause of death.

If subsequent investigations determine otherwise, we will of course change cause of death to match those findings. NedFausa (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Mechanism and manner: The intended purpose of the |cause of death= parameter is poorly explained, but if we're only supposed to use this parameter when the death adds is significant to the subject's notability, the suicide aspect belongs there. He's not going to be known as an Indian actor who stopped breathing, he's going to be known as an Indian actor who killed himself. (Or whatever the final determination is.) Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated. John F. Kennedy was assassinated. These descriptions are important to the history of these figures. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC) Minor edit. "Adds" wasn't the right choice of word. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox person's explanation for the death_cause parameter states cause of death should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability. "Asphyxia due to hanging" fulfills that requirement without adding suicide. NedFausa (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel differently, hence the use of Gandhi and Kennedy as examples of why the manner should be included. I feel these details are significant to the subjects' notability, and since the instructions are unclear, and seem internally inconsistent (car accident vs. gunshot wound), and don't seem to have been decided by community consensus, I'm going to maintain my opinion for the time being. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Mechanism and manner: I firmly believe the current "Cause of death: Suicide by hanging" is sufficient and there is no reason to change. The param |cause of death= states that it should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability. Imv, the reason that the shameless Indian media has gone bonkers over this, is reason enough to believe that his tragic death was a major factor for his notability. (Summoned by bot) - hako9 (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Mechanism and manner: Per Cyphoidbomb and hako9. Moreover, I don't see why we should give space to the conjectures of conspiracy theorists and tabloid news when the police has already determined at least preliminary-ly that it was a suicide. IF and when it is otherwise determined to be caused by something else other than suicide should it be modified appropriately. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• No. 3 in the interim, since it will best agree with sources. But no. 2 if/when the sourcing is clearer that suicide is confirmed. If the investigation is still ongoing, I think it's too early for WP to "decide" it was suicide. That's not WP's call. Remember WP:THEREISNODEADLINE and WP:NOTPAPER. We can adjust these things easily as sourcing changes over time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• The initial investigations ruled out any foul play and people associated with them spoke on-the-record that it appeared to be suicide. The CBI's involvement was due mainly to pressure from his family, who dispute the suicide findings, and a Supreme Court order. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 06:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Mechanism and manner: Both of them are intrinsic to the notability of a person's death. While there are adequate reliable sources which attribute the death to suicide, there aren't enough credible sources which counter that claim, atleast until this point. "Under investigation" is neither mechanism nor manner, it is better when substantiated in the prose than infobox. If the CBI's investigation rules it out as anything other than suicide, then the same can be updated. It should be noted that like Mumbai Police, CBI's findings are also not final, as they have to be proven in a court of law which may take several months or years. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Heads up

Since 22 June 2020, due to persistent disruptive editing, this talk page has been almost continuously semi-protected. That has prevented not only disruptive editing but edit requests as well. In the past 31 days, not a single edit request has appeared, despite a daily average 56,391 views of our Sushant Singh Rajput page.

On 30 Aug 2020 at 20:00 UTC, semi-protection of this talk page will expire. I urge editors and especially administrators to show patience in dealing with users who click the View source tab on our article, then click the blue button to Submit an edit request. I confess to lacking patience myself the last time protection expired, hastily suggesting that protection be restored—although that was in reaction to an over-the-top rant, not an edit request.

I wish we could protect this page from obvious disruption yet allow properly submitted edit requests. When a talk page is semi-protected, the process for unregistered users, or accounts that are less than four days old and have made less than 10 edits, to submit an edit request via WP:RFED is so complicated that, in my opinion, only veteran editors can navigate it.

So I guess our choice is to either (a) in effect, ban edit requests; or (b) deal with disruption on a case-by-case basis. I may be forced to change my mind in the next few days, but for the moment I opt for (b). Please, let's see how this plays out. NedFausa (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk pages generally don't get protected unless the disruption is severe and persistent. Let's hope things are better once the protection expires, but if Talk:Death of Sushant Singh Rajput is a microcosm of the arguments we're going to see it's going to be somewhat difficult to even discuss the article content, and I don't foresee a lot of serious, well-thought-out, well-sourced editreqs. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 23:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought up the subarticle Death of Sushant Singh Rajput because that is where our diciest narrative resides. At this page, we devote only two paragraphs (247 words) to the actor's death. The subarticle consists of nearly 2,000 words, not counting references, dealing with that radioactive material. So it's doubtful the subarticle is a good predictor of contributions to this talk page. And to be clear, I'm not proposing that we junk our mandate that edit requests be specific, necessary, and sensible. I'm saying simply that we might consider relaxing the requirement that they be uncontroversial. At this talk page, we have had extensive discussions of the most contentious issues, to which we can now refer users who have for the past two months been excluded. Will there be only serious, well-thought-out, well-sourced requests, and no disruption? Of course not. But I don't think we should proactively dive into a bunker mentality and expect the worst. NedFausa (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2020

Sushant Singh Rajput's death is still under investigation so please remove the section which says that he suicided, if you want to include the fact that Mumbai police investigated in that matter then create another section such as "useless verdicts" or "other cases" etc. But it is ethically wrong to put a definitive answer/info for his death until the matter has not been solved. 220.235.181.165 (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. We cannot remove an entire section supported by 16 references to WP:RS because you consider it "ethically wrong." NedFausa (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't "useless verdicts" have to be proven "useless" first, before we created such a section? Maybe we should wait. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Please change the cause of death from "Suicide by Hanging" to "Unnatural death under investigation" or "Homicide - under CBI investigation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warriors4ssr (talk • contribs) 04:37, August 31, 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This is being discussed above. We must await Wikipedia:Consensus before changing the wording. NedFausa (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

"Warriors4ssr". Yet another SPA with an agenda. I do appreciate the boldness that this SPA wants us to declare it an "unnatural" death or "homicide" as if any official has determined either of those things. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Suicide is by definition an unnatural death, since it results from an external cause, typically including homicides, suicides, accidents, medical errors, drug overdoses. NedFausa (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure the SPA deliberated about the definition of unnatural death before posting that. That's why they also wanted us to call it a homicide. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Do I detect an emergent pattern here? Now that the protection you imposed on this talk page has expired, new users are free to submit edit requests. When they do, I politely reject their request, then you scoff at them. I guess this is what passes for teamwork. NedFausa (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Can we restore part of the old discussion as a new section in the talk page to address all the death related conversation already happened and decisions were based on it to avoid future questions  ? OpenMindedBloke (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

No, because that conversation is for the most part already on the page, and adding the old discussions will do nobody any good if nobody is going to even so much as read them. As I've opined on the talk page of the fork most of these edit requests are coming from people who have no idea how Wikipedia works and only want to learn how to push their theories (and, I will repeat once more, we're not going to tolerate or add unsubstantiated "he was murdered" conspiracy theories that no serious source is giving the time of day). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 07:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Cause of death of the actor should be put as mysterious death.

Sushant Singh Rajput was found dead in his apartment on 14th June 2020. The initial reports claimed it as a death by suicide which sparked a huge ROW. The details about the cause of death which many netizens found out had very logical arguments after which a big discussion was started in every household. After multiple media reports and findings, the case has been transferred to India's top investigating agency, i.e- CBI. A possible murder angle cannot be ruled out. Until and unless the top agency doesn't come to the bottom of any conclusion, Wikipedia needs to understand the severity and complexity of the case and change the cause of death to "Mysterious circumstances/Unknown" as the case is still underway. Rush2sj (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This is being discussed above. We must await Wikipedia:Consensus before changing the wording. NedFausa (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

We cannot cite the CBI results, court cases, or investigation results directly in any case as those are primary sources. This article remains under BLP, thus third-party sources (i.e. newspapers) are required for citations. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 18:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

SSR'S Death is under investigation

Please remove the term "suicide" from his bio as the Indian investigating agency (CBI) is working on the mysterious circumstances under which the actor passed away. Jaya Johri8 (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This is being discussed above. We must await Wikipedia:Consensus before changing the wording. NedFausa (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2020

103.72.10.137 (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC) Sushant Singh Rajput death case is under investigation by CBI.it is not clear that the cause of death.'Bold text'

 Not done. This is being discussed above. We must await Wikipedia:Consensus before changing the wording. NedFausa (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2020

Remove "He had reportedly been suffering from depression" Please Remove the depression theory. Its totally false narrative without any Proof. change "autopsy doctors placed time of death at 10 to 12 hours before postmortem examination on 14 June at 11:30 p.m.—meaning between 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. (Indian Standard Time)" to "Autopsy doctors did not placed any time of death". Change "No foul play was found." to "No foul play was found according to Mumbai Police." It should be mentioned clearly that it was Mumbai Police Narrative. Investigation is Still On So Please Remove this line. 112.196.133.48 (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. It seems fairly clear in that paragraph that the determinations were related to the investigation conducted by the Mumbai police and medical examiners. Further clarification doesn't seem necessary, since nobody else was investigating it at the time. The statement about depression is supported by three references. The time of death is also sourced and the information, according to the source, came from "The doctors of Cooper Hospital Mumbai". Whether his estimated time of death appeared on the autopsy report or not seems like a different issue. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2020

First of all the reason of death is not suicide. Secondly, his height is not 5'10, it is more than 6 ft because he himself told in an interview that his height is 183 cm. Stop spreading fake news you idiots. 171.48.49.181 (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. First of all, we do not claim that "the reason of death" is suicide. We attribute his death to suicide per the preponderance of reports by WP:RS. The reasons for his suicide may never be known, especially since he left no note. Secondly, we do not mention his height. Please try reading the page before requesting a change. NedFausa (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The Times of India

Wikipedia's page The Times of India identifies TOI as an Indian English-language daily newspaper and digital news media owned and managed by The Times Group. It is the third-largest newspaper in India by circulation and largest selling English-language daily in the world. However, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources states: The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government.

A URL count reveals that timesofindia is cited 12 times in Sushant Singh Rajput—9% of the article's 128 references. Since I can find no discussion in this talk page's archives showing consensus regarding the reliability of this source, I am raising the issue here. Do editors feel comfortable relying so heavily on The Times of India, especially considering how highly contentious this page has become since the actor's death? NedFausa (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I have edited Indian articles for many years, and when it comes to entertainment content, TOI doesn't seem too off-the-mark from what other sources are saying that I would be specifically concerned about relatively trivial matters, like what films are going to be released, what an actor has signed on to perform in, when a film has been released, box office figures, budgets, and that sort of thing. Times of India actually discontinued its box office column to protest corruption in this area, so that suggests some amount of integrity, at least in the realm of entertainment. I think some of the objections raised over the years at RSN might be more focussed on Indian politics but I haven't looked into it too closely. I don't especially like TOI's thrown-together biographical pages like this, which often posts wrong information (I suspect their website scrapes this content from other sites) and I've raised objections about that at WT:ICTF. In contrast, Express Group, whose Indian Express outlet is cited 10 times here, did an abysmal job of reporting finances on a South Indian film—they included pre-release income like rights sales into gross "box office" figures which insanely inflated the alleged success of the film. To anyone with an ounce of understanding about film finances across the world, it would be hard to imagine they were doing anything other than hyping the film for pay, since I think most movie scholars know what a budget is and what a box office figure is. It was so egregiously stupid. So, I wouldn't just toss out TOI's content. If we don't want to use it as a source for SSR death stuff, fine. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, I'd also add The Economic Times to it as it is the business news imprint of The Times Group, suffers from the same endemic issues (albeit to a lesser extent, imv) and has been cited 3 times in this article.

As for what I personally think, I'm not comfortable with a whole lot of sources that are being used in the article which includes Asian News International, International Business Times (RSP entry), Zee News (including Daily News & Analysis), ABP Live and Republic World. Any of these should especially not be used for anything related to his death or at this point anything related to Rhea Chakraborty. I don't have any strong opinions on the usage of Times of India in this article itself but I'd still prefer if they were replaced with more reliable sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Would I require consensus to insert a {Better source} tag following each reference to The Economic Times, Asian News International, International Business Times, Zee News, ABP Live, and Republic World? NedFausa (talk) 05:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

You're not going to see any objections from me. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 06:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I replaced the references to International Business Times and Republic World but will forgo inserting {Better source} tags because I'd have to justify challenging each reference to The Economic Times, Asian News International, Zee News, and ABP Live. I'm not well enough versed to make that case, particularly since none of those organizations are disputed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. NedFausa (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I'll see if I can do it myself then since I will be able to justify them if they are contested. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Cause of death Suicide by hanging

Sushant Singh Rajput was found dead in mysterious way. There is no PROOF Of Suicide by hanging by Mumbai police or anyone in public domain as of now. There is no photo of him hanging dead found so far. Some wiki editors had purposefully listed his Cause of death Suicide by hanging to divert public attention as there is some foul play. Sushant Singh Rajput's family has filed FIR against few suspects and CBI agency of India is investigating this case further possibly in murder direction. By showing (Cause of death Suicide by hanging) on your website, wikipedia is not supporting the culprits but also spreading false information.

Looks like some cunning wiki editors had took advantage of his mysterious death and edited right away with suicide to save themselves. Please edit (Cause of death as UNKNOWN or Mysterious) to keep your reputation Wikipedia. Also, his profile has been locked till October 18,2020 to misguide people. This is UNFAIR. Please unlock and let me edit cause of death is unknown or you can edit by yourself. This is URGENT.

I am looking forward to hear back from you. Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupal28 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times above. See those discussion for answers to your query and references that explain why the content says what it does. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This entire screed betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works. To wit:

1. Wikipedia isn't social media; it is a serious encyclopaedia project. We have articles, not profiles.
2. As an encyclopaedia, we are necessarily constrained by what the news media reports, and for the most part they've been of one mind that it is suicide.
3. We can't cite any of the investigations directly, nor can we include claims no news source is taking seriously because sourcing requirements on this article are stricter than most other Wikipedia content.
4. A few sources have reported that the initial, now challenged, autopsy ruled out foul play specifically - both the standard report and the viscera report.
5. The actual mechanism of death is known - it's asphyxia via hanging. As such, "UNKNOWN" is blatantly false. What is in dispute is the manner of death and, again, prior to pressure from the family the autopsy concluded it was suicide, and this was reported on in multiple news sources.
6. We don't use "mysterious" in a context such as this. The only time we'd use it is when attributing that claim to someone/something (i.e. "(X) claimed that the circumstances were mysterious") or when directly quoting someone.
7. The protection is more because of yourself and people like you edit-warring to try and include material that isn't supported by the news sources available or trying to force in their pet conspiracy theories. It has nothing much to do with the external event except as a catalyst for your behaviour and our reaction to it.

Hope this helps, though knowing my luck nobody's going to read this except for the Wikipedia regulars. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 21:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb and Jéské Couriano, Now this news article is saying Sushant Singh Rajput's death was speculative. I don't understand why aren't you looking at this article:https://www.firstpost.com/india/sushant-singh-rajput-death-cbi-says-media-reports-attributed-to-it-speculative-in-first-official-statement-on-case-8783511.html. This article still says suicide by hanging. The cbi and the media itself is saying it is speculative or mysterious than why the hell you so-called Wikipedia's senior editors make this case as a suicide case. Mumbai police is a corrupt agency and haven't investigated the case properly. The real facts of this case were destroyed that is the reason why it had gone for a cbi investigation. I suggest don't mention the cause of death on the infobox till the cbi is investigating the matter and don't declare it as suicide as well. It is mysterious as well as speculative. Jack Shukla (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Because the sources we're referring to largely pre-date the CBI investigation, and themselves quote people who worked on the original autopsy and viscera report. Note that even if they've backed off of the suicide claim in recent days they still have yet to directly contradict it in their reporting. Also, the actual mechanism of death (the how) is for the most part known and not seriously disputed (asphyxia via hanging). What's being disputed is the manner (the why). If nothing else, the mechanism of death should be in the infobox. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 11:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

It is still not correct to mention the death by asphyxia via hanging if you can see on the net there are many theories related to suicide or murder. In my opinion, the suicide part should be removed from the infobox and also from here:"https://prnt.sc/ubkto6" as well.The media is got damn speculating about it and it is the only encyclopedia which can be updated time to time according to the latest and accurate sources.Jack Shukla AKA TKSS & Paplesh. (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)