Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput

FAQ — READ THIS FIRST if you are requesting changes

• Why are you saying it's suicide? The investigation is ongoing!

Various credible secondary sources - in this case, mainstream news outlets - reported that Mumbai's and the AIIMS' medical examiners determined it was suicide and that Rhea Chakraborty is being accused of abetment of suicide. Note that the final determination of death doesn't mean the investigation is over, especially in a case involving a celebrity (see also Chris Benoit double-murder and suicide). We are also not allowed to cite investigation or government documents as they are considered primary sources.

---

• This death is mysterious! Why aren't you calling it as such?

The actual mechanism of death - asphyxia via hanging - is publicly known and not seriously disputed by any sensible party. We also do not use words or terms that imply profoundness where there is only vagueness in Wikipedia's voice - they must always be attributed.

---

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

No official investigations or credible news reports are calling Rajput's death a murder, with the CBI-sanctioned AIIMS autopsy review definitively ruling it out. Wikipedia does not include fringe or conspiracy theories that no credible source is taking seriously, and our biographical policy likewise forbids us from including them in this particular instance.

---

• Why are you rejecting my interpretation of the sources?

We're not allowed to synthesize new information by "reading between the lines". We are limited to whatever information the source explicitly says. Creative interpretations of sources also flagrantly violate our biographical policy.

---

• The Central Bureau of Investigation said (something)! Why aren't you mentioning this?!

The CBI has outright stated that they are not shar[ing] any details of the investigation with the media and that any claims attributed to it (As of the time of this writing, 19 September 2020 UTC) are not credible. It should be noted this is generally standard operating procedure for serious investigations the world over, generally to avoid prejudicing the case before it goes to a jury or (as has happened here) inflaming a trial by media.

---

• Why are you censoring his height?

Unless a person is notable specifically for their height or their height is otherwise relevant (such as for sports where height/weight is a major factor), Wikipedia's policy is to omit height from a person's article and infoboxes. Sushant Singh Rajput's article is no exception; the only time height was ever mentioned in the article was either as the result of unsourced edits prior to the announcement of his death or additions made immediately after the news broke on social media, all instances of which were reverted quickly on the English-language Wikipedia for having no source and which would shortly after be removed from the article on Hindi Wikipedia for the same reason. See Talk:Sushant_Singh_Rajput/Archive_1#Height for more details.

---

• If the news of Rajput's demise broke around 2:15 p.m. then why did the article have death info around 9 am?

The confusion here is of time zones. News broke around 2:15 p.m. IST. Wikipedia shows timestamps in UTC. IST is 5 hour 30 minutes ahead of UTC. Death info first appeared in article at 8:55 UTC (this edit) which means at 14:25 IST (2:25 p.m.)

---

• What about Sushant's sister Priyanka? Doesn't she get a say in this?

Unless she (or one of her supporters) has additional sources that can back up her assertions, no. It should be noted that Priyanka is herself the subject of an FIR in connection with the case.

---

• Why are you rejecting my edit request out of hand?

When someone requests an edit that is very likely to be challenged, they are required to provide links to credible published secondary sources that support the edit they wish to make. In addition, requests to make edits against a consensus or that are part of an ongoing dispute will generally be declined.

References

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)

[1] 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)