Jump to content

Talk:Hunter S. Thompson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 208.82.225.232 (talk) at 08:38, 7 August 2008 (→Rum Diary Release Date: trip lucid). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Releaseversion

Archive: 1

How 'Bout A Quote?

Maybe there is no Heaven. Or maybe this is all pure gibberish — a product of the demented imagination of a lazy drunken hillbilly with a heart full of hate who has found a way to live out where the real winds blow — to sleep late, have fun, get wild, drink whisky, and drive fast on empty streets with nothing in mind except falling in love and not getting arrested... Res ipsa loquitur. Let the good times roll.

Gonzo Papers, Vol. 2: Generation of Swine: Tales of Shame and Degradation in the '80s (1988) four_tildes_9/2?/7_in the pm

Medical Condition?

I've read in a few articles now that he had "painful medical problems" yet not once have i read anywhere what these ailments were or when he was diagnosed with them, or much of anything regarding the actual medical problems, other than the fact that he had them. I think it would be helpful to everybody if this article included any known information on the subject.

Triva vs. Tributes

So, I added a "Tributes" section to the page in an attempt to differentiate between extremely informative biographical asides (such as: "Thompson's title "Doctor" was purchased from the Universal Life Church in the late '60s.") and the obscure, random cultural references and/or tributes that typically constitute "tivia" on wikipedia (such as: "The Avenged Sevenfold song Bat Country is a tribute to Thompson.")

Maybe the asides would serve better as "notes?" If anybody has a better way to do this, please go for it.Ok! 02:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I integrated the remaining trivia (per WP:TRIVIA) with the exception of the following:
"Thompson was long rumored to have appeared on the early 90's Nickelodeon TV series, The Adventures of Pete & Pete, in the episode "New Years Pete." However, the creators have since debunked this in several interviews, explaining that the "Man on the Street" was simply an extra who, coincidentally, happened to be named Hunter Thompson.[1]
While writing a Wall Street Journal feature about the mine in Butte, Montana, Thompson made the acquaintance of a small folk band called The Big Sky Singers who were then playing the Gun Room at the Finlen Hotel in Butte. Thompson subsequently wrote the liner notes for their debut album, which appeared in 1966.[2]"
I don't think the above has any place in the article, but if anyone disagrees, the material is here for adaptation. Skomorokh incite 05:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

Can someone add the controversy surrounding Hunter S Thompson's death? I've heard reports from one of his close friends that a few days before his death he mentioned that someone would kill him and make it look like a suicide. Other reports mention that he was investigating our government's role in the cause of 9/11 and other staged terroristic activities. Also the fact that reports of the events leading up to his "suicide" were changed on 3 different accounts and that his wishes for his remains to be burned and destroyed without a proper autopsy were never verified except for his "family's wishes." I hope someone can compile some of the information I've supplied above with documented sources and post it on the page. I think it is a helpful and interesting topic that should be included in the life of the gonzo journalist Hunter S Thompson. 71.225.35.36 21:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Stexe[reply]

Anyone else who comes across this ever noticed how similar they people pushing it all sound? I swear they all use similar or exactly the same phrases, terms, references. So either a few people are dedicated to this, a whole lot of gullible people are, or...something a little more suspicious? LamontCranston 15:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I know only of one man really pushing this agenda. Ok! 22:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

his listeners are getting to be almost as pervaisve as Randroids. I'd love to know how many of them have actually read the good Doctors work. LamontCranston 9:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Was Thompson implicated in John DeCamp's Franklin child abuse allegations the alleged child prostitution ring serving high level U.S. politicians and other powerful elite. It was suggested he was involved in filming a snuff movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.221.162 (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death

There are reports of Hunter Thompson's death late this evening - February 20th. Suicide is being reported, but I've left that out until it can be verified. (DJ 20 Feb 2005) 23:03 (UTC)

Reports from where? NYTimes, Yahoo, CNN all show nothing. --Feitclub 04:26, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
AP just sent a flash and Obit at 10:21 p.m. CST, gunshot suicide: "Pitkin County Sheriff Bob Braudis, a personal friend of Thompson, confirmed the death to the News. Sheriff’s officials did not return calls to The Associated Press late Sunday."
  • Story here: [1] (Kansas City Star) (DJ 20 Feb 2005) 23:24
That link requires registration. AP has it, but Reuters doesn't. --Feitclub 04:38, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

[2]--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) [3] - no registration

  • Via Drudge Radio: Troy Hooper of the Aspen Daily News broke the story, he is a close personal friend of the Thompson family and was on the scene as it happened. Thompson's suicide apparently occured just after 8:00PM EST. Police are still on the scene. (DJ 20 Feb 2005)
Thompson frequently refers to himself as "Raoul Duke" or "Dr. Gonzo." He received his certification from a mail-order church in the sixties.

? Ground 02:18, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Immediately after the plane landed I rushed up the corridor to the airport drugstore and asked the clerk for a box of amyls. . . . I jerked out my wallet and let her see the police badge while I flipped through the deck until I located my Ecclesiastical Discount Card--which identifies me as a Doctor of Divinity, a certified Minister of the Church of the New Truth." (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, page 203) --Fetology 22:05, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Does Bill Murray's Thompson movie Where the Buffalo Roam (1980) merit a mention? Devin Chalmers 21:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why not? Ground 22:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. "Why not" indeed? It's one of the two main cinimatic renditions of the man, and was done much closer to being 'in the moment' as it were, and it didn't suck even after aging a bunch of years.. I'm sure it's against some rule to put it in the article itself, but surely somewhere, perhaps here on the talk page if nowhere else, it might be permissible to post a link to the NetFlix entry for the movie, right?-Ozzyslovechild 06:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I attended the San Francisco preview of "Buffalo" with Hunter's brother, Jim. I doubt there was a person in the room, ourselves included, who didn't gauge the movie to be a disaster. Nicmart 02:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This quote is good but needs a source to be added: "Ralph Steadman 's comment was : He told me 25 years ago that he would feel real trapped if he didn't know that he could commit suicide at any moment.I don't know if that is brave or stupid or what, but it was inevitable. I think that the truth of what rings through all his writing is that he meant what he said. If that is entertainment to you, well, that's OK. If you think that it enlightened you, well, that's even better. If you wonder if he's gone to Heaven or Hell- rest assured he will check out the both, find out which one Richard Milhaus Nixon went to- and go there. He could never stand being bored. But there must be Football too- and Peacocks" Tkessler 07:50, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I've added the quote back in with a footnote pointing to the source. FWIW...the retriveal date in the footnote is key for finding the content on archive.org since the quote will probably be moved by Steadman at some time in the future. --Viriditas | Talk 10:47, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

additions

i am going to add a picture of the gonzo logo, but there should also be mentions of his mescaline and other drug use, the peyote seed being one of the focal points of the gonzo logo.

There needs to be more expansion, for sure.

Lockeownzj00 23:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"He was a crook."

HST's eulogy on Nixon, was worth a read.[4] [[5] -Ozzyslovechild 07:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Disputed Points in the Article

Thought it would be useful to move it all down here.

In any case -- the new york times is reporting that he was 65 years old In this Article -- Everyone else says 67. Either the times is wrong, or the original AP wire story got it wrong, and everyone copied it. The times is not infallable, of course, but they do have a tendancy to do their own research -- discuss here. 66.82.9.91 08:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Historically, when stories like this break, the information in the first 48 hours is often full of errors. However, this is not necessarily the case. The debate over HST's birthdate has been going on for some time. See: [6]--Viriditas | Talk 09:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The "Deconstructing Hunter S. Thompson" essay by Jules Siegel should be removed. It's a whopping nine paragraphs long and deconstructs nothing by Siegel's hasty opinion, drifting into criticism of Leary and Hoffman. This inferior writer, who can't even stay on topic for nine paragraphs, shouldn't be included, as he is an idiot. Also in the article, Siegel mentions "the day of (Thompson's) burial." Thompson was cremated. This Siegel character is obviously a hack and trying to get some attention for his lackluster career by attacking a sacred cow.

Glad you think that attacking me helps your point, which is, at best, absurd. 205.196.218.26 01:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subject: Netcraft Confirms it ... Hunter S. Thompson, dead at 67

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Gonzo Journalist Hunter S. Thompson was found dead in his home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

I'm removing the ongoing event template. He shot himself, and if it turns out to be false (which would be very strange indeed) we'll change the article then. If it turns out to be true, we'll just take away the "apparent" from "apparent suicide". Gkhan 12:17, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Ongoing event"

I'm removing the ongoing event template. He killed himself, and if it turns out to be false (which would be very strange indeed) we'll change the article accordingly. If it turns out to be true, we'll just take away the "apparent" from "apparent suicide". Gkhan 12:19, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

As with the Enron executive that died in the heat of the news trickle, people judged to have died by their own hand, intentionally, in the first minutes of a crime investigation, strike me to be the ones most advantageously to be considered to have done that

"Widely imitated"?

I don't think it is accurate to call Gonzo Journalism "widely imitated." The list of practitioners drops off pretty quickly.. -Ozzyslovechild 19:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually many contemporary magazine articles are heavily dependent on gonzo. Everyone wants to be part of the story akeldamma
Sure, to some minor lamefuck extent, I'd wholeeheartedly agree with you. However, I'd intimate that perhaps the the element of danger and chance of involvement with a scene that was actually in danger of becoming out of control is not something that has indeed found true and lasting route in journalism. At least not to the extent that is is fair to say that gonzo journalism was widely imitated, unless there is an accomanying clause in that sentence that clarifies precisely who the faq did the imitating (actual journalists of any real import, communicating to significant percentages of humanity the truths as they saw them around them, or peripheral players and wannabee faqs riffing on borrowed style.) anyhoo, cheers. -Ozzyslovechild 03:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There's gotta be some way to give the right kinda props without fucking up the whole wikipedia NPOV thing. 'It became known as gonzo journalism and was widely imitated' simply doesn't fit. This won't be great, but just to manifest something, how about heading towards: "It became known as gonzo journalism, and went on to inspire a significant percentage of journalism students and professionals." Last two thirds of that sentences suck a boatload of ass, but I trust you feel me..:)" -Ozzyslovechild 05:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Gonzo Journalism, as part of what was once called the New Journalism, has been assimilated into a lot of mainstream magazine journalism. Pick up a Rolling Stone, GQ or Esquire, and you can see it. The major contribution is the unabashed involvement of the writer in the story. I would count Tom Chiarella, David Sedaris and Tom Junod as important journalists who display Gonzo influences (though they all have their own styles and voices). Of course, other New Journalists, such as Truman Capote and Tom Wolfe, also had profound influences. Capote broke ground with his "non-fiction novel" In Cold Blood, and Wolfe's and George Plimpton's involvement with subjects reflected Thompson's. A link to the New Journalism page is called for.

Widely overrated

Thompson was a commentator, and commentators have been "part of the story" for centuries. What evidence is there that this became more common after Thompson hit the scene than it was in the times of Mark Twain or H. L. Mencken? Both were national celebrities -- with much greater influence than Thompson -- who referred to their own adventures, misadventures, and opinions, including as principles in national news events. Thompson never had a fraction of the national attention that Mencken attracted, such as at the Scopes trial. Nicmart (talk · contribs) 02:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your 2 cents, but not helpful whatsoever. please go rant to your friends and not here. Slinkymaster (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Gonzo

Thompson frequently referred to himself as "Raoul Duke" or "Dr. Gonzo."

I can't seem to verify this claim, although I see some of the news outlets repeating it. Yes, Thompson referred to himself as "Raoul Duke" in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and Trudeau played off of this character in Doonesbury, but, the character of "Dr. Gonzo" is thought to refer to Oscar Acosta. Can anyone point to any instance of Thompson calling himself "Dr. Gonzo"? Thanks in advance. --Viriditas | Talk 03:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
visit www.gonzo.org . In general, these were little psuedonyms he gave for himself which he eventually used in FaLiLV (remember, although one of his most, no, his most definitive work, he did have a life before then, full of names and references. dr. gonzo was simply a good name to apply to oscar's fictional representation. I'm fairly sure thats how it goes. I'll look for more concrete evidence later). Lockeownzj00 05:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Let me be more specific: Where is it documented that HST referred to himself as "Dr. Gonzo"? Did he sign his letters with this nym? If anyone can produce evidence for this claim, I would greatly appreciate it. --Viriditas | Talk 05:39, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the famous drawing in fear and Loathing in LV with him creeping around with chemicals falling out of his suitcase, Ralph Steadman has labelled hhim as Dr Gonzo

image

i do not understand the removal of the thompson image. it is more relevant than the gonzo i mage, if any are. both should be present. Lockeownzj00 05:05, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was replaced with an alleged public domain image. --Viriditas | Talk 07:23, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
the new image is sexy enough, but i think a caption is in order. although it's painfully obvious, i think itd be more professional to clarify, as in, "a young huner s thompson." i now realise how much johnny depp did look like thompson, however, pre-67 thompson--the modern version is quite plump to say the least ;0 Lockeownzj00 04:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree; the photo should have information about the date. This looks like the promotional photo that was taken at the Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theatre in San Francisco, with strippers in the background. --Viriditas | Talk 07:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Details concerning death

Removed this from article to here:

Apparently he was on the phone with his wife, asking her to come home to help him with his ESPN column. Then instead of saying "Goodbye" he picked up the gun. His wife reporting hearing the gun click.

The reason for the removal, on technical grounds, is a lack of a source or citation. There are any number of stories floating around about what happened. What we need is a seperate section that presents these stories, with citations and external links, that describe the various stories. I have seen other stories including his son was in the room next door. That he held a "goodbye" party the weekend before. And so on. Stbalbach 22:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good call. Perhaps an attempt should be made to incorporate all of the incidents into a tidy paragraph. Also, his son claims to have heard the gun go off as well. It's definitely a strange story: two indirect "witnesses" to the suicide, his son at home and his wife on the phone. Does anyone know of any other suicides like this? I've never heard of such a case, before. --Viriditas | Talk 00:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My Mistake Sorry,here are some of the articles that state the details:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/25/national/main676532.shtml CBS/AP
http://au.news.yahoo.com/050225/19/t8u6.html AFP
--Case 03:38, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

This link leads to the cnn article that was deleted a few weeks after it was put up. Not sure the rules on archives but seems legit. http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/books/02/25/thompsondeath.wife.ap/ -shadware 11:26pm(CST) Aug 26, 2006

His "doctorate"

Sounds like the Universal Life Church. Anybody know for sure? --Fastfission 07:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I found a message board post saying so, but that's not really a good enough source. I'm looking for something more legit. – flamurai (t) 07:32, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've sent an e-mail to the Universal Life Church asking them. I'll include the information they send in the article. --Jm woltjen 18:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson claimed in an interview with Playboy to have obtained a mail-order doctorate from something called "the Church of the New Truth." Hoping volume three of the letters will clear this up. ahess247 06:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Thompson himself was not a Doctor of Journalism - Raul Duke, the character in Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas: Notes on the Death of the American Dream, mentioned that he was a Doctor of Journalism in the film, but divinity in the book. In any case, ULC have confirmed that Dr. Thompson was himself a D.D. (Honorary Doctor of Divinty).

Regards,

AGS

Verification needed

Depp and Sakar are working with ZAMBELLI Fireworks on the design of a fireworks shell that will contain his ashes and be fired from his estate in Colorado.

Can someone verify this information, and provide links? --Viriditas | Talk 10:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This article mentions Johnny Depp's involvement: Pals Taking a Shot at Granting Thompson's Wish but I can't find anything on Sakar or Zambelli fireworks. -Vishakha 19:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That's why I removed it. And, there's already a statement in the article about the ashes. --Viriditas | Talk 01:01, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Metaphysical image removal

If the image had been replaced with something appropriate I would not complain. According to Resolving disputes:

When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

Instead we have an editor(s) saying "I personally dont like the picture" and removing it. Bad form. The logical arguments can be countered. This is a metaphysical image about Thompsons wish to be projected out of a cannon - would you rather a picture of circus cannon? A WWII Howitzer? Come on, this image is tastefully creative and appropriate. It is a common motif of seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, very common in after-death type subjects. In addition, Hunter Thompson was a major drug user, this makes the image even more appropriate for the subject matter (even if you dont like the thought of it, personally).

I will await your response before restoring the image. -Stbalbach 04:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, all right, here's my reasoning:
  • Firstly I supected it might be a minor prank. The caption says "HST's wishes are to be shot from a cannon". Not "his wish was that his ashes be shot from a cannon". Or "his wish was to be shot from a cannon". Or well any number of reasonable replacements. So, I figured it might be a relatively well-meaning but ill-advised edit from the outset.
However, given that that appears not to be the case.
  • The image does not communicate to me what it purports to in several ways:
    • The image is not specifically related to HST (as you acknowledge), but the caption led me to believe that it might be (I thought it might have been some art associated with an article of his or something).
    • It doesn't even strike me as saying "boom" since it could just as easily be a rather bland flashlight approaching down a dim country lane.
    • It seems of precious little relevance to the article. Hopefully we will one day have an image from his funeral or, since that may be a relatively private affair, some kind of memorial service.
    • If that's "trippy" your dealer is ripping you off.
But I think my chief complaint is that people will ask themselves: "what is that image there for? And what is the source?" And I think they will at least expect it to be somehow related to HST's work, ie, as I say above, artwork that had previously been printed alongside his writing. Not somebody's individual homage. I would suggest a fan site for such artworks. Certainly I felt compelled to click on it to find out more, and found myself rather bewildered. So perhaps you will wait to see if anyone else has a view before restoring it. For those wishing to see it, a version of the article including the image is here - third image down
On a broader note, I think your own designation, that it is a "metaphysical image", will be frowned on by the Wikipedia community. I am a fan of many people, HST included, but I wouldn't add a sketch of a bottle of liquor to Charles Bukowski, or put up an artwork I produce in a state of Paranoia listening to Radiohead --bodnotbod 05:20, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
The image is 'an artists' perception' of the family's potential plans for fulfilment of Hunter Thompson's expressed wishes (wishes in the sense that he expressed the thought many times to his family, that he wanted to be shot out of a cannon after he was dead). We have artist's perception's of the surface of the moon don't we? I don't particularly care if it's in the article. Actually a pd img of a fireworks display would be better. That 'shot from a cannon' stuff is all footnoted and referenced, FWIW. Pedant 18:56, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
I know the canon stuff is true. I've read plenty of the material. It was the caption's specific wording.... oh, I tire of this. Stick it up there. It makes no sense at all, and sets a bad precedent for other articles, but there's bigger battles. --bodnotbod 02:53, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
The image is too subjective for inclusion and there is no consensus to include the image in the article. Please replace the image with an image specific to the topic. --Viriditas | Talk 03:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Boy, am I glad to see you. --bodnotbod 17:13, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Source material

I received a whole bunch of links in an email relating to HST's death. I'll pop them here in case they're of use to anyone. Any particularly good ones you find (I don't have time to read them now) could be graduated to the article.

--bodnotbod 16:41, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hell's Angels

I created an article for this at one time but it's either been lost due to a change in the directing link or deleted by someone. It was admittedly incomplete but probably could have been revised instead of deleted if that's the case. (anonymous)

I've removed the following passage
His relationship with the gang ended upon receiving a serious beating by a few of the gangs members whom were allegedly angry over the publishing of this story. (In fact, it was because Thompson broke one of his ground rules in dealing with the Angels—he got drunk with a bunch of them and started arguing that his own motorbike was faster than one of theirs.)
Both of these statements are unsupported. If you have a source, feel free to add it back with an cited source. Stbalbach 21:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Haven't seen it yet, but surely at some point Wikipedia will encompass something in the vein of folklore pages where this sort of thing would find a rightful home. Something like this?


The epilogue in Hell's Angels tells of the beating and shows a picture of HST's battered face. It had to do with their representation in the book, but I can't remember the details. It's in the book. The episode has to do with a major theme of the book: how the Hell's Angels wanted to benefit from their fame while not wanting to appear to be exploited (how naive). I think they attacked HST at least partly because they felt they'd been exploited.

E. Jean Carroll's "Hunter" published quotes from Thompson, Sonny Barger and another Hell's Angel about what happened. They all agree that Hunter witnessed a biker slap his woman and kick his dog, and observed that "only a punk would hit his old lady." According to the Angels, the biker proceeded to beat the hell out of Thompson, kicking him while he curled up in a ball on the floor. Thompson claimed that he was holding his own and so several other bikers ganged up on him. According to Barger, Thompson promised them a keg of beer as payment and reneged on the deal. Perhaps the savage beating he received had something to do with it. "Hunter" is a good source & I think the article's claim that the Angels beat him up over money is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.199.218 (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson watched a member kick a dog and slap mhis old lady when she objected. He commented that "only a wimp slaps women and kicks dogs" whereupon he was pole-axed, and when one Angel fights, all present fight.

Hells Angels leader Sonny Barger said in a TV documentary (VH1 Behind the Music?) that the beating started when Hunter yelled at a drunk Angel, "Only a punk slaps a woman and kicks a dog!"... However Hunter in another book (Songs of the Doomed?) explained that various Angels including Sonny himself felt Hunter was exploiting them by writing a bestseller without cutting the Angels any royalties.... Sonny was smart enough to imagine a Hell's Angels bestseller ghostwritten to give Angels direct authorship, and in fact once HELL'S ANGELS did become a bestseller, Sonny did try to start some book deals with other authors and filmmakers.... As for the beating itself, everyone involved was beer-drunk, so no one really knows what actually happened or why.... In HELL'S ANGELS and elsewhere Hunter said it was not really a "all-on-one" beating, because the huge Tiny was there and they all would have killed Hunter quick.... It was Tiny who broke it up and pulled the other Angels off of his friend Hunter.
I believe what Barger is described as saying here (about the dog & girlfriend) more or less coincides with Thompson's own account in Hells Angels, but I don't have a copy handy (read it about 30 years ago). But no doubt that was not the whole story: people who beat up people they know pretty well don't tend to do it just beause of one incident. Anyway, Thompson certainly wrote about the incident (it's pretty much the last thing in the book Hells Angels) and I imagine that Barger's account is in his own book (which I haven't read). Shouldn't be hard to sort out who says what, even if it's hard to sort out the actual facts of the matter. - Jmabel | Talk 06:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Wikipedia cares not a whit for facts, and ONLY for who says what. That's what all the douchey emphasis on "secondary sources" is about. A source with the wrong facts always trumps a correct statement of fact. Plus the douche editors get to evaluate your sources for validity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.9 (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fag-flavored gonzo logo?

This is prolly off-time, but here's this:

It's pretty lo-rent, but at least it gets the fag-flava into the discourse.

Now you must decide how you feel about that, if at all.

Next step would include maybe vector graphic-ize the icon maybe? Wonder if the circle is part of the icon. Prolly is, now that I wonder on it. Guessin the text isn't, but I suppose it could be. Need to check.

Read that there is plan to actively market the estate the estate in some ways. Wonder if Juan will CC any iconic images andor content in that realm. I'm all for makin sure the estate gets paid for HST's good deeds on earth. I'm also all for CCing whatever the fuck is CC-able.

Anyhoo, :)b -Ozzyslovechild 13:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

File:A-1 copy.jpg

Curse of Lono

Among other movie treatments in the works, Sean Penn has purchased the film rights to Thompson's The Curse of Lono and is working on bringing it to the big screen. Penn also wrote the introduction to a new, very limited edition of the book (1,000 copies, all signed by Thompson and illustrator Ralph Steadman), which has otherwise gone out of print.

Looks like Hunter was murdered to me

I would like to collect informaition about it on my wiki since it is too controversial for here. Would be glad if you could help me out(links on my userpage) Conwiki 05:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And your evidence would be...?

Thompson talked about how he would feel trapped if he couldn't kill himself. I see no reason why anyone could say that his death was murder.

Maybe because the night before his "suicide", he was on the phone discussing having learned sensitive information pertaining to the 9/11 attacks... He said "They're going to make it look like suicide. I Know how these bastards think..." - How is it we live in a world so corrupt that the obvious can be buried? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.201.181 (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin child abuse allegations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.221.162 (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honorable or dishonarable discharge

It appears there is some conflict as to which is accurate. Do we have an authoritative source? For now I've changed the article to the neutral "discharge" but it would be nice to settle it.

Honorable: [7],[8],[9],[10]
Dishonorable: [11], [12]

I'd say the quality and preponderance of evidence is for "honorable" (In spite of my earlier comments) but would love to have an authoritative source.

Wikibofh 00:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Brinkley, editor of Thompson's collection of letters The Proud Highway repeatedly says it was an honorable discharge, but he doesn't cite a specific source. Likewise, Thompson himself in several letters says he will be getting an honorable discharge. But take both for what they are worth.Logan 5 16:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have a copy of the New York Times obituary of Thompson which states he received a honorable discharge. Is this authoritative enough?--Andymussell 01:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no, unless we qualify the statement with "according to the New York Times". That said, it seems like the general consensus is that he received an honorable discharge. --Bk0 02:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brinkley would have access to HST's primary source material, which would be HST's letters, which would be about as authoritative as one could reasonably expect. There is no suggestion that he did anything that would warrant a dishonorable discharge. As noted in the current version, he was recommended for early release. ahess247 06:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even in Gonzoland everything is reduced to Political Correctness

Additions I made to this article were quickly amended to make them P.C. I referred to Virginia Thompson's drunkenness, and this has been changed to "alcoholism." Alcoholism is the P.C. way of referring to heavy drinking, dressing it up as a medical condition. My second reference to "heavy drinker" has become "alcohol abuse," which again medicalizes the behavior. I utterly reject this conversion of behavior to illness, as I believe did both James and Hunter Thompson. Thompson's attitude about drug use cuts to the heart of his unconventional views. Other changes convert writing that was simple and direct into something pretentious. These changes are ironic in light of the the person's life being discussed; Thompson representing as he did the antithesis of Political Correctness and mushy florid prose. In Wikipedia, apparently, all is to be reduced to the common wisdom, and myths, of the day.

On another score, I wrote of comments made directly to me by James Thompson. It would be pretty foolish of me to write in the third person of something said directly to me that (as it now reads), "James reportedly believed that his brother was offended by his homosexuality." He didn't "reportedly" say it, he DID say it, to me." Is every first hand conversation changed to an alleged report in Wikipedia?

Writing by committee always reaches the lowest common denominator.

  • It's called NPOV (neutral point of view). Drunkeness is POV (IMO) and alcholoism isn't. I didn't say "alcohol addiction". If James said those things to you, then source it, don't just proclaim it. In the mantra of other research areas, the mantra is "if you don't provide a source, it's hearsay". You did not provide a source. Wikibofh 01:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Using "alcoholism" for "perpetual drunkenness" does not improve the POV, and it certainly medicalizes the behavior. By medicalizing drunkenness, the word choice feeds into a modern American point of view that many disruptive behaviors are illnesses, and avoids the blunt descriptiveness of "drunkenness", which conveys vertigo and disorientation rather than illness and "problem". Of course, to use "drunkenness" for "alcoholism" can be crass, and crassness is a point of view as well, so it definitely makes sense to soften the language in the first paragraph of "Early years": there's no need to be blunt with the reader if there's no further discussion of the matter. However, later in the article when describing James' having to cope with his mother Virginia's debilitating drinking habits, it makes sense to use "perpetual drunkenness" and not "alcoholism": this way, both crassness and medicalization are represented in the article, and the tone of the vocabulary matches the tenor of the individual paragraphs in question. --Tarnas 02:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I can live with the idea that "alcoholism" and "drunkeness" swaps might be inherently POV and might show a systematic bias towards American culture to swap. I do however have a problem with "perpetual drunkeness". Perpetual is continuous [13], and although I've known people who were drunk a lot, or even "alcoholics" (to use the crass american term  :) ...even they aren't perpetually drunk. I'd vote for something like "in a near constant state of" drunkeness. However, I'd like to gain consensus here before changing on the article in case there is a strong preference. Wikibofh 03:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • For sure, gather a concensus, but it's definitely not unusual for alcoholics to be "perpetually" drunk, that is 24/7. Alcohol stays in the blood during sleep, and alcohol is consumed throughout the day. Virginia Thompson, from the few sentences on her that I've read, was such a person, though I don't know if there's a reputable biographical description of her anywhere, I haven't read one and it may be best to not call her such a drunk if she wasn't. What I find really funny here is that we're focusing on Virginia Thompson's drunkenness, when the article is on Hunter and he was himself quite a drunk, famously appearing sloshed on Late Night with Conan O'Brian in person and on video shooting semiautomatic weapons. :) His use of alcohol is not brought up. --Tarnas 05:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Drunkenness" is more neutral than "alcoholism." The former is the condition of being drunk; simply a fact. The second is a label for a putative disease. The Oxford American Thesaurus defines "alcoholism" as "an addiction to the consumption of alcoholic liquor or the mental illness and compulsive behavior resulting from alcohol dependency." For this "mental illness" people are involuntarily confined and "treated" by psychiatrists. The first definition for "drunkenness" is "drunk or intoxicated." As I said, this merely states the fact of the behavior. There no scientific consensus that heavy drinking is a medical disease, anymore than is bad handwriting (which is also in the DSM), but we live in a time when all non-conformity is designated a mental disorder. I can live with a change from "perpetual drunkenness" to something like "nearly constant drunkenness." (Similarly, "addiction" is a medical diagnosis, not a neutral fact.) I knew Virginia Thompson slightly (and we liked each other), Jim Thompson was my friend and roommate for years. Is her own son not a creditable source? If not James then who? She was a fall-down drunk (See Anna Steadman's diplomatic entries <http://www.ralphsteadman.com/anna/anna02.asp>, why not be blunt? Should we say that George Washington didn't own slaves but "provided steady employment to African immigrants"? This PC nonsense distorts reality. Under the control of a PC editor, would Hunter ever have achieved notoriety? I bring Virginia up not to be funny, but to cast light on aspects of Hunter's life that are little known. Should we restrict ourselves to repeating the same biographical information ad nauseum, missing important elements? His mother's behavior drastically influenced the development of the character who became Hunter and probably his method of death, and this has been largely overlooked. In the life of Hunter Thompson, his mother was important. I provided a note sourcing the information about Jim and Virginia. By the way, suicide is considered a mental illness, too. Should we simply turn this into a psychiatric pathology report, or let facts speak for themselves? I am confident that the Thompsons would take violent exception to Virginia being posthumously diagnosed as "mentally ill" as the edits under discussion would have it. They were not "addicts" and "alcoholics," they were people who enjoyed various intoxicants. It is popular sport to psychiatrically pathologize famous people. I find the practice offensive. I also object to the habit of airbrushing reality to remove the unpleasant bits. Hunter didn't try to hide his flaws (especially since he made a good living flaunting them), but he did try to protect his mother (or himself) from public revelation of her drinking. But now they are both dead and the truth can be told. It may now change how some people view Hunter Thompson, as it did my view of him many years ago.
  • Why the rant? First of all, the Anna Steadman page you're referencing doesn't discuss Virginia's heavy drinking habits, it mentions that she's eager for some drinks to be made but that's it. You need a much more clear description of her habits than that to support your observations about her. Second, your word isn't much good here, if you write an article or book on this topic and reference it, or do some footwork and find actual descriptions of the things you yourself have come to know by being friends with the Thompsons, then you've got something. Third, whether alcohol is addictive or not isn't the question, alcohol is possibly the most addictive drug in that it changes a user's body chemistry so that if a heavy user stops cold turkey they can die (unlike heroin). The question here, however, is how to present Viginia's habits as a drunk: we don't want to slander her, but we also don't want to be PC and medicalize her behavior as you yourself have pointed out. Maybe you should start the article on Virginia Thompson, or start a section on Hunter's alcohol use, which is not mentioned in the article and which, as I note above, was very public. --Tarnas 22:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Alcoholism is a specific medical term and is not a suitable replacement for Habitual Drinking, as there are many alcoholics who do not ever drink and many chronic drunks who are not alcoholic. I endorse the more accurate terms "drunkenness" and "heavy drinker" but I suggest there are more neutral ways of phrasing this, while maintaining accuracy, such as "chronic drinking" and "enthusiastic imbiber" which are more neutral but less inaccurate.Pedant 01:13, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

  • haven't read any of this thread and don't plan to, but,,: 'why the rant' on a discussion page thread on an article about HST??? now that's rich. i love that shit. it's special. -:)Ozzyslovechild 5 July 2005 23:55 (UTC)
  • Virginia Thompson's drinking habits are mentioned in James Thompson's obituary: [14] This obit is not referenced in this entry, which may be one reason why James's date of death was wrong until I just changed it. Nicmart (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

I would be very cautious with the paragraph in the subsection on Suspeicious Circumstances, since the statement references Note 5, which in turn links to an article posted on PrisonPlanet.com and not the Toronto Globe and Mail. The PrisonPlanet.com web site is known for its conspiracy theory articles. That article, in turn links to a statement that was posted on Globe and Mail. Here's the article verbatim:

Alexander Pope in a prose convertible

By PAUL WILLIAM ROBERTS
Saturday, February 26, 2005, Page F9

Hunter telephoned me on Feb. 19, the night before his death. He sounded scared. It wasn't always easy to understand what he said, particularly over the phone, he mumbled, yet when there was something he really wanted you to understand, you did. He'd been working on a story about the World Trade Center attacks and had stumbled across what he felt was hard evidence showing the towers had been brought down not by the airplanes that flew into them but by explosive charges set off in their foundations. Now he thought someone was out to stop him publishing it: "They're gonna make it look like suicide," he said. "I know how these bastards think . . ."

  • I think it qualifies as unlikely and should not be included as encyclopedic. Wikibofh 01:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree... The entire Suspicious Circumstances debate should be under talk section... You wouldn't find anything like this in Britannica... Any more votes? -asmadeus 14:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, unless someone comes up with some independent corroboration of anything claimed in that section. --Bk0 01:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
An anon put it in tonight, in exactly those words (i.e. copy and paste). I took it out. Conspiracy theories do not belong, IMO. Antandrus (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There will be more anons. The best way is create a section called "conspiracy theories" where they can be debunked. It's the same problem with 9/11 or JFK or Great Sphinx of Giza etc.. segment out the wingnuts so they dont grafitti the main article.--Stbalbach 04:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that the attempt is to "debunk" the stories is sad. For a place with so much potential to be censored like any other major info source. In my opinion, the fact that this sort of information would not be found in a Britannica, but would (or, in this case, could) be found here, is what makes the whole idea of this info source great. I can perhaps understand not allowing a large amount of space on the topic, but at least one sentence should be in the main article stating that there is a belief. What about the fact that he was working on a WTC project or the statments made from close friends and family that Thompson believed that 9/11 was an inside job? I've seen information that resembled this type of claim on other entries ([15]) however as soon as a conspiracy is mentioned it's automatically rejected and censored. Don't you see, by not allowing any information regarding the topic, you are acting in the exactly way the theorist feel you are being made to. I don't nesisaraly I agree with the theorists, but I do find the information interesting and feel that something should be added regarding it. I could go on but I'm sure this is a common topic here and I fear this will only be deleted. -Labenset 13 December 2005
  • Deleted the Matt Brock reference (he is a fictional character created by the PWI

staff).

  • There is absolutely no reliable information about "suspicious circumstances" surrounding HST's death of any kind. Meanwhile there is a huge amount of reliable primary documentary evidence concerning the suicide. There were people in the house at the time, who gave first-person statements to the local sheriff's deputies, and those reports are a matter of public record. End of story. Addressing it just makes the article seem substantially less reliable. -ahess247 19:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Britannica if a person wishes to be bored to death then they can go there and read themselves to death. I believe the taking of his life was made out by him to be a conspiracy. That he wanted to go out, but to go out with a bang that would not diminish his death and put the heat where he wanted it to be. Thus he throws his hat into the ring and has closing arguments that no one can counter. I believe that the conspiracy section should stand. And the conspiracy that he contrived in the taking of his life to be blamed on others should be added ~ ~ ~ ~ Okay Check

Maybe you can believe it, but can you verify it? If not, Wikipedia isn't the place for it. PubliusFL 02:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CAN WE CUT THE BS ABOUT HIS DEATH ALREADY? he had family at the house when it happened. so many people who have no idea who HST was saw some stupid infowars article about him and 9/11 and all the sudden its a conspiracy. I went to the press club after his death where they held a tribute for him. All of those in attendance said they knew it was coming and that he would of never died in a hospital bed. A few of them talked about how the last time they saw him that he got tearful saying goodbye which wasn't exactly normal behavior for him. He outlived his expectations and his health was failing him so it was time to go. Slinkymaster (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Davies

I put a disambig link to Hunter Davies as I thought there was a prospect of confusion, and this was reverted with a comment "nobody will likely confuse these two people". I don't think this is the case. The first name Hunter is so unusual that when one comes across it in the context of a writer, with a common surname, your might well recall the wrong Hunter. I remember wondering why Terry Gilliam was making a film about that guy who wrote a book on the Beatles (HD) as I had never heard of HT. This was touched upon in Private Eye's piece on HT's death, where they wrote something like: 'Farewell then Hunter Thompson, you wrote a book on the Beatles, or was that someone else?' Finally, I would mention that HT is not well known outside the US (except perhaps because of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas) so this makes disambiguation more important. What do people think?

You don't want to know what people think. What about Hunter Hearst Helmsley? Or Hunter Lovins? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.9 (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not well known outside the US??? ... ha ha ha ... you gotta be kiddin :D I need a clarification then of the frase "well known", cause every litterate person in Europe knows who he is. --87.72.52.192 12:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Hunter S. Thompson is definitely well known outside US. A simple google test will show that:
Chinese: about 2.600 pages
Danish: about 29.000 pages
Dutch: about 44.600 pages
English: about 6.480.000 pages (this includes US)
Finnish: about 12.400 pages
French: about 83.300 pages
German: about 364.000 pages
Hungarian: about 80.400 pages
Italian: about 31.300 pages
Japanese: about 10.500 pages
continue the test if you wish ... ;)
--EyesAllMine 13:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what's up with Germany? More German pages than any other foreign language pages by an extreme margin. --LamontCranston 24:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - Germans must really love him :) But I was suprised of the Chinese number, today its even higher: about 4.680 pages ! --EyesAllMine 12:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mobsters Crimes v. Mobster cheating on wife

Anyone know if Hunter was ever asked, in an interview or lecture-tour or wherever, how he felt about his frequent vitriolic rants re: Watergate & et al compared to silence re: COINTELPRO & et al? [Although by no stretch of the imagination is this something only he is guilty of]

His bad relationships with women?

The Paul Perry biography of Thompson goes into some detail about Thompson's less than exemplarary relationships. I was surprised that none of that was mentioned here; in fact it would seem the opposite, Thompson's relationship with his first wife is seen AS exemplarary.

I was suprised after reading "Fear and Loathing in America" that he even had a relationship with his wife at all; people were coming and going and bringing massive quantities of drugs through his house outside Aspen on an amost continuous basis. If that's not a recipe for spousal disaster, I guess I don't know what is.

The overall problem with this article to me seems be pushing Thompson's "Gonzo" reputation while not providing a lot of concrete information beyond the myth.

Loose Change

Has anyone seen the 9/11 conspiracy piece? Is audio from Hunter used?

there is a short interview with Hunter used in the opening of the 2nd edition


The short segment used in Loose Change 2nd Edition is taken from a 37 minute long interview that Hunter S Thompson did with Mick O'Regan for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on 29 August 2002. Transcript from ABC website [16]MP3 Audio [17]Ashnbell (talk) 07:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN Article

The link to the article leads to a 404 message. Can anybody correct this?

something that is synthesized does not come from a natural source!

Rum Diary Director?

"Del Toro" was supposed to direct? Is this a typo? I would assume they meant Gilliam but were thinking Del Toro when they wrote it down. - Darkhawk

Last I heard, it was Bruce Robinson as director. I heard Del Toro was acting in it, but he's not on the current IMDB page, so who knows. --Jkonrath 18:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The son and wife know something

I just read the deputies' report (Armstrong, Gibson, and Ryan) at TheSmokingGun and there are a surreal number of inconsistencies. Let's start with the fact (as we all know) that Juan called it in to the police, Juan was caught firing a shotgun into the air when the police arrived, and that Juan was left alone with the corpse to place an orange scarf on the body.

Now it gets worse:

The typewriter, and typewritten page ("counselor" dated two days into the future on 4th Amendment paper) are only mentioned by Ryan, who appears on the scene an hour later, AFTER Juan is left alone with the corpse. Ryan details the typewriter and takes the page into evidence. First responders Armstrong and Gibson don't mention the typewriter at all.

At this point, Deputy DiSalvo has already summoned a counselor from Aspen Counseling Center, who is on the scene when the page saying "counselor" is pulled from the typewriter.

Armstrong discovers gray goo on Thompson's hand and around his mouth. No idea what it is.

Thompson's hands are in his lap, but the gun is on the floor. Both Armstrong and Ryan notice (an hour apart) that the gun is UNDER the gun gase.

Wife is not mentioned in the police report AT ALL. No mention of the phone being off the hook. And with at least 1.5 hours between death (5:40 or earlier) and Ryan's report (7:10), she would have had plenty of time to drive home from "the gym."

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0307051thompson1.html

Broodlinger 12:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early Years Problems

The first two paragraphs concerning "The Early Years" are problematic. First we have a statement branding HST's mother Virginia "a heavy drinker" without any kind of citation whatsoever. Then the second paragraph of an article about HST isn't actually about HST at all, but rather about his brother, the cause of the brother's death, and then alleged complaints the brother made to a supposed roomate, all of which is uncredited to any outside source, and which reads, at least in part to be original research. I'm inclined to suggest that the entire second paragraph should be deleted as its barely relevant. To the extent that some of the factual assertions made can be confirmed by documentary evidence, they should be re-inserted with appropriate citations. In any event the second paragraph as currently written, reads horribly.

24.189.179.37 23:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair. For the record, here is the paragraph in question (which got deleted):
James eventually died from AIDS complications in 1994 and claimed Thompson was offended by his homosexuality, and the two were never close. Thompson's brother complained to Nicolas S. Martin during their years as friends and roommates in Lexington, Kentucky, and San Francisco about how the burden of caring for their drunken mother fell to him over the many years Hunter was away, including sometimes having to take a taxi to pick her up off the pavement where she had passed out.
--Stbalbach 15:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More problems with the Early Years. Here we have an uncorroborated report from a "childhood friend" branding HST an "alcoholic by 16," and obsessing again over Virginia's alleged alcoholism. Would someone please turn to the published biographies, find some documentary evidence to both of these allegations before re-introducing them here? There are no less than four biographies, and at least one source of autobiographical information. If you're going to put this information in a supposedly authoritative article, lets at least impose some fact-checking rigor.

Consensus on the Death "dispute"

Have we ever come to a consensus on adding in things about the so-called "mysterious circumstances" around Hunter's death? Stuff gets added every once in a while about him being killed by the government because he knew "the truth" about 9/11 (which of course, is preposterous, we all know 9/11 was carried out by Elvis under orders from the Illuminati and the world-wide conspiracy of Teacher's Unions). I say it should be left out, after all, this is an encyclopedia, not a conspiracy theory database. What is the consensus on stuff like this? GhostPirate 13:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There is a consensus: Leave it out. There were people in the house when he shot himself. It has been fully and thoroughly documented. End of story. ahess247 03:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can report that there is a dispute - but we should not get involved with the dispute. A few sentences covers it - reporting the details opens the door to counter-arguments etc.. which should be avoided. -- Stbalbach 15:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwash. There is no dispute. He shot himself, case closed. This sounds to me like "teach the controversy" in the evolution vs. creation non-debate, and it doesn't wash. We shouldn't even dignify it with discussion. Debate is pointless because there's a difference between verifiable fact, and ridiculous fiction. ahess247 02:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability, Not Truth. It is verifiable that people have conspiracy theories. That is a fact. We report on the existence of these people - one or two sentences is fine. How it is worded is an open question. -- Stbalbach 14:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but this is a documented quote by Hunter and you should not be deleting this as it is fact that he said it. Webucation 13:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Britannica if a person wishes to be bored to death then they can go there and read themselves to death. I believe the taking of his life was made out by him to be a conspiracy. That he wanted to go out, but to go out with a bang that would not diminish his death and put the heat where he wanted it to be. Thus he throws his hat into the ring and has closing arguments that no one can counter. I believe that the conspiracy section should stand. And the conspiracy that he contrived in the taking of his life to be blamed on others should be added. Let us not forget he was well tooled in the art, as the founder of, Gonzo journalism, a style of reporting which blurs distinctions between author and subject, fiction and nonfiction. Thus additionaly his consipracy may have been locked away in his own mind. It is still worth reporting, reviewing and most importantly reading.Okay Check 18:24, 26 February 2007

"May have been." But what's your source? PubliusFL 03:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the Hunter Thompson article alone

The below was posted by my talk page, moved here. -- Stbalbach 22:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Leave the Hunter Thompson article alone==
It is a fact that people believe alternate theories about his death. 2 sentences is enough and there are 5 links to reference. Leave it alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Webucation (talk • contribs) 22:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Straw poll: Conspiracy theory

This is a straw poll to decide how to handle the conspiracy theories about Thompson's death in the article.

Three options:

  1. Remove any mention of conspiracy theories from the article.
  2. Have 2 or 3 sentences inside the "Death" section of the article (this has been in place for months)
  3. Have a separate section in the article to expand on the conspiracy theories (as added by user User:Webucation yesterday).

Vote for 'Option 1', 'Option 2', or 'Option 3'.

  • Option 1Option 2. A middle ground compromise between those who don't want it all and those who want to expand on it. To establish stronger consensus and settle the debate. -- Stbalbach 15:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. If the intent of the article is to appear authoritative and reliable, the option 1 is the only option to consider. Any mention of conspiracy theories makes the Wikipedia version of his biography second-rate. I prefer to think the many editors of what's here so far aren't into producing something that's second rate. There are no suspicious circumstances about his death. These so-called "theories" must be disregarded entirely, or the entire effort here is for naught because questionable material in one section colors the reliability of the entire thing. ahess247 22:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. There is no reason to include a ludicrous rumor in an otherwise good article. GhostPirate 23:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1, at least unless someone can come up with real reliable sources treating these conspiracy theories as plausible and notable, which I have seen no sign of so far. PubliusFL 00:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 - This is not the Britannica if a person wishes to be bored to death then they can go there and read themselves to death. I believe the taking of his life was made out by him to be a conspiracy. That he wanted to go out, but to go out with a bang that would not diminish his death and put the heat where he wanted it to be. Thus he throws his hat into the ring and has closing arguments that no one can counter. I believe that the conspiracy section should stand. And the conspiracy that he contrived in the taking of his life to be blamed on others should be added. User:Okay Check 18:10, 26 February 2007


http://www.jquinton.com/archives/002635.html
http://www.nowpublic.com/hunter_s_thompson_murdered
http://www.theworldforum.org/story/2005/4/4/104842/1268

The third one is based on the Wikinews article, and is hardly a reliable source. The second isn't working for me. The first is a cut-and-paste from an article in the gossip section of the New York Post. That one at least might be a start. PubliusFL 08:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call the New York Post a Reliable source. I also find it irregular that everyone who has voted number 3 is an anon user. -- Stbalbach 17:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 - There is no doubt from from the following quote that he implied that he may be murdered and will be made to look like a 'suicide' -"Bush is really the evil one here and it is more than just him. We are the Nazis in this game and I don't like it. I am embarrassed and I am pissed off. I mean to say something. I think a lot of people in this country agree with me...we'll see what happens to me if I get my head cut off next week it is always unknown or bushy-haired strangers who commit suicide right afterwards with no witnesses" Webucation 20:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no phone call to Paul Williams, which is the basis of the entire "murder" claim. How do I know this? See this 2-year-old text from the first link listed above, at http://www.theworldforum.org/story/2005/4/4/104842/1268 and accessed on 03.01.2007: Update [2005-4-8 7:34:51 by Drog]: This story was in error. As Wikinews has reported here, Thompson did not tell his friend Paul William Roberts that he was afraid of being murdered the night before his death. Roberts wrote that as a fictional introductory to an obituary. The obituary goes on to say it's fictional, but many readers could not read the full article because the publication demanded pay per view. I rest my case. ahess247 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The introductory text of The Obituary in The Globe and Mail, from 26 Feb 2005: (emphasis mine):

Hunter telephoned me on Feb. 19, the night before his death. He sounded scared. It wasn't always easy to understand what he said, particularly over the phone, he mumbled, yet when there was something he really wanted you to understand, you did. He'd been working on a story about the World Trade Center attacks and had stumbled across what he felt was hard evidence showing the towers had been brought down not by the airplanes that flew into them but by explosive charges set off in their foundations. Now he thought someone was out to stop him publishing it: "They're gonna make it look like suicide," he said. "I know how these bastards think . . .

That's how I imagine a tribute to Hunter S. Thompson should begin. He was indeed working on such a story, but it wasn't what killed him. He exercised his own option to do that. As he said to more than one person, "I would feel real trapped in this life if I didn't know I could commit suicide at any time.

It is an ironic end for one who deplored above all things the media trend toward self-censorship, often citing Orwell on the subject. Now, he exists only in a dozen books and countless magazine and newspaper articles. Did the good doctor write himself into literary immortality? This is all that matters now.

There it is, directly from the author to whom the original murder theory is widely credited. No late-night telephone prophecy about being murdered, and therefore no murder, not even the possibility of one. This discussion is over. ahess247 18:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note above that there are ratings from WikiProject Biograhy and WikiProject Louisville that current rate this article as a B. I see no reason that we should produce anything short of an A-class Wiki article, one that can stand up alongside the work done by any professional editor or biographer. Citing conspiracy-laced chatter about fictitious (*ahem* not fact-checked) assertions about a murder won't help. Just because some "back country" blogger thinks there was a murder doesn't make it a legit claim. Facts must be checked down to the PRIMARY source. Back Country conservative, is not a primary source, and to my mind doesn't qualify even as a secondary source. You have to trace the informational trail all the way back. And when you do that with the murder tales, they simply don't stand up, because there is no primary information. ahess247 19:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Poll is now Split 4-4, however the information presented is currently weighing in favor of Option 1. If there is no other information presented here related to the various "murder" theories, then I move we close this topic, declare the murder theories off-limits except on the discussion page, and move on.

  • Option 3 -It's what he would have wanted, and the reader can decide for themselves. Why not, esp if sourced?22:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. First off, you don't know that. Secondly, you haven't read the material cited above carefully. the problem is that the sources, such as they are, fall not only far short of Wikipedia standards, they're practically worthless by any standard. I've shown here, definitively, that practically all of the chatter about murder theories was actually made up, and and actually described as fiction by the person who originally wrote it. In essence there is zero pro-murder source material to cite that isn't somehow derived from this material, whose original author unequivocally called it fiction. ahess247 19:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Alternative: A conspiracy theory "debunking" section, addressing precisely how false the murder rumors actually are, because they are demonstrably false. ahess247 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, original research. -- Stbalbach 21:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. The original article from which the erroneous theories was spawned, can be cited, as could others that cited it erroneously. That in and of itself is not original research, but simple documented fact. Even the WorldForum.org story cited above includes a correction that the original story was "in error." The evidence is pretty clear from the documentary record that people misreading the Globe and Mail obit misunderstood or otherwise failed to read all the way through to the phrase "That's how I imagine...." That's not original research, but simply explaining, citing examples and documentary evidence how an erroneous story was passed around and becoming a conspiratorial myth. The factual conclusion is clear. ahess247 00:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would really just open a Pandora's box of he-said/she-said back and forth between believers and skeptics which is what we are trying to avoid. The key point is the conspiracy theory is not notable enough to mention at all. -- Stbalbach 16:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. We agree then, and without further objection, we'll consider Option 1 above passed by acclimation, and permanently agree to leave out mention of murder, conspiracy etc. in connection with HST's death, and to edit them out as they appear effective immediately. ahess247 22:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birth of Gonzo Section suggestion

I think the Birth of Gonzo section needs a little sub-dividing. It seems to me that Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, as two of Thompson's most widely-remembered works, deserve their own section. ahess247 22:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles

I've added all the articles that were listed in HST's bibliography in The Great Shark Hunt and I think that we now have all of them. I think. Can the "This list of is incomplete" thing be removed? Or are some still missing? GhostPirate 22:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking along similar lines concerning a list of interviews. HST gave several interviews, and it would be interesting and likely a helpful source of reliable primary information for later revisions, to collect those that are findable online, track down the details of those that are not, and present a list in chronological order under the Subhead: Interviews. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahess247 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]


NO! The list of articles is not complete. Free lance articles ESPN San Fransico Examiner Middletown Daily Record? Etc, Etc, Etc. Not saying they will be posted anytime soon.. Just saying the list is not complete. Ok! 22:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an outsider to this - I was just looking at it because of it being included in Version 0.7 - notice that this "List of articles" is very long, at about nine screens it adds about 50% to an already long article . While it is normal on Wikipedia to include a list of books by an author, or albums by a band, it does not seem appropriate to list every article by a journalist on the main article page - there are just too many. In a similar vein, we don't list every piece of Mozart music in the Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart article. If you want to keep this valuable information in Wikipedia, could you perhaps spin it off into a separate article? (In chemistry, my area, we spin off less important properties of chemicals onto a supplementary page) I think this long list spoils what would otherwise be a very nice article (great job, guys!). Thanks, Walkerma 04:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. I suggest the following: Move development of the exhaustive list of published HST articles to a Bibliograhic article as Stbalbach suggests below. However for the main article, I suggest listing major articles that represent key markers in HST's career. Examples would included, but not be limited to "Kentucky Derby," "Vegas 1 and 2", "Battle of Aspen", "What Drew Hemingway To Ketchum," and probably be limited to 10-12 representing the various periods. I'm all for developing a complete list of everything the guy ever published, but it is getting in the way of the main article here. As suggested in another topic below, I'm also interested in tracking down as many references of HST interviews. ahess247 00:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be spun off to Bibliography of Hunter S. Thompson. See Category:Bibliographies by author for how its done. -- Stbalbach 17:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a fine idea. It is a ridiculously long list - to be sure - but the comprehensiveness as a resource is also completely awesome. A prominently advertised separate page that includes the complete HST bibliography would be great. I think the article list is still only 75% complete, we still got the Examiner articles (which will be another 3-4 screens) and the free-lance articles yet to add. Ok! 15:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. Why isn't every piece of music written by Mozart listed somewhere?[reply]

I've spun the list and the bibliography to a new article Bibliography of Hunter S. Thompson. I am working on the SF examiner articles on this temp page. -GhostPirate 15:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links are dying, (such as the ESPN link to "Hey Rube!" which is now behind a subscriber-only firewall) some links go to truly random places. It seems the right time to clean them up. Not every obit in every local paper is worthy of a link. External links should be to material that ads true context with the article, to addresses that are likely to be more or less permanent. ahess247 17:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since posting this I've done some work on this issue, adding several new external links, editing description of where many of the links go, etc.ahess247 23:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First mention of Gonzo Journalism

In the first paragraph it is stated that:

"Gonzo Journalism is a style of reporting in which the reporter involves themselves in the action to such a degree that they become the central figure of the story itself."

Yet when one looks at the Wiki page on Gonzo it only makes brief reference to this fact and places more emphasis on its first person, unedited and on-the-spot nature.

"Involves themselves in the action" makes one think that the journalist actually become central to the story - like Capote, where as I think a description of the writing's semi-fictional and subjective nature would be more concise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.146.157.138 (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.jpg

Image:Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for this image is now provided. — WiseKwai 10:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (DVD cover).jpg

Image:Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (DVD cover).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for this image is now provided. — WiseKwai 10:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tributes vs. Pop culture depictions

I think we need to make some kind of distinction between tributes and cultural depictions. I hate pop culture sections, but things like Doonesbury's Uncle Duke definitely deserve a mention. I wouldn't necessarily consider characters based on Hunter "tributes" (he famously said that he wanted to set Gary Trudeau on fire), but they should still be included. On the other side of things, a short mention in a Simpsons episode isn't really a tribute, and it would probably be better placed in a pop culture section. Thoughts? GhostPirate 21:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, the simpsons/south park references seem out of place in this section. could we just move them into trivia, or remove them altogether? Poobslag 21:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HST reported the fall of Vientiane and not fall of Saigon

As a casual Google search will show, HST reported on the fall of Vientiane and not the fall of Saigon. If I recall the passages from The Great Shark Hunt correctly, Saigon had already fallen when he made the decision to report on the Vietnam War. He decided to fly into Vientiane to report on the imminent fall of the city a few days later. -- Thaths 22:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HunterSThompson mkd.jpg

The image HunterSThompson mkd.jpg titled "portrait of hunter s. thompson" looks very amateurish. i think including fanart in the article is a mistake. if there has to be fanart, an image should be used that resembles thompson at least. 85.178.71.86 01:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on this photo: [18], which we can't use because it's copyrighted. The drawing is a good free image that we can use without having the copyright police come after us. If it's any consolation, in a hundred years, the copyrights on all photos of HST will have expired, so Wikipedia can use them. Not that we'll be around to see it. GhostPirate 22:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This fair usage shit has got to stop, I understand the legal troubles, but using someones sketch no matter how good is fucking stupid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.97.114 (talk) 02:30:22, August 18, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thecurseoflonocover.jpg

Image:Thecurseoflonocover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new picture

Someone please change the picture, I'm sure everyone would rather see the man than see some sort of self aggrandizement by some fan who drew a picture. It would be one thing if it was a steadman drawing but some pathetic hatchmark test drawing doesn't do the man justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fkylw (talk • contribs) 00:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the image. There should be no picture until there is a proper picture used under the proper fair use guidelines. That ugly, poorly rendered pencil scratching is no acceptable replacement. ahess247 17:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Connection between Lacerda and Bill Cardoso?

Obviously, Bill Cardoso coined the term "Gonzo" journalism, and was a friend of HST.

Cardoso was proud to be a Portuguese-Amercian from Massachusetts (as am I), and I can only assume that the character of Lacerda in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (The Portuguese Photographer) is some sort of homage to him, unless of course there was a real-life counterpart to Lacerda (which I doubt). Interesting to note that HST once claimed (possibly in a deliberately false manner) gonzo was a Portuguese word. He was right however; because 'gonzo' is a Portuguese word (that only has one simple meaning). A ‘gonzo’ is a noun of Latin origins in Portuguese, and would be called a 'hinge' in English (for say, a door or a window). Maybe it really means a type of of journalism that is simply hanging on by a hinge (or maybe not), but the only two men who can really answer that question have moved on, so now it is left to the whims of the Great Magnet.

Some interesting links on Bill Cardoso, where the Portuguese connection is noted:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/05/BAGFOHIRT21.DTL&hw=cardoso&sn=001&sc=1000

http://www.worldhum.com/weblog/item/rip_bill_cardoso_the_writer_who_gave_us_gonzo_20060312/

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/obituaries/articles/2006/03/15/bill_cardoso_journalist_helped_define_hunter_thompson_image/

65.96.143.168 21:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Goose, 10/29/07.[reply]

CHANGE THAT Photo

Hunter died a mere three years ago. It makes him look like he left us sometime in the 60's at the latest. There are better photos: that one is misleading.

(sorry for the caps, but I'm so right) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.205.110.51 (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For now it's what we've got, and remember the early '70s was Thompson at the height of his fame. Fear and Loathing on both the Vegas Strip and the Campaign Trail. It's actually not such a bad idea to have the lead photo of him taken during the peak of his career. And how can you possibly say the photo is misleading when it says it's from the '70s! --JayHenry 19:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis de Sade, Tom Wolfe, Mark Ames in the infobox

I have deleted Sade as an influence, replacing it with Tom Wolfe. I have also added Mark Ames as being influenced by Thompson. Heres why:

Where is the source indicating that Sade had an influence on Thompson? The only time I recall Thompson mentioning Sade is when he is quoting directly from him or discussing his history in his book "Better Than Sex". Just because you quote someone doesn't mean he/she was an influence. In the book "Generation of Swine", Thompson quotes from the Gideon Bible. Does this mean that the Gideon Bible should be included as an influence? No it doesn't. If someone has any sources that indicate Sade was an influence on Thompson, please present it.

Tom Wolfe was an ifluence on Thompson just as much as Jack Kerouac was. In the book "Fear and Loathing in America" (from the Gonzo letters series), it explains that Thompson wrote a "glowing review" of Wolfes book "The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby" for the National Observer that the editor refused to publish( due to his personal predujedice against Wolfe). Later, Thompson and Wolfe would correspond with each other--leading to Thompson lending Wolfe some of his tapes from a Hells Angels ralley for Wolfe to use in his own book "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test". In another letter, Thompson claims that he is enjoying Wolfes book "The Pump House Gang" just as much as he did "Kandy-Kolored" and hopes to be able to see Wolfe lecture on "New Journalism".

Mark Ames is a ex-pat American journalist living in Russia. He was once associated/friends with journalist Matt Taibbi (who is listed as being influenced by Thompson). Ames founded the Russian ex-pat magazine, The Exile. The back of the book about the Exile ("The Exile : sex, drugs, and libel in the new Russia") that the magazine is described as

"...In the tradition of gonzo journalists like Hunter S. Thompson, Ames and Taibbi cover everything from decadent club scenes to the nation's collapsing political and economic systems - no person or institution is spared from their razor sharp satiric viewpoint." http://www.librarything.com/work.php?book=9904126

Aside from his association with Taibbi and the book description, Ames writing both in the book and in the Exile bears of the obvious influence of Thompson.

I hope that these changes remain. Otherwise, lets discuss this.Rimbaud 2 20:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

painful health problems- what please

Article said he may have killed himself due to multiple painful health problems, but I don't think it says what these were. Could someone add these details please? If it may have caused his suicide, it's quite important. Merkinsmum 20:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC) No source sorry, but I remember reading in one that he could no longer digest solids. Subsisting on yoghurt, mashed up fruit, etc. Check the BBC documentary from the 1970s, Thompson had been contemplating suicide for a very long time. LamontCranston 6:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

I'm not too familiar with HST, so he might have been genuinely loved by everyone, but it seems to me that if he gets a whole section devoted to listing all the praises he's gotten, he should have a "criticism" section like most every other figure on wiki.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Uncleduke.jpg

Image:Uncleduke.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The Rum Diary.jpg

Image:The Rum Diary.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hell hath little fury like that of a writer adored

me LUV DR. HST though he gone bring out yer dead n' feed um' to blondes

happy'n valintino's tag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.231.51 (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Education' section reads horribly

The bottom paragraph is poorly written in itself, but it quite badly lacks continuity from the preceding paragraph. It reads hideously. I'll leave it for a while for anyone who feels able to tidy it up to have a go. I'll come back to it myself if necessary. Thanks. DanTheShrew (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify Globe and Mail

Since the Globe and Mail website required pay-per-view for the full article,[31] viewers who only read the partial text mistakenly believed it to be genuine.[32][33]

Which partial text does this refer to? The first part that appears on the G & L site without paying, or the second fragment seen in this article? Are both parts complete fiction, does Paul Roberts make any claims as to their veracity, is the first Roberts' imagination? I am honsetly confused by what the wikipedia section is trying to say here. It implies that the Roberts text is *not* genuine. Could someone clarify this please? -84.223.78.86 (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict in article so I could not make the fix I've described here:) Ok, I have just followed the two references (the worldforum and wikinews) and read that the Roberts piece is considered fictional. Therefore I have added the key words "fictional piece" before introducing the piece and removed my clarifyme tag. Please check I have this right. I believe this follows a Wikipedia principle of not surprising (and not confusing) the reader. Maybe someone could further improve the text flow of those two quotes to reinforce that the first breaks off just before G & L invites the reader to pay to read the rest. -84.223.78.86 (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Roberts piece is not fictional. I have linked Globe and Mail and removed the clarify me tag and the hidden comment. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I have just marked it as fictional. This is really confusing. The worldforum link used as a cite in the article states it is, I thought. I'll check it again. Here's a direct quote: "Thompson did not tell his friend Paul William Roberts that he was afraid of being murdered the night before his death. Roberts wrote that as a fictional introductory to an obituary. The obituary goes on to say it's fictional, but many readers could not read the full article because the publication demanded pay per view." -84.223.78.86 (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note I managed to add the "fictional" before I saw RepublicanJacobite's comment above. I have now added "partly" with a parapolitics cite used as a wikinews source (I leave editors to decide how reliable all these sources are, I must say I'm not impressed by any of them so far) that claims it was partly fictional. The original link is now stale, but here is its archive link which states (emphasis is mine):
"I am posting the opening two paragraphs below, because the link will only take you to the first paragraph; to read beyond that paragraph, you have to register and pay. It is important that you at least read the second paragraph, because in that paragraph Roberts confesses that the first paragraph is partly fiction. There was no such telephone conversation, he says, but it is true that Thompson was writing a story on 9/11." -84.223.78.86 (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I misspoke: the Roberts piece is fictional, as is made clear in the article itself, if only we could link to it. The sources provided are not adequate. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I agree with you about the poor sources, how about:
Paul William Roberts in his Toronto Globe and Mail article of Saturday, February 26, 2005 wrote how he imagined an obituary should begin:
This way the reader is not annoyed having to read fiction dressed up as fact, and we cite Roberts himself: "That's how I imagine a tribute...". I've made that change now, if editors would like to revise/revert/improve as they wish. -84.223.78.86 (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for even one reference to the GL obituary, nor the irrelevant detail that some people who couldn't read the full version of the article on the Web site thought it referred to the now-debunked murder theory. I am removing it. ahess247 (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Murray and Hunter Thompson poolside

The rumored encounter between Hunter and Bill in the article is indeed a rumor. Bill Murray recounted the actual event during an interview at the Brooklyn Academy of Music. An article about the event can be found here: http://www.ordomag.org/oldordo/things/billmurray.html

excerpt: "He also told a story about meeting Hunter Thompson, long before he played the writer in "Where the Buffalo Roam." They spent a 1970's afternoon together in Aspen, horsing around a hotel pool. Murray -- who incidentally didn't know the identity of his companion -- decided to try a Houdini act and had Thompson and others tie him to a deck chair with socks and throw him in the pool. He directed them to drop him only at about five feet, so he could poke his head above water if it took too long to untie the socks. After sinking to the bottom and slowly making headway on the knots, he decided to come up for a breath but discovered he couldn't straighten himself while strapped to the chair, while the men above water had lost interest and turned to other distractions. Murray almost drowned."

Is someone able to integrate this information in? I am new to wikipedia editing and I would prefer not to screw something up or change it drastically and it is clear some of you are more familiar with this article than I am. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjgarris7 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson an anarchist?

The lede states that Thompson was an anarchist, but the article does not mention this anywhere else and gives no supporting source. I have read his non-fiction works extensively and do not recall him ever advocating the abolition of all government. What is the rationale/justification for labeling him an anarchist? He certainly had the image of one, but is it that enough for him to called one here? 69.249.55.6 (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Should be removed from lede, and the corresponding category should be removed. Thompson was more of a left-edge-of-the-party Democrat, and not always even left edge (he firmly supported Carter in '76). - Jmabel | Talk 06:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which last: no mention here of his coverage of Carter's "Law Day speech"? Hunter was literally the only reporter on the scene (he was there because he was following Ted Kennedy around at the time), and his account of this speech was a significant factor in launching Carter as a realistic presidential candidate. - Jmabel | Talk 06:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Documentary film

I realize that we have an IMDB link for Thompson. One recent film probably stands out enough to merit mention in the article: Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson (dir: Alex Gibney). Documentary by an Oscar-winning director, focused mainly (but not exclusively) on the period 1966-1976. Nuch about his run for mayor o Aspen, about the '72 presidential campaign, and a good bit about Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Probably merits an article in its own right, certainly, I would think, merits a mention here. - Jmabel | Talk 06:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Football Season is Over

Are we sure it's accurate in the section on Thompson's death when it says his suicide note-ish thing was delivered to Anita four days before his death? I mean, when you get sent a suicide note from your husband while he's still alive, you might be concerned. You'd probably put your husband on suicide watch or something. And if you're going to commit suicide and want to send your wife a suicide note, but you want it to get to her four days before you die, why even go through the trouble of writing it? Suicide notes are meant to be found after someone's death, not before. Let alone four days before. Is anyone absolutely positive that that section should say "before his death"? Can someone source that? And maybe explain why that was the situation? Who writes a suicide note four days before you kill yourself? Seems most suicide notes would be written same-day, maybe even one day before. But not four. VolatileChemical (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was his name?

Does anyone actually know that Hunter S. Thompson was his real name? Did I miss something in this article, or does it not explain why his parents' names are not like his? And was his first name really Hunter, or Humphrey? Has anyone seen a birth certificate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.176.39.254 (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His mother's name was Virginia Thompson (for verifacation see letters addressed to her in "The Proud Highway" and "Fear and Loathing in America"); the article gives her maiden name. I don't know about his father. But as I can't disprove what the article says, I won't change it (I assume it gives his first and middle names, leaving off the obvious "Thompson"). As to Hunter's first name, I have never heard it was anything other than Hunter. 69.249.55.6 (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rum Diary Release Date

Every source I have checked says the release for The Rum Diary film has been pushed back to 2009.

Trip Lucid

Who is Trip Lucid? Most of the Google hits only reference his name it seems, someone ought to do the article or maybe just remove the reference to this Trip Lucid person, obviously not a real name, maybe a redirect somewhere would be appropriate for that red link. Thoughts? Information? 208.82.225.232 (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.ugo.com/channels/dvd/features/peteandpete/interview.asp
  2. ^ http://www.deregulo.com/facetation/2006/05/lost-hunter-s.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hunter_S._Thompson&oldid=230366655"