Talk:David Cassidy/Archives/2018

Subject's final words
The article currently contains the statement and linked ref: "According to his daughter Katie, his last words were "So much wasted time".

The statement reads as a non-sequitur. The article narrative does not follow a path that would suggest the subject "wasted time". Outside of divorces that appear to be non-controversial, one arrest, and mild financial troubles, the article paints the subject's life as successful and fairly "normal" for someone in show business.

The statement is referenced, but again—is this appropriate or necessary? Depending upon the circumstances at death, this statement could have been a true belief by the subject or a product of medication given to the subject to ease physical pains during the stages of death. AldezD (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You make a thoughtful point. What it might have meant seems like speculation — we have no idea if he were even on painkillers, since not all conditions are painful — and we really can only say what the cited source, in this case his daughter, an eyewitness, states. There's a valid debate to be had over whether the line should be included as relevant, but our speculation can't be part of that debate. The larger issue is: Are anyone's last words notable? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not pro or con right now. I just thought it needed discussion. See also this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a comment - it's a factoid, meaningless, as such it's not really worthy of reporting. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with others here, especially Govindaharihari and thank you for not including it. Crass. Also take note that Cassidy was a well-known workaholic, rhymes with alcoholic (which is unfortunately why he would disintegrate into the bottle when he could not get work, his father was identical) -- and likely would have believed he had "wasted time" regardless of what he had actually accomplished in his life. Context, people! PB57 (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Samantha Fox allegations

 * Stays out Opening this for discussion to start. Recently deceased person, unproven allegations, no police investigation, WP:BDP applies imo. Unproven minor allegations from a single report, disputed by people that knew him, all suggest to me that due to his very recent death and a lack of any corroborating support that this does not belong in the biography at this time.Govindaharihari (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Stays out I agree that we need to continue to apply BLP policy, which can stand for up to two years following the article subject's death. If we wouldn't put this kind of gossip/allegation in the article while they are living per WP:BLP, we shouldn't be doing it just because they have died.  In my opinion, it stays out.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 01:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Stays out I am troubled in general by the recent trend of "guilt by credible allegation". Wikipedia should avoid piling on board.  Some sort of due process is necessary for such allegations to either become notable or not, and to either gather some veracity or not.  Some amount of time is necessary for that due course to proceed.  Before that, we should stay away.  24.235.64.152 (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Goes in This allegation has been widely reported, providing we deal with it in a balanced way, it is notable. There are also BLP issues here in relation to Samantha Fox, we could be insinuating that we don't take her allegations seriously.  This is of some importance because of widespread allegations of sexual harassment by Harvey Weinstein and others. PatGallacher (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Widely reported" by reliable sources? No.  A quick Yahoo search and Google search yields only unreliable sources and gossip sites.  That's not good enough for Wikipedia purposes and does not meet BLP guidelines.  There is no BLP issue per "insinuation" re: Samantha Fox, we aren't meant to be the conscience of the world nor are we to have a biased agenda re: any issue.  If you have a bias, you need to leave it out of your editing,, as do we all.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 15:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also Pat, as you know, you have placed the allegations in the Sam Fox biography where they are currently remaining as they are her allegations and as such in her biography they sit better there, but not here. Also to add, in regards to your comment, "we could be insinuating that we don't take her allegations seriously" - we don't have to take them seriously, we don't even need to be bothered one iota about them, it's just if the content is noteworthy in someones life story and complies with all wikipedia policy then we report it neutrally. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just did a quick google search myself, this allegation has been repeated in several British newspapers, I realise not all of them may be reliable sources, but The Guardian surely is. It is also in two papers outside Britain, the Miami Herald and the Irish Times. PatGallacher (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I just had a read of the herald and the Irish times articles, they didn't do anything to change my position, things like continued reporting over a period of time might, if the allegation is still being reported in a few months, it's also a shame she waited till he was dead to reveal her allegation as if he was alive we would have his comments to report also and we would know if the police followed the reports to investigation and possible charges which would have given more weight to possible inclusion here. Both the Miami Herald and the Irish Times are re-reporting the original ''exclusive Sam gave to the Daily Star Sunday here is a link to the primary article https://www.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz/665957/David-Cassidy-news-death-Samantha-Fox-sexual-assault-page-3-model - Govindaharihari (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Stays Out - I feel very strongly that any reference to Samantha Fox should be deleted. David Cassidy can not answer this claim. More importantly there have been no other claims whatsoever. It is very sad that on only one say so his character is being destroyed. I was lucky to meet him on a couple of occasions and I found him to be one of the nicest and genuine stars I have ever met.  I do hope you will reconsider and delete this reference. Jacs1 30 Dec mber 2017  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacs1 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, after 32 years and only weeks after his death to publish her allegations in her autobiographical book release allows us no leeway at all to publish such minor unverified allegations here in this biography. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Stays out - As I just wrote at Samantha Fox where I removed this allegation: "All these reports cite the Daily Star, a notorious WP:TABLOID. The Guardian, the Miami Herald and Bang Showbiz ALL point back to that. A sleazy tabloid that pays people to say anything is not WP:RS in any way, shape or form." --Tenebrae (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, here is what I said specifically to User:PatGallacher at Talk:Samantha Fox: "You made a WP:BOLD edit and it has been reverted. Now per WP:BRD, it is incumbent upon you to try to reach consensus with other editors before reinserting it. The report has not, in fact, been 'widely reported' — a story that appeared in a notorious WP:TABLOID, the Daily Star, has been re-reported by other outlets. Neither The Guardian, The Miami Herald nor Bang Showbiz did any original reporting or vetting of her claim ... they all just say, 'She told the Daily Star this.' A sleazy tabloid that pays people to say anything is not WP:RS in any way, shape or form. A newspaper, the "first draft of history," might report it, but an encyclopedia has higher standards. And one of those standards is we don't blindly run anything a non-WP:RS tabloid has to say."--Tenebrae (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Alcoholism
In 2014, during separation and divorce from his third wife, Cassidy spoke very candidly to Piers Morgan in a TV interview (posted on Youtube), where he admitted to a serious Alcohol problem and that he knew he had a different (hateful) personality when drunk. This is not uncommon for drunks to be like this, especially those "self medicating". I think it is pretty obvious, for the last 5 years of his life he had "wet brain" or Alcohol-related brain damage (ARBD)) as can be seen in many (drunken) interviews in his final years. I think this should be clearly (and sympathetically) reflected at the end, in reference to his death. He deserves this, he seemed to be an honest (yet troubled) person at heart. "Battle with Alcoholism" is often an accepted phrase. https://goinggentleintothatgoodnight.com/tag/wernicke-korsakoff-syndrome/ "Confabulation, Alcohol Abuse, and Alcohol-Related Dementia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.109.18 (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * And two months after this remark, a new interview surfaced that had been recorded after a hospitalization that was just weeks before his death from liver failure. In the interview he said his memory had returned and "It was complete alcohol poisoning – and the fact is, I lied about my drinking." He said the head doctor at the hospital had told him "I believe that your dementia was directly related to your alcoholism." and "You know, I did it to myself, man. I did it to myself to cover up the sadness and the emptiness." (https://people.com/tv/david-cassidys-never-had-dementia/) RIP. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)