Jump to content

Talk:27 Club/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

References in music

Frank Ocean sings in "Nights" the line "no white lighters til I fuck my 28th up" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.46.215 (talk) There is a song from Russian music group Louna - Forcing the Skies, which is fully dedicated to the 27 Club.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Firenzi (talk • contribs)

Louie Spicolli and Thuy Trang

I noticed you have a couple of athletes and actors on there so how come Louie Spicolli wasn't mentioned? He was a wrestler who was apart of WWE, ECW, and WCW. He died 4 days after his 27th birthday from a drug overdose and an enlarged heart. I also see that Thuy Trang was brought up a couple times in here so why wasn't she added? We all knew her as the yellow ranger from Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. She was born in December 14 1973 and died in car accident on September 3 2001 at age 27 and it was 3 months and 11 days before her 28th birthday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8a80:6ba0:f53e:54fa:ddbd:f4a (talk)

===== Music =====

  • In Ed Sheeran's track [The Man], Sheeran writes, "And I'd be writing my will before I'm 27, I'll die from a thrill / Go down in history as just a wasted talent,".

[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabaea (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_ Man_(Ed_Sheeran_song)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2021

Add in the In Popular Culture/ Music section -The rap artist JPEGMAFIA released a song titled "The 27 Club" on his 2016 Album Black Ben Carson Cjthomas352 (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You also have to prove it's notable enough for inclusion. Not every mention of the 27 club in popular media is included. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Worth a mention?

Soledad Miranda the star of Vampyros Lesbos (Spanish: Las Vampiras) (9 July 1943 – 18 August 1970) (27 years old)

Japanese actress Masako Natsume (December 17, 1957 - September 11, 1985)(27 years old) is widely known for playing Tripitaka in the TV series Monkey


Montalban (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is "worth a mention" unless WP:SECONDARY sources have described them as members of the 27 Club. Binksternet (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Alan Christie Wilson, from Canned Heat(Going up the country, On the road again) died at 27 in 1970 [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.64.168 (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Wilson_(musician)
Alan "Blind Owl" Wilson is already listed in the table. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2021

58.6.245.248 (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

To whom it may concern

Last week on November 4th An Indonesian actress was killed in a car crashed.

Her name is Vanessa Angel.


She was born on 21 December 1993.

Could you please add her on to the list.

Thanks

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Needs to have sources naming her part of the 27 club, and also needs to be notable enough for a wikipedia article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanessa_Angel_(Indonesian_actress)

https://www.thejakartapost.com/life/2021/11/04/actress-vanessa-angel-and-husband-killed-in-car-crash.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erlanggadwir (talk • contribs) 11:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Richard (Mad Dog) Buek (November 5, 1929 – November 3, 1957) was an American alpine ski racer and later a daredevil stunt pilot. A fiancé of champion ski racer Jill Kinmont, whose tragic life story was made into the inspirational hit Hollywood motion picture The Other Side of the Mountain (1975), Buek died in a plane crash at the age of 27.[1][2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MakJ20 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The list of music references in popular culture is growing long. Some of the items are passing references to the 27 Club that aren't particularly significant. As noted in WP:POPCULTURE, "these sections can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft. They should be carefully maintained, as they may attract trivial entries, especially if they are in list format."

We should establish inclusion criteria. According to WP:IPCV (emphasis mine):

"In popular culture" sections should contain verifiable information with sources that establish its significance to the article's subject. Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged, as are passing references to the article subject. For example... a Wikipedia article about a city with an "in popular culture" section should not contain examples of films which make a one sentence reference to the city in dialogue, or songs which mention the name of the city in one sentence.... Passing mentions of the subject in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when the significance of that mention is itself demonstrated with secondary sources.

I propose the following inclusion criteria:

  1. The 27 Club is a major subject of the song/album. Don't include passing references to the 27 Club in a single lyric phrase or title.
  2. The significance of the mention is demonstrated by reliable secondary source citation(s) that connect the song/album to the subject of the 27 Club.

Example that meets this standard:

  • JPEGMafia’s debut album, Black Ben Carson, includes a song titled "The 27 Club", which the song refers to the infamous club. He explicitly references club members Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin & Kurt Cobain.[1]

Example that does not meet this standard:

  • The Lemon Demon song "Lifetime Achievement Award," from their 2016 album Spirit Phone, includes the lyrics "Good luck getting into Heaven if you live past 27," referencing the 27 Club.

Goffman82 02:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "A conversation with JPEGMAFIA, the MC who raps like the internet feels". Dazed Digital. Retrieved 7 December 2021.

Adele Sebastian

I have stumbled across Jazz Flutist and singer Adele Sebastian (14 August 1956 - 30 September 1983) who was a member of the Pan Afrikan Peoples Arkestra, and later released a solo album "Desert Fairy Princess" before her death.

There are a number of Internet sites that refer to her dying at the age of 27 in 1983, but with the passage of time I am finding it difficult to locate suitable sources to determine her nobility.

Is anyone familiar with this musician? Having heard a couple of tracks it appears she may have been a significant talent. There is a German Wikipedia article (stub) about her (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adele_Sebastian), but I have been unable to find an English article.

https://www.discogs.com/release/2706750-Adele-Sebastian-Desert-Fairy-Princess https://www.discogs.com/artist/322753-Adele-Sebastian https://lightintheattic.net/releases/4816-desert-fairy-princess https://www.news24.com/arts/music/on-central-figures-who-never-emerge-as-heroes-in-dominant-articulations-of-history-20210628 https://www.painteddogrecords.com/adele_sebastian.html https://www.dustygroove.com/search/Adele+Sebastian

Screech1616 (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

the 27 club, how dare thee omit the great Pete Ham

Pete Ham 2601:646:4200:7570:7D7C:D463:402D:4A47 (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Read again. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 03:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Reference

The girl in the bathtub, 2018 at ca 52 minutes. 2001:171B:2274:7C21:78F6:CC1B:43E1:8478 (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Shannon Hoon

Shannon Hoon. Blind melon. 27 162.203.187.17 (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

He died at 28. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Bradley Nowell

How come Bradley Nowell is not listed as a 27 club member? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.246.86.80 (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks like Bradley Nowell was 28 when he died. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Louie Spicolli missing from Identified Members list

Louis Mucciolo Jr. (February 10, 1971 – February 15, 1998) was an American professional wrestler. On February 15, 1998, Spicolli died five days after his 27th birthday after overdosing on Soma and wine, choking on his own vomit in his sleep. Investigators found an empty vial of the male hormone testosterone, pain pills and an anxiety-reducing drug. The Los Angeles County coroner's office determined the drugs might have contributed to his heart condition. 2601:8D:600:4CF0:8AC:AFB5:93AA:4E85 (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

An explicit connection discussed by the media must exist linking each person to the 27 Club. It's not enough to die at age 27. Binksternet (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Porn Legend Dakota Skye!

How is porn legend Dakota Skye not on this list yet? She died of an OD in 2021 at age... 27. She was on over 500 adult box covers and was certainly a "star" (not just in the way that everyone in porn is called a star). Rolling Stone magazine wrote a long article about her life and death. She is without a doubt a member of the 27 club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xylenz (talk • contribs) 19:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Canned Heat

27 club Alan Wilson, one of the greats he shouldn't be left out 2600:1012:B129:8A79:EDA8:351F:ABB2:BC60 (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Alan "Blind Owl" Wilson is already listed in the "identified members" table. — Mudwater (Talk) 05:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Aaron Hernandez

What are the criteria for including people in this list? I added an entry a little while ago and it was removed.

Per the article: "The 27 Club includes popular musicians, artists, actors, and athletes who died at age 27,[2] often as a result of drug and alcohol abuse or violent means such as homicide, suicide, or transportation-related accidents" Aaron Hernandez literally fits exactly this description. I could search the internet to find some alternative source that makes reference to this fictional "club", but is that necessary? Obviously the list is non-exhaustive and risks getting cluttered, but I thought Hernandez would be a notable entry that aptly fit the criteria. Belugsump (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Every entry must have a WP:SECONDARY source describing the death explicitly as an entry to the 27 Club. The Hernandez entry had this link, which doesn't do it. If someone famous dies violently at age 27 it's not enough. Binksternet (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Saliva

Rock band Saliva also referenced the 27 club in their songs "Superstar" and "Superstar 2" 98.247.6.160 (talk) 06:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually there IS something to the 27 club, it hasn't been "debunked"

I'm not suggesting a change at this time, as this is original research, but something to be aware of be on the lookout for a notable source that documents this.

Executive Summary: Yes the total number of deaths of musicians who were in a relatively obscure band that recorded a couple of albums may be similar for various ages, but age 27 appears to stand head and shoulders above other ages for legendary superstars, which is what matters and what people mean when they talk about the 27 club. Our sources discounting the phenomenon appear to be counting noses and that doesn't have much to do with anything.

Age 27: Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, Amy Winehouse, Robert Johnson. But also Alan "Blind Owl" Wilson (Canned Heat), Pigpen (Ron McKernan) (Grateful Dead), Dave Alexander (Stooges), Pete Ham (Badfinger), Chris Bell (Alex Chilton's band Big Star), also -- more obscure -- Boon, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Mia Zapata, Kristen Pfaff, Stretch Walker, Jeremy Michael Ward.

Age 28: Avicii, Bradley Nowell, Shannon Hoon, Tim Buckley, Steve Gaines, The Big Bopper, Jimmy Sullivan, Kyle Pavone, Bix Beiderbecke, Big Pun, John Glascock, Jason Thirsk, Viktor Tsoi, Keith Green, Luigi Tenco, Harry Womack, Jessi Zazu.

Only Bix Beiderbecke is a legendary superstar here, and I don't count him, he died in 1931 and I don't think any "age club" includes folk from the early 20th century and earlier in most most anybody's minds. Other than him, you have Tim Buckley and bunch of pretty obscure types. And I mean Buckley died in obscurity and is still pretty niche. The Big Bopper had one novelty hit and is only remembered for the plane crash. Neither of them are within shouting distance of being legendary superstars.

Age 26, you do have Otis Redding and Gram Parsons, also Jimmy McCulloch (Wings, Thunderclap Newman, reconstituted Faces, studio work for big stars), and a few obscure types. Redding and Parsons are legends to a degree but neither was a superstar, and Parsons is actually pretty obscure. Putting them up against the age 27 cohort -- it's not even close.

I didn't check other years but I would have a strong guess that it's pretty similar. (Sorry but I can't give my sources.)

If you're just counting noses, yes 27 and 28 are similar, and 26 sort of (the minor leagues for age 26 are thin according to my one source). If you're comparing Jimi, Janis, Kurt, Robert Johnson, Amy Winehouse, Brian Jones, Blind Owl Wilson, against Tim Buckley, or against Otis Redding and Gram Parsons... it's just not close or close to being close.

Only a few idiots think the club is predictive for goodness sake, or statistically significant among professional musicians generally. Any claim or debunking that it is just silly. The Age 27 Club trope is party talk, a "hey wow how about this weird coincidence" thing, look at all these legendary stars in this club". And on that level it is a genuine coincidence.

(FWIW and not really germane: while the age 27 superstar club is a coincidence, it's not really a big deal. Given how many rock stars die young, it's not all that improbable to have a cluster of superstars at some early age that you won't find in the general population. It happens to be age 27. Professional musicians generally are a much higher sample size and it'd be shocking and inexplicable if there was a significant spike in that population at any one age.)

I understand about sources and original research, but we are kind of misleading the reader to imply that it's been somehow debunked. Herostratus (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem with choosing who is superstar enough to belong is, you are immediately into the subjective. And since the current members list includes people who died during WWI, or before of syphilis, then you really need to expand the 25,26,28, 29, 30 clubs' members lists to see that that's the methodology for debunking it all. Buteven if not debunked in addition, you need to think about career courses and wealth and access to danger provided by them. There may be some kind of peak in risk at 27, but either side will also be at some risk. For all this you need lists of names and ages and perhaps also relative wealth to decide who is superstar enough? FangoFuficius (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2022

Add Vasilije Rakić Vajk 👍👍👍 178.148.160.233 (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Vasilije Rakić Vajk redlink, WP:WTAF Cannolis (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Potentially controversial proposal: remove the "Identified members" list

As the article states, the "27 Club" is a cultural phenomenon where celebrities who die at age 27 are often said — by the press or by their fans — to have "joined the 27 Club." As the article also states, the "27 Club" is notional: it is not an actual club and there is no official member list. Nevertheless, in the absence of an authoritative member list, Wikipedia itself has become the de facto official member list. As such, much of the Talk Page discussions and article edits revolve around attempts to add new 'members' to the article's "Identified members" list.

Maintaining this list is problematic and of questionable value to our understanding the cultural phenomenon of the 27 Club. In my opinion, it's a waste of Wikipedia editor time. Consider the problem: 1) Many, many notable people die at age 27. 2) Reliable press sources may note that this fact makes them "members" of the 27 Club. 3) Such citations seemingly qualify the notable person for inclusion in the article's "Identified members" list.

I couldn't find a specific Wikipedia policy to guide us in this situation. If you know of one, please reply. Here is my response to the 3-point problem above. 1) Notable people die at every age. As the article states, dying at 27 is a coincidence with no statistical significance. 2) Referring to someone as a new member of the 27 Club is an instance of this cultural phenomenon in popular culture; in other words, "27 Club" is a kind of slang used to when talking about notable people who die at 27. 3) We only need a few citations to prove that the "27 Club" is a cultural phenomenon that people talk about in popular culture. We don't need to document every instance in popular culture.

The member list is, admittedly, an interesting collection of trivia but its inclusion causes misunderstanding of the article's purpose on Wikipedia: to describe the cultural phenomenon of the 27 Club. Worse, its inclusion contradicts the article itself: there is no official membership. I propose we remove the "Identified members" list and relieve Wikipedians of the burden of maintaining it. In its place, let's just cite a few reliable sources that provide "member lists" of their own, such as Rolling Stone[1]. Goffman82 01:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The 27 Club: A Brief History". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 28 December 2021.
Thanks for the links to those prior discussions. After reading all of them, it looks as though I am re-stating a position originally articulated by User:Escape Orbit in Talk:27 Club/Archive 4#Two sections into one: "...this article does not have to attempt to list every "member" in order to adequately describe the concept to the reader. There is no real "club", so there is no real "membership list". It is therefore not a failing if Wikipedia does not list every possible, notional, member."
The substance of that position was never really discussed then as the immediate task was deciding whether to combine two lists into one. I think it's actually a rather interesting edge case of Wikipedia policy, and a discussion worth having. In short, my position is that the article's list of "identified members" is Original Research. Why? As the article itself states, there are no official members and, because the club is notional, there can be no official member list. Yet this article has an official "identified members" list. There is at least one citation for each of these people; but none of these sources show this entire list of "identified members." Is this not the definition of WP:SYNTHESIS? "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." This is not an article about an actual club. It's an article about a cultural phenomenon. The phenomenon is: certain celebrities get labelled as 'members' of this notional club in reliable sources like music press. Should we be making an exhaustive list of every instance of this phenomenon in the press? No. Just as we don't need a list of every instance of Libel in the press to explain the phenomenon. Likewise, many people and things have been called the "Greatest of All Time" in reliable sources but it would be silly to maintain an exhaustive list of those opinions. Note how Films considered the greatest of all time avoids the problem of Original Research by referencing quantitative surveys of opinion. Goffman82 10:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
It's not original research, and it's not synthesis. The list combines material from multiple sources, as do all Wikipedia articles, but it doesn't reach or imply a conclusion. It's just saying, here's a bunch of people who've been mentioned as being in the 27 Club. So, that's not a problem. Perhaps the beginning of the "Identified members" section could reiterate that there's no official list, if that would help, but the rest of the article makes that pretty clear already. And like I said before, having the list really makes the article much better. I'm sure most of our readers think so too. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The problem has always been that the article needs some examples of membership, to best explain it. Like the "original" members when the concept was first invented. Including some names, inevitably, leads to others being added. Soon, before you know it, we're back at arguments about who is "worthy" or famous enough to be included, when there is no authoritative or definitive guide to determining this.
So while I'm no fan of the existing list, the way it's defined and scoped is probably better than the alternatives. But I suspect the time will come that it starts to get over-sized and ridiculous, at which point maybe it could be split off into a different article. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
As an exercise, I looked at the sources cited for the 12 most recent "identified members." 7 of them made no mention of the 27 Club and I removed them from the list. But even the ones that remain underscore how arbitrary this list is. For example, the source for the now-most-recent member of the list, Benjamin Keough (who lacks a Wikipedia article), says "Is Benjamin Keough the latest member of the 27 Club? After Lisa Marie Presley’s son died by suicide before he reached his 28th birthday, some fans are linking his death to the so-called 27 Club.”[1] So is he or isn't he a member? The source only asks the question. Like many citations for list entries, this source simply uses the recent death of a 27 year-old celebrity as an excuse to farm out a blog post about the 27 Club. In this case, the source is In Touch Weekly, a gossip tabloid, not exactly "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (WP:SOURCES) Perhaps I'll do another pass and remove all the unreliable sources. The core issue: because the club is fictional, there can be no statements of fact about membership, however reliable the source. Therefore any source can only be treated as a statement of opinion and follow the policy of WP:RSOPINION: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion." Do we really want to maintain a running list of journalists' opinions? I actually think the list is even more arbitrary than that. In many, if not most cases, they aren't even statements of opinion. No journalist is saying, 'in my opinion, Elvis's grandson should be considered a new member of the 27 Club and here's why.' They are merely noting the death-at-27 coincidence, in passing. Noting such coincidences is the definition of the 27 Club phenomenon. All these many citations do is redundantly demonstrate that, yes, this is a phenomenon — especially in the entertainment press. A WP article for a band doesn't need to collect every single press mention. This article doesn't need to collect every single press mention. Goffman82 21:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The So-Called '27 Club' Is Tragic — See All the Stars Who Died at the Young Age". InTouch Weekly. Retrieved 20 January 2022.

Two things: I've reverted Goffman82 edit that removed references to people being "members". Replacing this term with a more convoluted "associated with" does nothing to help the reader understand the concept. Yes, the club is fictional, but the whole point is that these people are members of a fictional club, and that is how it is described in the sources. Being "associated" is not the same thing and only going to confuse the reader.

As for removal of the list entirely; I'd be fine with that. This isn't a list article. But the problem has always been that some examples are needed, and once you start giving examples they only attract more examples, and then we are back where we were some years ago with a discussion of which people "merit" being mentioned, and which do not. This can only be solved by having a clear criteria of which people are significant enough, or distinct enough, to provide a good example for the reader. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

See my new proposal to update the list inclusion criteria — Proposal: require individual notability for inclusion on Identified Members list. — Goffman82 19:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Jules LaForgue

Julee LaForgue (1860 – 1887) has been included in this club by some people. He mur be one of the earliest members and died three or four days after his 27th birthday. He was a great 19th century French poet who had an outsized influence on many 20th century Modernist English and American poets including T.S. Eliot, and his influence remains in evidence on poets today in tone, voice, and image: 2A01:4C8:487:9F17:5502:3BF6:3873:6A4C (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you have a typo in that link. The article about him is Jules Laforgue. — Mudwater (Talk) 20:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


Request to add Jean-Michel Basquiat

Resolved

Heroin overdose, 1988 Jickityjarz (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

He's in the caption for the graffiti but does not appear in the confirmed members list Jickityjarz (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Basquiat is indeed listed in the table. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Please research and consider adding to the list the artist Jean-Michel Basquiat (a/k/a Samo). See below reference from Sothebys' website. https://www.sothebys.com/en/articles/21-facts-about-jean-michel-basquiat 20. Basquiat died of an accidental drug overdose on August 12, 1988, at his Great Jones Street studio. He was 27 years old. In the months preceding his death, the troubled artist claimed to be using a hundred bags of heroin a day. 76.91.252.232 (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You need to provide sources connecting him to the 27 club. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
He's already on the list. Goffman82 20:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Slightly update articles of 27 Club Members?

I propose that on the articles of 27 Club Members, we add a hyperlink to this article after the date of death in the infobox, like this:

- Birth date: 1 Jan 1980

- Death date: 1 Feb 2007 (Aged 27)

Iamtheduckie (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It's much better to tell the reader explicitly rather than hide the link. See WP:EASTEREGG. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
That would be mixing in the same infobox field a fact with essentially an opinion about something fictional. Not what the field in the infobox is for. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2022

Resolved

When talking about the music section, under JuiceWrld it says it's dedicated to rappers XXXTENTACION in plural not singular. 105.4.5.149 (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Are you requesting to change it from the current plural to singular? If so, no. "The song was dedicated to rappers XXXTentacion, who was murdered at 20, and Lil Peep" - referring to both rappers XXXTentacion and Lil Peep. Current plural is correct Cannolis (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 Done I re-wrote this sentence awhile back to simplify the language. Goffman82 16:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: require individual notability for inclusion on Identified Members list

As an incremental improvement, I propose we update the list criteria to require that the named person have their own individual Wikipedia page. This follows WP:BANDMEMBER, which says that only band members who have demonstrated individual notability should be given individual articles. The topic of this article is notable individuals and their deaths. The list should reflect that. — Goffman82 19:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:BANDMEMBER is talking about which musicians are sufficiently notable to have their own separate Wikipedia articles. ("These criteria inform the decision whether an article should be dedicated to these people or works.") It's not talking about which people are notable enough to be listed in a list. It's similar to WP:GNG and other notability guidelines. So, that doesn't apply to this article. To be clear, there can still be a discussion about who to include in the table in this article. There have been a number of previous discussions about it, so it's kind a perennial favorite topic. But as I said, the notability guidelines are talking about separate WP articles, not inclusion in a list. — Mudwater (Talk) 20:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we need to remove a dozen unlinked names from the article because they don't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. List articles are allowed to have a wide inclusion criteria, including every known published entry. Lists of people can be exempt from the notability requirement if the persons are known only for one thing, which in this case is an unnatural death at age 27 (and supported by explicit mention in the literature as belonging to the 27 Club.) See WP:EXEMPT1E. This list is not so large that it needs pruning. Binksternet (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, helpful points from both of you. I'm not claiming that the WP:BANDMEMBER policy applies to this article and we therefore we should conform to it. I'm proposing that we adopt a similar policy for this particular list, as a way to increase the quality of the list: to make it a list of "Notable Members." The current policy leads to some very non-notable entries. For reference, the current minimum inclusion requirement allows for the following kind of entry: a) a musician dies at 27 who was loosely associated with a notable band at some point in their past, but who is otherwise non-notable, e.g. Richard Turner, a "friend" of Friendly Fires who "played trumpet in our live gigs on and off for three years"; b) a single defunct music magazine blogger notes in passing that the musician's age qualifies them for the 27 Club. I know this topic is a perennial favorite and my efforts here are aimed at productively moving that conversation forward. Goffman82 19:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
A common way to tighten inclusion is to require two published sources, not just one. That would get rid of the outliers. Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Requiring two published sources is a reasonable idea. I would just note, as a practical matter, that it would likely have an even larger impact on the length of the list than my original proposal. That's my speculation, anyway, prior to the necessary work of looking for 2nd sources. In its current state, 14 of the 63 people on the list lack their own WP articles. 53 of them have only one source listed. Of those, 30 cite the same single source (a book about the 27 Club). Goffman82 22:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The 27 Club is the pop cultural notion that many popular musicians have died at the age of 27. There are many reliable references that define the 27 Club that way. Therefore, the "members" are not people mentioned in conjunction with the club in one, two, or multiple publications. Rather they are any of the popular musicians who died at the age of 27. This is not original research, it's a faithful accounting of the "club" according to how it's defined by reliable references. I therefore propose that the list include any popular musician who died at the age of 27, whether or not there's a reference saying that they're a member. But to make this more manageable, let's limit the list to musicians who have their own Wikipedia article. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. If the person's obituary does not say "27 Club" then you are violating WP:NOR to bring them in. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
As I said, it's not a violation of No Original Research, because multiple sources say that the "members" of the "club" are any popular musicians who died at the age of 27. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Let's just say I interpret the issue the other way. The 27 Club is a cultural idea, not a statistical fact. We look to the media to establish the list, not statistics. Binksternet (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
The 27 Club is definitely a cultural idea and not a statistical fact. The (highly unscientific) cultural idea being that any popular musician who died at age 27 is a member of the club. Anyway, I don't see how requiring two references instead of one for each "member" would solve any problems, or improve the article in any way. If I can't persuade a majority of editors to agree with my concept of who to include -- and I still hope to do so -- then I'd say let's leave the list the way it is. Currently each "member" has at least one reference, and almost all of them either have their own Wikipedia article, or at least were a member of a band that has its own article. — Mudwater (Talk) 05:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I support Mudwater's proposal — that we adopt a formal definition of list membership, grounded in verified facts and Wikipedia's own notability policy, instead of the current arbitrary definition of membership that relies on one or two journalists' opinions about notability. One caveat: Mudwater refers only to "popular musicians." Do you propose that we exclude actors (e.g. Jonathan Brandis) and other artists (e.g. Jean-Michel Basquiat)? Might we just say "notable artists who died at age 27"? This doesn't constitute Original Research because it only uses the verified death date and WP's ow notability definition. Though it would be better to re-title the list as such, "Notable artists who died at age 27" to avoid any semblance of original research. Then we're no longer asserting any official membership in the 27 Club. Goffman82 05:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Nothing about WP:Reliable sources is "arbitrary".... It's perfectly normal for different third party observers to have different definitions. We are here to summarize for the reader the published definitions. We are NOT here to try and defined the topic ourselves. Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
That's not the subject under contention. I think we all agree that the article's topic — the 27 Club — is well-defined by the cited reliable sources: (quoting Mudwater above) "The 27 Club is the pop cultural notion that many popular musicians have died at the age of 27." I agree that our job is to summarize for the reader the published definitions; and the article's prose does an adequate job of that.
Rather, the point of contention is the precise inclusion criteria (WP:LSC) for the article's embedded list, currently titled "Identified members." Our job in this case is to define inclusion criteria that lead to a useful list and exclude irrelevant, indiscriminate items. The current criteria clearly permit indiscriminate items (Richard Turner, never an official member of Friendly Fires; Benjamin Keough, not a member of notable anything, just Elvis' grandson; Wallace Yohn, never an official member of Chase). I could go on. These non-notable items do not improve the article.
See WP:LISTCRITERIA and WP:VNOT: "Only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
Again, I propose we follow WP:CSC and limit inclusion to Notable people. That would neatly exclude insignificant items, reduce maintenance efforts, improve the article, and follow a common practice.
Mudwater's follow-up proposal builds on the notability requirement and takes it one step farther: changing the definition of the list from 'people associated with the 27 Club' to a topically relevant factual list of 'Notable artists who died at age 27', akin to Deaths in 2022. Before we consider that, I'd like to persuade us to adopt the notability criterion first. Otherwise, I'm going to get an RfC going since no consensus on this issue has emerged among the four of us active participants (User:Binksternet, User:Mudwater, User:Escape Orbit). Goffman82 19:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't see any pressing need to trim this article of non-notables. It's only around 50kb in size—nowhere near too large. When sources talk about the 27 Club, and mention these people, we would be remiss not to list them.
I will never agree to releasing this list from its reliance on WP:Reliable sources. If we ignore RS and add entries ourselves, we will be violating WP:No original research. I will never agree that the 27 Club is simply a matter of statistics. It's a cultural term, and some people are named by the media, while others are not. The media calls the shots.
The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize the literature for the reader. If you bypass the literature, you are working outside of the scope of Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
There is no way we are going to start adding names that have never been cited anywhere as members of the club. That is not the way Wikipedia works. And It's reasonable that the subjects should be notable, but that doesn't mean they have to have a page.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
We've been down this road before. The problem about limiting to "notable" is that is not a clearly defined criteria and is open to interpretation. Wikipedia's notability policy is about having an article. It should not, and can not, be applied to mentions within an article. It should also be clear that this article is about the "27 club", it is most definitely not List of artists who died at age 27, which is would be a different article. It is not Wikipedia editors' role to define terms of "the club" membership, or gate-keep who is, and isn't, in it.
Like others, I don't care for an ever-growing list of names, some of whom, in my opinion, don't hold much notability. But any attempt to control who is in it can only ever be through reliance on reliable sources. Anything else is likely to be original synthesis. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not hearing clear support for this proposal based on Notability, so I will turn to the Reliable Sources argument. This moves the discussion from a general inclusion policy to a case-by-case evaluation of source reliability. The current list entries I keep referencing as particularly non-notable do not have reliable sources. Here is what I will do: I'm going to remove those entries in separate edits, noting that they lack a reliable source. Anyone is free to argue for the restoration of any of the individual entries on its own merits, on a case-by-case basis, by citing a reliable source and/or starting a new topic on this Talk page to achieve consensus for its inclusion.
See WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution... Once an editor has provided any source they believe, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material must articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g. why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; undue emphasis; unencyclopedic content; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back."
See WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
I will also quote, again, WP:LISTCRITERIA: "Only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." Goffman82 17:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
At this point you are disrupting Wikipedia to push your preferred version. Please stop. Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Please clarify how my 5 edits diverge from the policies I quoted above. I removed 5 entries from the list, citing specific problems with each. My understanding of the policy is that the onus is on you to achieve consensus on the inclusion of these disputed items. Instead you blanket reverted the edits without responding to the cited issues. Goffman82 00:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Years of page consensus contradict your version. You are acting against local consensus, and you are proposing to rip apart the whole idea of what Wikipedia is about. The onus guideline does not apply in such a case. Get ready to be blocked if you do it again. Binksternet (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I think your comments might be considered uncivil. Can we please keep the discussion focused on the content issues raised?
As I noted, no consensus was reached in support of the proposed change to the list's inclusion criteria. So in keeping with the current inclusion criteria, I made 5 bold edits to bring editor attention to 5 list entries that do not appear to meet the current criteria, namely WP:RS (see WP:PUS re: content farms) and "notable person or member of a notable band." I made these edits in good faith and cited specific issues in the edit summaries. You reverted all 5 edits without addressing the cited issues. It would be helpful, in the interests of collaboration, if you'd provide a rationale for your 5 reverts, on a case-by-case basis. Goffman82 05:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
When "no consensus was reached in support of the proposed change" you should have left it alone. Instead, you changed the article anyway, to fit your preferred version. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The proposal was for a local policy change that would have excluded 14 list entries that lacked their own article (WP:CSC #1). My 5 edits are independent of that proposal. They are applications of the consensus inclusion criteria, flagging 5 entries as not meeting the criteria, as a way to spark discussion of those specific items. Instead of shutting down discussion, please keep your comments focused on the substantive issues specifically cited in the edit summaries. Goffman82 20:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The glaringly obvious point is lost in the wikilawyering: you wanted to remove some names, and when one rationale didn't work, you used another rationale—against talk page consensus which is clearly in favor of keeping the names. Binksternet (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Please see WP:DRNC and WP:Status quo stonewalling. Truly the onus is on you to either (1) provide a substantive response to the content issues cited in my edit suummaries you reverted, or (2) link to specific statements from "years of consensus" that support the inclusion of these 5 entries, as you keep claiming.
Here are links to 3 past discussions that describe the consensus inclusion criteria:
TL;DR Consensus inclusion criteria: every list entry must (1) be a notable person (WP:NBIO) or member of a notable band (WP:MUSICBIO), and (2) cite a reliable source (WP:RS) identifying the person as a member of the 27 Club.
I removed 5 entries for not meeting these consensus requirements. Do you agree that this is an accurate statement of the consensus? If not, please provide a link to a different one. Goffman82 10:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The 2011 discussion was about removing a two-list format, with one list referenced to sources stating explicit membership in the 27 Club, and the other list being a WP:NOR nightmare of "Other musicians who died at 27". Thankfully, the nightmare list was merged by Escape Orbit.[1] It's disappointing to see that the same arguments trying to derail NOR are still being used 11 years later, by the same editor. WP:DROPTHESTICK comes to mind, Mudwater. You keep wanting to make this a statistical list, based only on fame + death age. You have been opposed for at least 11 years by a wide range of editors. Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

personally I think the five entries removed by Goffman should definitely stay removed. By not deferring to any single source for our entries and instead compiling based on disparate sources, we are de facto taking on a grooming and editorial role with this list. That may or may not be SYNTH, but as long as we're doing it then we need to stay true to the purpose of the Club. The examples mentioned are individuals of very tentative Notability and, as detailed by Goffman in the edit summaries, mostly from content farms or unreliable sources. That's not to say we should remove all entries without an article, GNG does not mandate that, but we need to be clear on why that individual is notable all the same.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Current dispute status - additional opinions needed

It's my understanding that this dispute is about whether or not 5 edits I made on 8 June 2022 (removing 5 list entries) were justified improvements to the article. I believe they were justified because none of the entries met the consensus requirements for inclusion, as I understand them (see #Consensus inclusion criteria). On the same day, Binksternet reverted all 5 edits (edit summary: Rv... Talk page consensus does not favor removal) and appears to believe they were unjustified disruptive edits, in defiance of established consensus.

The 5 edit summaries cite specific content issues with each removed entry. Binksternet has, so far, not responded to any of the cited content issues. Goffman82 03:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Damien "Damo" Morris

Damien "Damo" Morris, member of Australian deathcore band the Red Shore, was removed by Goffman82 with the edit summary "Source is not reliable — it's a content farm." The cited source is http://ultimateclassicrock.com/rockers-who-died-at-age-27/. UCR is a commonly used source on Wikipedia, cited in 350 articles. This particular article was written by Matthew Wilkening, the founder and editor-in-chief of UCR. The website employs a bunch of other writers, and creates original music news and cultural pieces such as this. Binksternet (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Conceded. Thank you for taking the time to respond to the cited content issues. Goffman82 19:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thomas Fekete

Thomas Fekete, guitarist of Surfer Blood, was removed by Goffman82 with the edit summary "Source is not reliable — it's a content farm. Source cites his inclusion on this Wikipedia list as justification (WP:CIRCULAR)." Even though the cited source mentions Wikipedia, the determination of 27 Club membership is separate. The source, a social media news platform, notes Wikipedia in passing, not drawing from it for facts. They also looked at GoFundMe, YouTube and Twitter, as they frequently do. If one chose to ignore that source, the case has larger relevance. The band is notable, but a death by cancer is usually classified as natural causes. Despite this, Loudwire listed Fekete alongside discussion of the 27 Club,[2] and New Jersey radio station WZXL explicitly placed him in the 27 Club with a news item posted on May 31, 2016, the same day as other announcements of Fekete's death.[3] I don't think the removal was proper. The WP:CIRCULAR claim doesn't hold water, and the socialnewsdaily.com source wrote this piece as original research. Binksternet (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Conceded. One glance at the front page of socialnewsdaily.com shows it unquestionably is a content farm. Thank you for turning up a more reliable source. I think it's a little misleading to say the removal was improper. It would be more accurate to say that the removal was justified for lacking a reliable source, and its restoration is justified now that a reliable source has been found. However, that was not the justification you gave in your revert edit summary. In the future, instead of resorting to block threats and intimidation, please assume good faith and participate collaboratively in content-focused discussions with other editors, either through the WP:BRD process or otherwise. Goffman82 20:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Richard Turner

Richard Turner, touring trumpet player for Friendly Fires, was removed by Goffman82 with the edit summary, "He was not a notable individual or member of a notable ensemble". In this case, Goffman82 is chipping away at the difference between a longtime touring member and an "official" member of the band. I don't think Goffman82 should follow this route because that's not what the cited sources do. They all associate Turner with Friendly Fires. Paste magazine portrays Turner as "trumpet player and close friend who had performed with them for three years". Paste does not split hairs and remove Turner from the company of his touring colleagues. Paste names Turner to the 27 Club, an action which would satisfy the inclusion criteria for just about any article on Wikipedia. My own proposal for inclusion criteria is based purely on sources such as this, not statistics or wikilawyering. Binksternet (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

In this case, I'll do you one better: I discovered that Richard Turner (musician) has his own Wikipedia page and therefore meets the individual notability criterion. Goffman82 21:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Orish Grinstead

Orish Grinstead, founding member of the R&B group 702, was removed by Goffman82 with the edit summary, "Source is not reliable — it's a content farm. Source also appears to use Wikipedia as a source for its list (WP:CIRCULAR)." The source, historicmysteries.com, is trashy and CIRCULAR. The singer died of natural causes. However, Dig! listed her as a member of the 27 Club. Dig!, with the website www.thisisdig.com, is a social news platform creating original material for Warner Music Group,[4] and the specific 27 Club article was written by staff writer Michael Cranston who has interviewed artists and published in-depth pieces about important musical culture. Definitely a usable source for keeping Grinstead. Binksternet (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Dig's list of 27 Club musicians was published in March 2022 and is a direct mirror of Wikipedia's own 27 Club list, minus the non-musicians. Grinstead is on their list because she was already on our list. It's circular. Goffman82 21:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
If, as you say, Dig! copied Wikipedia and then applied editorial oversight by removing some entries, the result is certainly not a "mirror". In your scenario, their piece is considered reliable because they put thought into it. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Benjamin Keough

Benjamin Keough, Elvis Presley's grandson, was removed by Goffman82 with the edit summary, "He was not a notable person or member of a notable ensemble, as per inclusion criteria for this list. Source does not explicitly claim he is a member of 27 Club. Source reliability is questionable." I don't think the source, celebrity gossip magazine In Touch Weekly, is unreliable for the task of placing a cultural label on someone famous. It's not like they could get such a label "wrong"—it's purely a matter of opinion. But they hem and haw about the issue, asking their readers whether Keough would count as a member of the 27 Club. Looking elsewhere, Keough is explicitly placed in the 27 Club by Canyon News[5] and Far Out Magazine.[6] That settles that. Binksternet (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue with Keough is that he's not a member of a notable band, nor a notable person himself. He's the grandson of a notable musician, which doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. Goffman82 21:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
By "our" inclusion criteria you must mean "your" inclusion criteria. By my standards, this article should list a garbage collector if the literature consistently does. For Keough, the two mainstream publications cement his position. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I am referring to the #Consensus inclusion criteria that I re-stated above. Benjamin Keough and your proverbial garbage collector don't meet requirement #1: be a notable person (WP:NBIO) or member of a notable band (WP:MUSICBIO). He would be the only entry on the list not to do so. Can other editors weigh in here as to whether or not I accurately described the consensus? This really needs to be spelled out explicitly. Goffman82 22:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
My understanding of the consensus of previous discussions about inclusion criteria for the list in this article is that the person does not have to be notable, but they do have to be mentioned as a member of 27 Club by a reliable reference. With that being said, it's interesting that Benjamin Keough is the only person now in the list who does not have their own Wikipedia article and (or?) was not a member of a band that has its own Wikipedia article. Food for thought, perhaps. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Goffman82, you keep linking to some kind of discussion where you think a consensus was formed. You are misleading people. There have been inclusion criteria discussions in the past, with no clear consensus. One was started in 2011 but never formally closed out with a solid conclusion. Another one was whether a second list should be merged, which it was. Not relevant. The third was a 2013 discussion that went nowhere, and was not formally closed. So what we have at this page is only the force of a decade of practice, which is not what you think it is. The most basic element of the practice has been that reliable sources are required saying explicitly that the person was in the 27 Club. Binksternet (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Additional opinions

It seems to me that Binksternet has shown, quite thoroughly, why these five entries should be kept. (Optionally, those several additional citations could be added to the list.) — Mudwater (Talk) 10:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

REALLY dodgy article

I think the article should make clear in the introduction that the existence of a "27 club" screams of selection bias. No rigorous scientific testing supports it, and the name, and history seems to indicate selection bias. Whenever another superstar dies at 27 (despite the number of stars dying at other ages), the media goes in frenzy about this stupid unscientific "club". Also, why is this article protected? Is it even important? 2A02:3032:A:6124:1:2:5C79:5AC3 (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source that discusses selection and/or confirmation bias in reference to the 27 Club, that could make a good addition to the article, perhaps under the scientific studies section. Actually, a quick google search turned up two, one of which is one of the already-cited scientific studies. [7] [8] Goffman82 01:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Alan Wilson

Autopsy and coroner’s report state accidental. There’s no evidence that it was a suicide. The story the manager tells that he found him and it was a suicide-is not true. He did have depression but there’s no real evidence that ge tried to commit suicide. Those are from band members who by all accounts had an axe to grind. 70.160.50.234 (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you're right. I'll update the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 17:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Jade Goody

The Birmingham Mail article doesn't say Jade had become a member of the 27 Club, it merely speculates that "the fact that she died at 27 will start tongues wagging again about the curse that stalks young celebrities at that tender age."

This doesn't seem to fit the criteria for inclusion in the list Rubsley (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Good point. It's the same problem as one of the past sources, InTouch Weekly saying "Is Benjamin Keough the latest member of the 27 Club?" It's not an explicit statement of fact. Keough is covered by two other sources.
However, The Scotsman gets explicit, listing Goody as a member of the 27 Club.[9] The BBC's piece[10] isn't quite so explicit, merely listing Goody as dying at 27, in association with others who are certainly members of the 27 Club. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Mentioning it in those terms, clearly alluding to the "club" while not directly using the name "27 club" seems fine to me. The name isn't universal and fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion/addition to the songs/lyrics category

Rex Orange County has a lyric in his song, Uno, referencing the 27 club, after wondering what happens to us when we pass on. The lyric is: "And every now and then I think about the fact that I'd become a legend if I died at 27."

Proof: https://genius.com/11008763 Honeyglazedhearts (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Li Tobler (suggestion for addition)

Li Tobler was the first wife of Hans Rudi Giger, internationally famous swiss artist. She was an artist as well and she has been depicted in 2 of Giger's most famous paintings. Li committed suicide at 27. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Tobler 82.61.185.205 (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

She must be explicitly named as part of the 27 Club in a published source such as book, magazine, etc. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Evangelina Sobredo Galanes

From slate.fr, it appears that Evangelina Sobredo Galanes also named Cecilia died at 27. She was a feminist and against Franco, and died in car accident. Xav06 (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

She is already in the list, listed as Cecilia.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2022

Add South Korean Actress, Yoo Joo Eun to the list of passed artists. Her birthday is May 3rd, 1995. She passed away on August 29, 2022. She was 27 years old. HoneyCider (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Here's one. It's in Indonesian. According to Google Translate, it says, "The death of Yoo Joo Eun at the age of 27 added to the list of celebrities on the Club 27 list. Club 27 is a term that refers to the large number of musicians and celebrities who died at the age of 27." — Mudwater (Talk) 16:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
That works. Good find! Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 Done, here. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2022

Change 'Pigman' to 'Pigpen' 77.99.147.84 (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I'm not sure where pigman came from, but the common name definitely appears to be pigpen.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Club 27.

One Czech youtuber also did a song about that. The song is called club 27 46.135.8.243 (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

If the song is discussed in the media then we can mention it. Binksternet (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Why is the default sort by birth date?

The table of "members" is set up to sort by birth date, but I fail to understand what purpose this serves. As the list grows, it becomes increasingly more difficult to find someone. Most readers, especially those newer to Wikipedia, aren't likely to know they can re-sort the list, so instead they'll have to glance over the entire table to find those of interest.

I'd like to propose changing the default sort to alphabetical by last name and am willing to take on the task if others agree. Anyone interested in seeing the list chronologically or by any other sort can use the re-sort option in the appropriate column, though I believe such readers would be in the minority.

Thanks for considering the possibility. Allreet (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's better the way it is, sorted by date to present a chronological list. Clicking the Name column header to get last name order is easy enough. Not every reader will be aware of that, but the same readers also wouldn't know that you can click on a date column header to re-sort either. Also, if they want to find someone in the list, they can use their browser's "find" function. — Mudwater (Talk) 16:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree that chronological is a better default, since the topic pertains to the history and timing of events, esp. the cluster of notable musician deaths in late 60s, early 70s. Goffman82 00:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Since the reader can sort the list several ways, it doesn't really matter how it is sorted by default. Only if the default was somehow wrong or biased would we change it. Slight inconvenience to the reader isn't enough to change it. Binksternet (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

+1: José. Carlos Schwarz

From Guinea Bissau. Musician and Poet. Basine (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

What I meant is José Carlos Schwarz Why is there no possibility of text control BEFORE "publish"?! Basine (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Dakota Skye is missing

Dakota Skye is missing in the list. She was a big star and actor. 2001:464E:9406:0:10D6:3A5D:3B35:64D8 (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

What's lacking in this case is that none of the WP:Reliable sources have connected her with the 27 Club. Dying at 27 is not enough. Binksternet (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Masaccio

Masaccio, a painter from the Renaissance, also died age 27. 188.218.121.179 (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read the answer on the thread just above. Carptrash (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2022

Thuy trang who played trini in mighty morphin power rangers was 27 when she died in 2001 from a car accident 2601:843:4101:3430:DC73:455C:22FA:EEA3 (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. see above Cannolis (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Nicole Bogner needs to be added to the list

https://loudwire.com/nicole-bogner-death-2012/ 41.90.67.10 (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Do any sources refer to her as a member of the "27 club"? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Not that I can see. Only unreliable sources such as "27 Club Watch"...  — Amakuru (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I want to add an edit

Brian Jones Death Brian Jones Death: It was rumored that a man named Thorogood killed Jones over money. Allegedly, Jones paid him $18,000 for the work he did for him on his property, but insisted on a much higher payment of $24,000. However, this myth was debunked later on, mainly due to the coroners report that clearly showed that it was not a murder. Another reason was because of a review of the case done by the Sussex Police department. This was opened due to some evidence that came in from someone with no relation to the case named Scott Jones. He was an investigative journalist who discovered that there were more people there the night of the death. According to the Sussex police department's thorough review the original verdict was not proven to be incorrect.

Kurt Cobain’s Death: Kurt Cobain was found dead in his house on April 8th of the year 1994. He was found by his electrician Gary Smith, who was there to install a new home security system. He found him with a shotgun pointing at his chin and blood coming out of his ear. There were high amounts of drugs including heroin and diazepam in his system, along with a suicide note. The corner ruled his death a suicide. The myth is that foul play was involved in his death due to the fact that the body was found three days after the death occurred. The main suspect of this myth is his wife Courtney Love. The rumors about foul play are so notorious that the Seattle Police Department still receives weekly requests to reopen the case. However, any myths were debunked due to the vast amount of existing evidence including the coroners report that show that his death was indeed a suicide. In fact, the murder theory was publically dismissed by detective Mike Ceiszynski after the case was reviewed by the Seattle police Department.

(I want to add these into the "History" section under the first paragraph. I think it is important to add a couple of examples of the specific myths on deaths in the 27's Club, and how they have been debunked.) AmandaMisch0 (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with the "27 club"? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2022

Thuy Trang died September 3rd 2001 in a car accident after not wearing a seatbelt. She was the yellow ranger. Just requesting that you add her to the list 2600:8805:3B09:5100:A5:ADBE:D5EE:3F74 (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RealAspects (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Jacob Miller

I think reggae musician Jacob Miller should be included in the 27 club list Mario Dicarlo1969 (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

To get someone in the Club you need to provide an acceptable source saying that he is a member. We don't just get to decide who belongs and who does not. Carptrash (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2022

Add Sahara Davenport to 27 club page.

Link to her Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Davenport Itskylogre (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lemonaka (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Keenan Cahill, Famous Youtuber and Online Personality, Dead at 27

Born on an unknown day in 1995 in Chicago, Illinois, The American youtuber gained notoriety in 2010 due to his instantly viral video of him Lipsyncing the lyrics to popstar Katy Perry’s hit song “Teenage Dream” he continued to build his fame, notoriety and popularity throughout the 2010s and by the time of his death on December 29th 2022 he had amassed over 750 Thousand Subscribers and 465 Million Views. 2601:1C0:CB01:7470:2086:3F33:F2C0:D5E8 (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Really?

Keenan Cahill really made this list? Really? 2601:155:8480:2B20:7E:A756:8E4C:1DED (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Sahara Davenport???!

Why was Sahara Davenport removed from the list of 27 Club members? She was on the list a couple months ago and is missing now… please put her back on the list! 75.73.240.234 (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that specifically states she is considered a club member? - FlightTime (open channel) 18:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I have been questioned as to the Sahara Davenport removal from this list and I guess you guys don’t consider yourselves a reliable source because SHE WAS ON THIS LIST as early as two months ago. Considering the fact that you question so closely when anyone asks that someone new be added, my assumption would be that you did your research before adding Sahara. I would request respectfully because of the fact that you had her on this list in the past that she be put back on the list as an honored member of the 27 club. She deserves it. She qualifies. And it comes across as very homophobic to not include her in your list. you guys decided to have her as a part of your list of the 27 club and she should remain as such. I’m not sure what the reason was or the justification for removing her from the list in the first place as you did your research you included her and now magically she’s gone. Does not sit well with me, nor will it with the LGBTQ plus community. It seems only fair that if you decide to put someone on this list as a member of the 27 club that you stand by your decision to put them as a member of the 27 club. 75.73.240.234 (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Please review WP:ONUS. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 23:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Olga the Walrus

Olga the Walrus from the Brookfield Zoo died at age 27, and her death was notable enough that it was covered in national media such as this AP article. https://apnews.com/article/bcf36ac33b1b43c46271f590695e0b96 Larrybob (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

LOL. First off, this article is about humans. Second, the sources MUST say that the death is part of the "27 Club". If the club isn't mentioned in the source, then you don't have an entry here. Binksternet (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

This is from an article called “members that forged the 27 club” there are a couple people on this list that Wikipedia does not have and would also bring back Sahara Davenport. Please consider 75.73.240.234 (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Can you provide a link to the article? — Mudwater (Talk) 11:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:27_Club/Archive_8&oldid=1150261353"