Talk:Suicide of Ronnie McNutt

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 25 March 2022, see discussion.
delete, 26 February 2022, see discussion.

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Death: Suicide Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Suicide task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Mississippi Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Mississippi portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi (assessed as Low-importance).

On 19 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Ronnie McNutt. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Change article name

I think the name of this article should be renamed to "Suicide of Ronnie McNutt". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.48.48 (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; if I remember correctly, the usage of "Death of [x]" articles is primarliy reserved for well-known persons.

Proposal: Change this article's name to simply "Ronnie McNutt." Rabbithawk256 (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

same it feels so disrespectful to have the only wikipage about him about his suicide KinnieOnWiki (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should rename the article to "Ronnie Mcnutt" and make his death one of the sections of the article, the article already has his biography and {{Infobox person}}. 47.152.2.183 (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we upload an image of him?

So why can't we upload any images of Ronnie? Since some of his photos aren't copyrighted, wouldn't it make sense to use them? Kyler0924 (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His name is Ronald Merle Ronnie McNutt not Ronald Merle mcnutt

His name is Ronald Merle Ronnie McNutt not Ronald Merle mcnutt I'm correct Roniedemon20012 (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for adding that. From WP:NICKNAME: "Avoid (for example) adding a nickname, or a contracted version of the original given name(s)". If we're going to stray from that advice, you'll need a better source than "I'm correct". _signed,Willondon (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ronnie is just his nickname dude 32.141.93.114 (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overly descriptive?

I was just wondering, maybe the description of his method of suicide shouldn't mention that "The shot blew his face..." and so on? It strikes me as too graphic of a depiction, or in any case one that's fueled only by morbid curiosity without necessarily adding a whole lot to the article. I get that the shocking nature of the act had repercussions because of the livestream, but it's not the point of the article how he went about it, is it? NicoSkater97 (let's talk!) 20:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Second Skin:, would you care to comment as the one who added such wording? --Pokelova (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What would you rather the video 146.71.0.16 (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Even if the information it conveys stays, using less visceral wording would definitely be an improvement in my eyes. Even if it means the same thing, more precise and less imagery-evoking phrasing would be an improvement. NexusXe (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Input for Article Name Change

I think it would be more respectful to change the name of this article to simply “Ronnie McNutt.” The title now only legitimizes his horrific death and doesn’t give proper insight into the person he actually was. Keeping the title as it stands is, in my opinion, just feeding into shock culture, and it would be more mature to simply list his name. Taco098541 (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He was not notable as a person, only for his suicide. Read WP:DEATHS for more information. --Pokelova (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we include other examples?

How are the suicides of others even relevant to the suicide of Ronnie? I think the whole section should just be removed entirely. 69.74.33.158 (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support that. Partly because it's been used too broadly with items that are a weak match: not broadcast live, not intentional suicide, not self-videoed; some might argue with not death by gunshot. In any case, they don't seem relevant to McNutt's situation. My two cents. _signed,Willondon (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For a reader seeking information on this topic, the only pertinent information I see the list adding is that sensational though the incident is, it is not unique. I've decided to be bold and get rid of it. _signed,Willondon (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent deployment of WP:BEBOLD. Zero added value from such lists. Oblivy (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually another editor was bold [1] on April 14; I was merely emboldened, especially as that edit stood for two weeks without complaint. Hopefully our few comments here establish a consensus that the list is not useful here. _signed,Willondon (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I see that now. One never knows around here, but the fact it was discussed here and then reverted does seem to put the onus on the other editor to use the talk page before restoring the list. Oblivy (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a small "see also" section with a few links is fine, but a detailed "similar incidents" section isn't wizzito | say hello! 15:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can we combat vandalism

There has been a lot recently Coltoncomp (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Error location: Life and careers part "...at a Toyota plant. He [had had] a variety..."

Mistake: [had had]

Correction: [had] Error404pleaseretry (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we protect this page?

This poor page has suffered through a lot of vandalism, can you protect it? 2601:83:4280:A9E0:7032:23ED:739D:2B85 (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Hilst [talk] 00:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Ronnie McNutt → Ronnie McNutt – Article is more of a biography about him than about his suicide, so it would make sense to simply name it after him. MountainDew20 (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent for this being done before is the article for Daniel V. Jones. MountainDew20 (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support due to the precedent of the aforementioned Daniel V. Jones as well as Michael Fagan (formerly called Michael Fagan incident.) ZionniThePeruser (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the article seems more or less to be an event article, about the death and subsequent sharing of his death video. While his biography section is briefly mentioned, the rest of the article fits with the title, as that is what the sources all focused on. Awshort (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Awshort. McNutt isn't really notable outside of his death, and the article is predominantly about that. — Amakuru (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

it was NOT a misfire

the article states time and time again that it was a misfire of his rifle. which is inherently false. he placed it under his chin and said "i guess that's it" obviously his suicide was intentional. please look up what misfire means before using it in an article. 208.77.8.53 (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article says ONCE that he misfired; apparently he misfired once. Please read more carefully. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He misfired before he shot himself. Please do your own research. Swatf (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the video and find out yourself blud 146.71.0.16 (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

{{subst:trim|1=

Im going to add a few more quotes to some of the Citation needed parts to make it read and flow better.

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. Jamedeus (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone refutation invalid

Followed the Rolling Stone link in the Life and Career section. They offer no source, and his family stated his job was one of millions lost during Covid. The Rolling Stones link is unnecessary, because their source appears to be, "Trust me, bro." 2600:100C:B20D:3DF8:74F0:6DC4:518C:467D (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove reference No. 1 as it shows the graphic and gory death of Ronnie McNutt for pure shock value. This IS incredibly disrespectful and traumatising. It is purely to shock viewers for some sick joke. Naitanui (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.

Done _signed,Willondon (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the prior consensus about this article is in primarily regarding his suicide, and the video of which its spread throughout social media garnered controversy & impacted changes to contemporary, & future content moderation standards of said social media as a result, I initially suggested the implementation of the primary source, this [image], of which the title, and purpose of the article owes its existence to. It appears the user Willondon (talk) keeps on reverting it upon suggestion by user Naitanui (talk), citing that he views it as 'disrespectful' or 'sensationalism', despite ironically, the sensationalism and international controversy resulting from its viral spread is the sole reason for the purpose of existence of this entire Wikipedia article to begin with.

Given the context I believe it is actually user Naitanui and Willondon's personal opinion that they disagrees with this selection as the article header images, solely on the basis that they not personally like it/finds it off-putting in which case I'd agree, however the established policy is that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. "I don't personally like it" is generally frowned upon as a reason for any additions, subtractions or modifications for any article pertaining to real-life subjects, if not outright forbidden via previous consensus for some. I'm yet to find any actual objective reason provided by user Willondon as to why this image should not be the used as the header. After all, the sole purpose of this article's title is in regards to that video, its spread, controversy and impact on the wider internet that it caused. This article is titled "Suicide of Ronnie McNutt", and not simply just [a biographical article of] "Ronnie McNutt".

See: My Lai Massacre and Nanjing Massacre regarding established precedence for controversial graphic header-imagery as reference for article subjects. HanyNAR (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is that it doesn't illustrate what the article is about. The article is not so much about the suicide or its details, as the fact that it was broadcast live, it was disseminated widely on social media platforms, the public reaction, and the response from the platform managers. None of that is illustrated by the video. It has virtually no educational value; it's value is sensational. Nothing wrong with that; the source (seegore) caters to that want, but that's not what Wikipedia is meant to provide. And claiming censorship is a weak argument. Things that might be removed because of censorship, can be removed for other reasons that have nothing to do with censorship. Consider an article Male nudity in fine art, and next to Michelangelo's David and Marathon Boy, someone adds a picture of graffiti featuring a crude outline of a cock. I would remove it because it doesn't illustrate anything in the article; not because Wikipedia censors pictures of willies. Bottom line, it does nothing to illustrate the topic, and its only value is in eliciting a visceral response, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. _signed,Willondon (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]