Talk:Bon Scott

Nationality, Australian vs Scottish vs Scottish Born

Nationality discussions

If you're here to dispute the nationality of AC/DC, Angus, Malcolm, Stevie or George, please understand this, This topic has been discussed countless times here and at Angus Young or brother's Malcolm Young, Stevie Young or George Young articles. All brothers were born in Glasgow, Scotland. In 1963 they moved to Sydney, Australia. AC/DC was officially formed in 1973 in Australia. The consensus discussions (listed below) and the Wikipedia community have concluded that Angus Young, Malcolm. Stevie and AC/DC will be listed as Australian. Any changes to this fact will be promptly removed. List of nationality discussions Angus's discussions Angus Young -- Scottish-Australian versus Australian Australian Angus, Malcolm George young Scottish born Austrialian musicians v just Austrialian musicians Malcolm's discussions Australian versus Scottish-Australian - Malcolm Young Nationality AC/DC discussions An Australian rock band??? AC/DC plain and simple ACDC and Scotland ACDC is a Kiwi/British/Australian Band Possible Mistakes There are too many to list here, feel free to review other discussions at AC/DC Archive index

Death section

Too long, too many huge chunks lifted from Fink's book. Needs summarising. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am the person who added some stuff just yesterday in an attempt to add some balance to a section hijacked by a conspiracy theory and immediately it's been amended again and turned into an even worse circus of tit-for-tat argument that is a travesty to both Bon Scott and Wiki and in good time enough I will return to it and try to get some balance back into it again. Wiki needs a mediator to sort this out Veracitiesplus (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

No, respectfully, you've replaced it with a biased word salad. You might disagree with Fink's analysis and conclusion but he has gone to the people who were there and published their quotes in his book. Did Walker speak to these people? Can you clarify? Bretonbanquet, I agree the Death section is long but this is obviously an important topic.

Veracitiesplus, you haven't made proper attributions to published sources. You have written statements such as “painting a vivid picture of the somewhat dissolute lifestyle Scott led on the edges of the London smack scene – but it was emphatic that while Scott was an alcoholic, he was not a co-dependent heroin user” and “but Chapman and Way, now both dead, were unreliable witnesses as memory-depleted heroin addicts, and they changed their story on numerous occasions over the years since first telling Mark Putterford in the early Nineties that they understandably couldn’t remember the night in question.”

This is your analysis. According to whom? Who says they’re unreliable? When did those stories change and how? What year or years did this take place? In the first edit you made you said they told their stories to Paul Stenning. Now in the second edit you made it’s Mark Putterford. Where? When? Add detail.

You also write glibly “the accounts of the eyewitnesses that make up the generally accepted version of events”. Again, who are they, how are the "generally accepted"? You then elect to delete the accounts of Zena and Koala Kakoulli, as well as the admission by Perrett and what he thought happened to Scott. Why? They are relevant to the topic: Scott's death. These are rightfully reinstated.

Also you cannot describe people as “music smack personages". Iris Foxglove (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Correction: Koulla. Was autocorrected. Iris Foxglove (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

sorry Iris Foxglove but yr whole position is just so wrong-headed. I put in a correction that is a neutral summarised explication as Wiki requires, and now it's reverted back to almost a dramatic account that is incoherent and inconsistent within itself but worst of all paying lip service to a conspiracy theory. All my attributions and citations are in place, and internal logic answers yr questions. It's a failure of comprehension. Yes Jesse Fink spoke to some people Walker didn't, the Kakoulkis et al but they all said, No, never actually saw Scott taking heroin, but he might have. Speculation, opinion. the UFO guys unreliable witness as this account says because they were junkies and, umm, junkies are not known for their powers of recall are they? this account describes in itself how they changed their stories. Failure of comprehension. Stunning was a mistake, it was Puttterford and that was corrected. I'm not going to remain doing this tit for tat argument but will be seeking advice from some sort of higher up at Wiki if such a thing exists Veracitiesplus (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't a "neutral summarised explication". You've called it yourself a "conspiracy theory", multiple times. You dismiss accounts from people because they are or were "junkies". Does that mean anyone who has ever used heroin or other drugs cannot be quoted in Wikipedia? What about Keith Richards? What about Nikki Sixx? Do we apply a blanket ban on quotes on people who have used drugs in the past? Who makes the determination that they're reliable or not? You? You might not subscribe to the idea Scott had anything to do with heroin, but Fink presents accounts from three people who were there that night who believe he used heroin and that is why he died. That is highly relevant to the topic: Scott's death. Your edit was poorly referenced – the statement "Walker’s updated 2023 book portrays Scott as moving in drug-heavy circles, but the author maintains that he was not in a co-dependent relationship with either heroin or any of his friends who used the drug; and also maintains there is no hard evidence of a heroin overdose" - is still in the text and there is no citation. A citation is needed. What is new in Walker's update? Has he investigated Scott's death? The edit as it stands is neutral. Iris Foxglove (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I cite's Walker's position that Bon had occasionally taken heroin but wasn't a user. The UFO guys CHANGED their story over the years. The other people Fink spoke all said they didn't actually see Bon take any heroin. He COULD have, MIGHT have, but that's not the same as doing it. The coroner found no drugs. so where is the hard evidence? But I can't keep arguing this. Just take a look at the note from wiki itself now at the top of the page, this style of entry is wrong and the info is misleading Veracitiesplus (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Once again, you have not provided detail for how Paul Chapman and Pete Way "changed" their stories and what consequence that is to the substance of the topic: Scott's death. Fink's book addresses their recollections but that does not need to be reproduced here. The section is already lengthy enough, as Bretonbanquet rightly points out. You keep mentioning Walker but what in the new edition is actually new information regarding Scott's death? You speak of balance yet omitted all mention of the information in Fink's book. That is not balance. It is vandalism. Walker's book is referenced in the Death section and you are more than welcome to add relevant information - not your opinion. Still awaiting proper citations. Iris Foxglove (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The tag for over-quotation has been removed, but I'm not convinced the issue has been resolved. We have two entire paragraphs of full quotation from Fink questioning the findings of the coroner, which he is in absolutely no position to do. He's neither qualified in pathology nor the processes and procedures of a coroner. This is the absolute definition of WP:UNDUE. He has an opinion as a medically unqualified journalist, but quoting vast chunks of it is not balanced. The quotes from the Kakoullis are far too long, speculative, and could easily be condensed into reported speech, as could the quoted to-and-fro between Fink and Chapman. The question of whether or not a selection of heroin-users are reliable witnesses is another matter, but I would err on the side of caution when handling their statements, just as a judge/jury would do in a court of law. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I have asked the previous poster multiple times to quote relevant passages. I'm quite happy to remove those quotes from Fink re the coroner but in fairness I think Fink has done the most investigation of any author into this particular subject and thus he is highly qualified as a journalist and published author on the subject to have his reservations about the coroner's report recorded. He asks legitimate questions of the process when the previous poster casts the coroner's findings as the end of the matter. How do we know what was tested for in such a short timeframe? Stenning made the same observation. Fink's book notes that there is a incorrect address given for Scott on his own death certificate. How much stock can you place in a death certificate that has such a glaring and unusual error? You cannot downplay the fact that Fink has produced two eyewitnesses – the Kakoullis – that were not interviewed by police or called to give evidence at the inquest. The quotation about Perrett admitting he was there is also a big revelation. Fink's investigation is not recorded as absolute fact. It is presenting new information and it is by any fair measure compelling, which is why his book has been controversial. Iris Foxglove (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Fink has done a lot of investigation into Scott's life and death, and his (and Stenning's) reservations about the coroner's report are absolutely valid, but in Wikipedia terms, not valid enough to warrant reproducing long quotes. There may be multiple reasons why the post-mortem process took place as it did, which Fink may not be aware of. The address provided by the coroner would've very likely been the last address Scott gave to the relevant authorities, so it's not necessarily even an error on their part, particularly as Scott did not die at his home. No investigation seems to have been made as to why neither the Kakoullis not Decherf were called as witnesses – did they even make their existence known to the police at the time? How would the police or any other officials even know those guys were present that night? Or did they just pop up decades later? There's a reason why this stuff only came out when Fink investigated it. I see a bunch of people making statements, sometimes contradictory ones, about things they think might have happened. Fink ties it up in a somewhat sensationalist way, and his main aim is to sell books. I'm not saying everything Fink says is crap, but the pinch of salt you need to take with this stuff is pretty big. In an official sense, the coroner's findings are the end of the matter, and long passages of speculation contradicting them, albeit from a published author, do not constitute much of a balance. The article looks better, but could still use a bit more trimming. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

With respect, "The address provided by the coroner would've very likely been the last address Scott gave to the relevant authorities, so it's not necessarily even an error on their part, particularly as Scott did not die at his home." That is an assumption you are making. The address didn't exist. It was a made up address. Fink's book makes it clear why the police didn't find the Kakoullis and Perrett. They didn't ask. Any police investigation was quick and perfunctory. They went with the Kinnear was alone story, which has been thoroughly debunked by the investigation Fink conducted, which is why it is in the article. Again, I'm somewhat surprised you say "Fink ties it up in a somewhat sensationalist way, and his main aim is to sell books". That is a highly non-neutral statement. How do you know that? You're stating a personal opinion and making an assumption about his motives. Have you heard Fink say that selling books was his motivation? The Death section presents the conventional story and it presents the counter story, making no statements either way about what is correct. Iris Foxglove (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, the person who said, "Bon had a lot to drink that night. And I would be very surprised if he too [like Alistair] didn’t take a lot of drugs that evening, mainly heroin. I don’t wanna upset anybody this late in the game. End of the day it was a tragic accident. But [speaking] as an ex-junkie, Bon looked stoned." was not named in my edition of Fink's book. I am assuming Koulla Kakoulli was named as the originator of that quote in a later edition? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

She was revealed by Fink in the 2022 edition as being the person behind the quote. See page xxii: "Koulla Kakoulli, who was working as a dominatrix in Brighton, England, when we spoke, had asked me to disguise one of her quotes about heroin in the original edition of the book." She died in 2018. The following page reads: "Now that she is dead (the coroner recorded an open verdict on her cause of death, various drugs being found in her system when her body was discovered in her home 'dungeon'), I no longer have to protect Koulla. Which, of course, begs the question: Who was she trying to avoid upsetting?" Iris Foxglove (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Obviously it's an assumption on my part that it was the last address given to the authorities because that's how these things work. It's either ID found on the person, or local government records, tax records etc. You're suggesting the possibility exists that the official coroner had the correct address but instead made up a fictional address and put it on a death certificate. That's tinfoil hat stuff. Regarding the police, you say "they didn't ask". Who didn't ask whom? The police didn't ask the Kakoullis? How would they have known who to ask? They would've spoken to Kinnear, and if Kinnear had not offered anyone else's name, then that's that. Did the Kakoullis come forward? The police don't even have to investigate unless there's a suspicion a crime had been committed. There was no suspicion of foul play, e.g. murder, so the police don't take it any further. Why would they? To determine if drugs had been involved and figure out where they came from? That's not their job, beyond recording if any drugs were present on the body or in the car. The coroner deals with cause of death. Yes, it's my opinion that Fink's aim is to sell books – that's the aim of all authors. Of course he wouldn't admit it if that were the case. It's also my opinion that he writes in a sensationalist way. I'm a writer myself, and I think his style is sensationalist. I like his stuff but he makes a lot out of very little. As it stands, the death section presents the official line, and Fink's theory, which doesn't really contain any facts: it's just a theory held together by half-remembered memories and speculations recalled decades after the events. Of course his findings are relevant and should be in the article, but I believe there's too much of it. Like the lyrics controversy, which was Fink's theory based on the ideas of people who weren't there at the time. I'm just saying Wikipedia, as a supposed encyclopedia, should reflect that. Trying to prove Scott's heroin use is futile, possibly disrespectful and ultimately not that important – just say some people believe he did use, and leave it there. We dont need paragraphs of it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

"You're suggesting the possibility exists that the official coroner had the correct address but instead made up a fictional address and put it on a death certificate. That's tinfoil hat stuff." When did I suggest that? I said there was an incorrect address. How have you inferred that? The police didn't do nearly enough investigation to establish there were multiple people with Scott in East Dulwich. That is evident and the point made in the book; and it's a more than fair point. You might regard Fink as "sensationalist" (what is the definition of this?) but that isn't really relevant. I strongly disagree with your concluding statement. Three people who were there have gone on the record to say they believed Scott took heroin the night he died. They say they were there with him. Who are you to dispute this is factual? There was no one else there other than Kinnear, who is dead. The relevant part is the fact Fink has found new information that calls into question the entire narrative around Scott's death. That should be incorporated and retained and not removed at the whim of people who dislike the content or conclusions of Fink's book. Iris Foxglove (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

So, if not that, what actually is being inferred by the incorrect address? I'm suggesting it was an error prompted by the information they were given, which is not particularly contentious. So what's the relevance of the incorrect address? Why should the police have suspected there were more people in the house at the time? From a police point of view, why would it have mattered? If those people had been there the following morning/afternoon, why didn't they stick around to tell the police what they knew? If they knew Scott was dead, why did they leave (which would've been a criminal offence)? If they didn't know he was dead, they sure as hell did later, so why not come forward? Did Fink ask them? Why is it a police failure, as Fink infers, and not a failure on their part? Of the three people who believed Scott took heroin, how many actually saw it? A belief is not a fact, it's speculation. From the wording, I can't tell if Perrett saw Scott taking heroin or not. It's factual that they say they were there, but that's not an important fact here, it's just peripheral. Fink casts doubt on the "official line" but presents little to actually disprove it. He just believes there's more to it. The official story quite possibly doesn't include any reference to heroin for the exact reason that Fink has found – it couldn't and can't be proven. If the Youngs suspected heroin abuse, they likely didn't mention it to protect Scott's dignity and his family. So how much relevance does it really have? Mention it, outline what Fink says and leave it at that. It doesn't need all that detail. I don't think anyone wants to remove Fink's theory altogether, but it needs to be proportionate. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

At least there's one person here talking common sense, maybe two. Have the likes of Foxglove checked the Death sections in the entries on, say, Hendrix or Jim Morrison, bc even as those deaths might always remain contentious their treatment is a model of succinctness. the UFO guys references I've just completely removed because it contradicts the more important testimony of the Kakouili clan, in other words, how could Scott have been with them when the Kakoulis confirm he's at the club? Any reference to the coroner removed too, since indeed this is tinfoil hat fodder, I mean the London coroner had no problem identifying the drugs in the bodies of New York Doll Billy Murcia and Keith Moon and Wings member Jimmy McCulloch only a year before, to suggest the coroner was incompetent or on the take is ludicrous. I've left in the Kakouli's take in the interests of so-called balance but also because they put their foot in their mouth. I mean, and I repeat, okay it seems they were there at the club and afterwards at Kinnear's flat, but they all assert THEY DIDN'T SEE BON TAKE ANY HEROIN. please! Veracitiesplus (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

How can Perrett and Kakoulli being there be a "peripheral" fact when the whole point of Alistair Kinnear's statement was that he was alone with Scott and couldn't carry him up to the flat by himself, so left him in the car overnight? Again, I strongly disagree with you. Did you read Fink's book? He sets out a very thorough case for why a false address might have been given and why Kinnear may have been used as the "fall guy" for what happened. Kinnear clearly wasn't alone and lied. Who was Leslie Loads? He presents a pretty convincing argument it was Perrett or Kakoulli. There could be multiple reasons for why Scott wasn't taken to the hospital at the first opportunity and I am of the view Fink's hypotheses are on the money. But my opinion, like yours, is immaterial. What's important is that the section on his Death presents pertinent information about what happened and what led to the demise of Scott. Retaining the quotes from the Kakoullis and Perrett does that. Iris Foxglove (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The fact that Kinnear's statement is full of holes is pertinent, obviously, but the minute details of why it's full of holes is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article, in my view. Especially as there are very very few actual facts to support any other version of events. Fink's book (and obviously I have read it) challenges Kinnear's story, rightly, but does not (and cannot) offer a concrete alternative version of events. There are too many contradictions and maybes, which is inevitable when dealing with a train of events on one night 44 years ago involving drug users, many of whom were very drunk, and at least some of whom probably had something to hide. Fink does a good job of handling the facts, such as they are, but everything else is guesswork, and does not belong here. It's perfectly valid in a book about Scott – all of it is – but we're not writing a book about Scott and we don't need that level of investigative and speculative detail. Regarding the the death certificate, Fink is just guessing why there's a false address on there, and then offering "possible explanations" like Kinnear being a fall guy, and casting doubt on the veracity of the certificate. He doesn't know why it's on there, and nor does anyone else. It's just theories. Who was Leslie Loads? Nobody knows. Did he exist at all? This is too much detail for this page.

All we should be doing is offering a summary of Fink's argument that Kinnear's story is full of holes, without getting bogged down in detail. The first quote from Zena Kakoulli is just superfluous: the prior text already explains that she said she was there, and Perrett was not. The second (too long) quote about not seeing Scott take heroin can be condensed into a couple of lines of reported speech, as could Koulla Kakoulli's quote. She should get a mention because she has her own Wikipedia page, and it adds good context. But the quote itself is not important. Then there's the bit from Decherf contradicting his wife's claim that Perrett was there after all. This really starts to make the whole quote from Zena Kakoulli look shaky, and the average reader's eyes will start to glaze over. It's all "he said, she said". We should also try and expand a little on what Walker says in his 2023 update (a third voice is really important here), but I don't have that book. Really, Fink's argument shouldn't take up too much more room than the "official story", because otherwise it looks like we're favouring one view over the other. Whatever we think as individuals, the page cannot reflect what we think – there has to be neutrality. We're rightly casting doubt on Kinnear's story by including Fink's argument, but we can't be seen to side with Fink; that's just not how things are done on Wikipedia. If possible, we could expand Kinnear's story a little, and then Fink's rebuttal of it would challenge it more succinctly, but that's probably as far as we can go. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree there has to be neutrality and that is why I have taken the time to stop this rampant hijacking of an important topic from someone who evidently dislikes Fink and brands any suggestion Scott used heroin as "conspiracy theory". Apart from anything else, that is wildly disrespectful to Fink himself. No one is siding with Fink but what I am seeing is a concerted attempt by one contributor to shut down and censor the story of Bon's death as told by Fink in Bon: The Last Highway. But my opinion doesn't matter. I don't think anyone's personal opinion of the validity of Fink's investigation really matters. What matters is what's on the record.

The conventional story is that Kinnear and Scott were alone together. We now know that is false because of what two other people have said on the record: Zena Kakoulli and Peter Perrett. What is important is that three people (Zena Kakoulli, Koulla Kakoulli and Peter Perrett) who saw Scott with their own eyes, who had used heroin themselves that night, believe he had used heroin. They have their own reasons for making that assessment, including visual assessment. If I were in a room with a marijuana user and marijuana was being smoked, and I looked at a person and thought, "He looks stoned" as opposed to being drunk, is my account invalid? Am I wrong? Do you expect me to call a doctor for confirmation? It's an eyewitness account of what I saw. And these accounts from the Kakoullis and Perrett are what they saw. A man died. They knew the heroin scene. Kinnear has been comprehensively contradicted by these people. I am not going to enumerate the other good points made in the book. Fink has upended the conventional story around Scott's death. There is a very substantial investigation into Scott's death in that book that is barely reflected here. I don't think anyone can argue Fink hasn't done that. It wouldn't have created such a stir if he hadn't. Iris Foxglove (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

We know the conventional story is very likely wrong, but there's a problem in that Perrett and his wife disagree on who was there with Kinnear. Either one of them is lying, or Kakoulli was so out of it that she actually forgot her husband was there, and that's a problem. They obviously can't both be right. It takes the shine off Fink's argument. I'm not saying the Kakoullis' and Perrett's opinion that Scott probably took heroin is not relevant; I am saying we don't need all the quotes. Reported speech will be fine. Also bear in mind that either Zena Kakoulli or Perrett appear to have lied about who was at Kinnear's house, so let's not push their testimonies too much. They'd be ripped to pieces in a court. Kinnear's story was always shaky – personally, I saw the holes in it when I first heard it about 25 years before Fink wrote his book. But I don't really see why Scott taking heroin makes that much difference. The point is that Kinnear's story is challenged by Fink's investigation, and that's what we put in the article, in fairly basic terms. Going down rabbit holes about who was where and who said what is probably not for this article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anything takes a shine off Fink's argument. He has never claimed to tie it all up with a nice ribbon. A group of people are saying different things but admit to being there. Someone is telling the truth. I'm not sure how you expect Fink to divine who that is, other than to report what he has been told. The Death section is fine as is, barring a citation for the generalised summary of the 2023 edition of Walker's book. Scott taking heroin very much makes a difference because he most likely died as a result and it would account for the conflicting stories and Koulla Kakoulli's original statement to Fink, where she said didn't want to upset anyone. The Death section presents those stories and makes no declaration of who was to blame, if any blame is to be apportioned. Iris Foxglove (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't expect Fink to tie it up nicely, no. I never said he should have, or could have, quite the contrary. It's a jumble, and reads like one. The death section is not fine as it is, and will not be staying as it is. It will at the very least be written properly. Scott taking heroin would make a difference if there was any proof of it, which there isn't. "Most likely" doesn't cut it here. This isn't a blog. If necessary, the admin who tagged this section can be invited back to exert a bit of control over it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)