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

Alternative account of what happened the night Bon Scott died

Discussion started to determine if this content is DUE for inclusion. Since the content has been disputed, per WP:ONUS - The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include the disputed content. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

"The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include the disputed content." No, the criteria for inclusion is legitimacy of the content. It is a published, reputable source. You have an editor clearly determined to simply remove the content, come hell or high water. I fail to see what the issue is for its inclusion. Yet you have retained the content saying Kinnear was alone with Scott the night he died when Fink has disproved that by literally producing an eyewitness who says she was there with Scott and Kinnear. So why is that not removed? Double standard editorially. OleanderJones (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

What User:Isaidnoway said above is true per Wikipedia:ONUS: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." So that does mean as you are the one seeking to include the disputed content you need to build consensus for it. GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeking to include it. It was already in the article! It should be restored after being arbitrarily removed. The editor has simply removed it on the basis of nebulous reasoning. Read the actual edit and the information contained in the section. OleanderJones (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

You keep re adding it into the article that is seeking to include it. To be restored consensus will need to be built here for it's inclusion. GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Its inclusion not it's. The article was perfectly balanced before a single editor decided to remove it on the basis of being "gibberish" without adequate explanation. Now it's just one-sided and conspicuous for what's not in it.

So let me get this straight: a whole section of relevant information on Scott's death that was in an article about Scott's death can be arbitrarily removed by a single editor, despite that information being on the record testimony from people who were actually with Scott the night he died and were never spoken to by the coroner?

Have you read the information that has been cut or not? If so, explain why it is omitted. I'm genuinely curious what the rationale is. Fink established there were multiple individuals with Scott when he died, yet the extant edit only mentions Kinnear being there. He got quotes from the two Kakoulli sisters who saw Scott themselves. He established that Kinnear told a friend that Scott had used heroin. That is an account from someone who spoke directly to Kinnear. How is that not relevant to the topic of the death of a man who was in their company when he died? OleanderJones (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I have read the information that was cut but(and maybe I should have stated this from the start) I was just making a point about onus since you seemed to dispute the onus comment above and made a point on consensus I don't know why the info was omitted beyond what the editors put in their summaries. GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

"I don't know why the info was omitted beyond what the editors put in their summaries." One editor. So if you see no good reason why it was omitted and I don't, why is it not restored? OleanderJones (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

It’s not restored as there is still no consensus for it multiple other editors disagreed with it and so far only you want it restored. GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I also share the concerns of Stadt67. The main problem is that the content you added made up the majority of the Death section by a ratio of 2 to 1, making it UNDUE. The content you added also makes it appear that Fink's alternative theories are the prevailing viewpoint about Scott's death, when they are not. In addition, you rely too much on the books as sources for the claims, when there also needs to be independent secondary sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@OleanderJones I have told you MANY times in my edit summary why it's conclusion is abitrary and nonsense.

Here's a breakdown:

WP:NOR and WP:V: Much of the added content relies on speculative claims about Bon Scott’s cause of death, particularly the assertion of a heroin overdose. For example, Zena Kakoulli’s statement, “I didn’t see him taking heroin, but… I would think it probable,” and Koulla Kakoulli’s claim that she "would be very surprised if he didn’t take a lot of drugs" are speculative and lack direct evidence. Similarly, Liz Elliot’s account in Bon: Notes from the Highway relies on hearsay (“I understood it to have happened…”) rather than firsthand observation of Scott taking heroin.

WP:NPOV and WP:NOTPROMO: The repeated emphasis on Jesse Fink’s books (Bon: The Last Highway and Bon: Notes from the Highway) and the detailed quoting of their claims suggest a promotional tone. The content appears to prioritize Fink’s narrative over other sources, such as Walker’s, which aligns with the coroner’s findings. The inclusion of a sequel book and new interviews feels like an attempt to promote Fink’s work rather than neutrally summarize the topic.

WP:NOT and WP:DETAIL: The content includes lengthy quotes and tangential details, such as Zena Kakoulli’s presence at Alistair’s flat, Peter Perrett’s interview, and Liz Elliot’s account of Kinnear’s visit. These details are not directly relevant to the article’s focus (Bon Scott’s life and death) and make the section read like a narrative excerpt from Fink’s books rather than an encyclopedic summary.

WP:RS While Fink’s books are published, their reliability is questionable for definitive claims about Scott’s death, as they rely on anecdotal, secondhand accounts and speculation rather than primary evidence like the coroner’s report. The coroner’s report, a primary and official document, should carry more weight. Yet, Fink's books are overshadowing the coroner's report, why?

WP:CITE: Some citations have inconsistencies, such as the ASIN for Walker’s book in the first reference, which is less standard than an ISBN, and the repeated citations to Fink’s books that may over-rely on specific pages. The citation to the Back in Black CD booklet as evidence of Scott choking on vomit is inappropriate, as it’s not a reliable source for medical or historical claims.

In addition, you keep saying it's a great biography on how it sheds new light on the night Scott died, but that's your opinion, the whole paragaph diverges into not including Scott at all! How do we know if this biography is reliable at all, the only source backing it up is the book itself.

I encourage you to read the above carefully before jumping to any conclusions. Stadt67 (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll address your points, point by point.

WP:NOR and WP:V: The significance of those comments are that they are literally from people who were there. They are the only people who saw Scott. The preponderance of evidence (verbal testimony) from eyewitnesses to Scott's presence at the club and at Alistair Kinnear's apartment suggests there is a compelling likelihood that heroin was involved in his death, since it is all coming from people who were heroin users themselves, including Alistair Kinnear, who told Liz Elliot that Scott took heroin. That first-hand statement is not hearsay. She was told this by Kinnear. That alone is worthy of inclusion in the article.

WP:NOT and WP:DETAIL: What you call "tangential details" are not tangential at all and are very much "directly relevant to the article’s focus (Bon Scott’s life and death)". You allow the claim to stand that Kinnear was alone with Scott back at East Dulwich: "He was allegedly left to sleep in a Renault 5 owned by his friend Alistair Kinnear, at 67 Overhill Road in East Dulwich. Later that day, Kinnear found Scott unconscious and alerted the authorities." Why make that exception when it's false? This is directly contradicted by Zena Kakoulli, who told Fink she was there with Kinnear and Scott. Why is that significant? Because, if you know Kinnear's story, he says he was the only person with Scott and couldn't carry Scott inside his apartment and instead left him in the car, where he was found. If Peter Perrett was also there with his wife Zena then Scott could have been lifted inside the apartment. The relevance? Scott was allowed to remain in that Renault 5 by a group of people not just Kinnear. The Liz Elliot quote also suggests Kinnear had a "white van", which contradicts the story that Kinnear had a Renault 5.

WP:RS Fink's books are indeed published. I don't see where they are "overshadowing" the coroner's report, other than calling into question the thoroughness of the investigation into Scott's death. You haven't seen the coroner's report because it's unpublished, yet giving it more weight than a book that is published globally and is a well-known biography of Scott that conducted a comprehensive investigation of Scott's death. Clearly that book has been vetted by professional editors and legal counsel before being published. The only document publicly available from the time is the death certificate. A section on Scott's death should be able to carry more information than you seem to want to allow. Fink's investigation warrants inclusion.

WP:CITE: "Some citations have inconsistencies, such as the ASIN for Walker’s book in the first reference, which is less standard than an ISBN, and the repeated citations to Fink’s books that may over-rely on specific pages." I have no idea who made the citation for Walker's book but what is the issue with making page references to specific pieces of information?

"The citation to the Back in Black CD booklet as evidence of Scott choking on vomit is inappropriate, as it’s not a reliable source for medical or historical claims."

Agreed. I did not make that citation. There are many other references to medical reasons for Scott's death.

"In addition, you keep saying it's a great biography on how it sheds new light on the night Scott died, but that's your opinion, the whole paragaph diverges into not including Scott at all! How do we know if this biography is reliable at all, the only source backing it up is the book itself."

I fail to see where I called it a great biography or how Scott is left out in the Death section (he's dead, the section is talking about the circumstances surrounding his death and the aftermath) but Fink turned up new information on Scott's death that wasn't revealed in 1980.

"How do we know if this biography is reliable at all, the only source backing it up is the book itself."

So clearly you don't know the book or have a copy of it. Perhaps the fact that it has been published in numerous countries and reviewed extensively might afford it legitimacy as a source? At a minimum it warrants inclusion in this section. Leaving it out completely is not doing justice to the importance of the topic.

"The main problem is that the content you added made up the majority of the Death section by a ratio of 2 to 1, making it UNDUE. The content you added also makes it appear that Fink's alternative theories are the prevailing viewpoint about Scott's death, when they are not. In addition, you rely too much on the books as sources for the claims, when there also needs to be independent secondary sources."

I fail to see where it makes out that the prevailing viewpoint is Fink's. He has done a significant amount of work on this topic which is obvious from his body of work and right now as it stands you've omitted his books completely from the section. You're Wikipedia editors and seem to know what ratio is acceptable. Then feel free to cut it down to a level you find appropriate rather than engaging in wholesale omission. Again, that is not doing justice to the topic. OleanderJones (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

All we need is a summary of Fink's allegations from the book, and not all those lengthy quotes, which are UNDUE. This paragraph below is the most I would support for inclusion:

In Jesse Fink's 2017 book, Bon: The Last Highway, Fink explores the death of Scott and the surrounding circumstances, presenting alternate theories to the official account. Based on his research, he claims other factors might have played a role in Scott's death; alleging that heroin use could have been involved. He also contends that "the police investigation and the coroner’s inquest were substandard."

Isaidnoway (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd support perhaps a few sentences on the possibility that Scott was on heroine, which with this book being published decades after Scott's death, would make it a very contentious claim. However lengthy paragraphs with the focus diverged from Scott, obviously won't work in this case. Stadt67 (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

That's why I used sources about the book, rather than the book itself. If somebody wanted to write an article on the book, then all those lengthy details would be better suited in that article, which of course, as with any new article, would be subject to notability guidelines for books, and reliable sourcing with SIGCOV. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Personally I'd add some more detail to the paragraph, as Fink did original research and got admissions from people who were there, but so be it. I'd prefer it be included rather than have nothing included. OleanderJones (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Are you going to add it? I will if you don't. OleanderJones (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

It's been added here. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks OleanderJones (talk) 06:55, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Sources

The "Death" section is very low standard.

The person wrote hundreds words, and forgot to tell the causes of his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Todaywrite2026 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC)