Talk:Terry Kath

Is accidental self-inflicted gunshot wound a "suicide"?

Is an accidental self-inflicted gunshot wound (like Kath and Jon-Erik Hexum) a "suicide"? I always thought that the definition of a suicide was when one killed oneself intentionally; accidents (even if resulting from gross stupidity) don't qualify. --192.65.41.20 20:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the definition of "suicide" is intentionally killing oneself. While no one outside of Kath's inner circle knows exactly what happened, the band's official position has always been that Kath's death was an accident. I would be in favor of replacing the term "suicide" with "death". Aguerriero 15:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Suicide simply means the person caused his/her own death. It can be either intentional or accidental. That said, I don't care who you are ... if you put a gun you believe to be empty to your head and pull the trigger ... some part of you WANTS to die. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.83.80.152 (talk • contribs) .

No, suicide must be intentional to be considered suicide, look it up on wikipedia or any dictionary. "Intentional" should be in the first line.99.225.198.95 (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Terry Kath was one of the worlds greatest singer/songwriter/guitarist, that ever lived (my opinion). One can feel his passion for the music, in his earlier recordings. His singing and guitar work still sends out positive/up-beat energy. If there was any reason for him to be depressed..... It was the soft commercial direction the band was going in. They had decided to go with the "pop" style, instead of rock/blues/funk, which he apparently had preferred (my favorite Chicago albums were the first five).

I agree.. even Jimi Hendrix considered him a master guitarist. His death was a real loss. I hope you will contribute to the article if you can - and don't forget to sign your comments on Talk pages with four tildes (~~~~)! Aguerriero (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

page needs to be cleaned up

This page needs to be cleaned up. There is too much opinion and gossip and this veers too far into fan worship for it to be a relevent encyclopedia entry. Aaronproot

Can you provide examples of sections you feel are inappropriate? Aguerriero (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I did a rudimentary cleanup of the page and will try to add more material at some point. Aaronproot

Copy of Auto-Peer Review Report

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 9 mm, use 9 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 9 mm.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.^[?]
• Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Semi-protection

This was semi-protected for repeated addition of uncited information by an IP range. When everyone's ready to start playing by the rules, we'll unprotect. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 04:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Darwin awards

Since there seems to be a low-level edit war going on about including a sourced statement that Kath was the recipient of a Darwin Award due to the nature of his death, I'd like to get a consensus here about whether the information belongs in the article. Please see this diff for the latest version of the text being yo-yo'd. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 18:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep it. It's not overblown or written in an unencyclopedic tone... it's just a short blurb with a ref. Nothing wrong with that. 156.34.239.109 (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Take it out...it's not relevant. Here is the text of the last two messages I sent to the editor of the Terry Kath page. Please read my argument AGAINST the darwin reference and do not misinterpret it as an argument FOR the tasteless, hurtful Robin Williams 'joke.'

Kath/darwin awards It looks like the darwin award reference will keep coming back to the Terry Kath page even though it is not relevant to his life. It is trivia.

The argument that this 'fact' should be included in the Kath bio because it is 'documentable' and can be referenced doesn't hold water.

If Wikipedia insists it does, then I think I'll go to the Karen Carpenter and Momma Cass bios and add this:

"The unusual circumstances of Cass Elliott's (Karen Carpenter's) gave her the dubious distinction of being the subject of the following Robin Williams joke, which is the first known bulimia joke involving celebrities: "If Momma Cass had shared that ham sandwich with Karen Carpenter, they'd both be alive today." (Notice the similarity in tone and spirit to the Kath entry: "The unusual circumstances of his death gave him the dubious distinction of being one of the first celebrities to earn a Darwin Award.[4]")

This 'joke' appeared in the Robin Williams film "Man Of The Year." Numerous online and offline media properties referenced this line in their reviews of the film. Therefore, documenting this 'fact' should be as easy as documenting the Kath/darwin 'fact' has been.

According to Wikipedia logic, if something can be documented, it can be added to a bio, no matter how trivial or irrelevant it is to the subject's life.

Therefore, I should be able to add the text three paragraphs above here on the Karen Carpenter and Cass Elliot Wikipedia bio pages with full confidence that Wikipedia will re-post it every time a KC and/or CE fan (or anyone, for that matter) deletes it.

So - tell me what you think. Is Wikipedia willing to defend and repost the Carpenter/Elliot/Williams reference on the Karen Carpenter and Cass Elliot bios if and when I post it?

Or, will Wikipedia permanently remove the darwin reference from the Terry Kath bio?

You can't have it both ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProtectTK (talk • contribs) 20:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your logic & why the threat? "I don't have a problem with your being here as a Kath fan. I do have a problem with your stated intention to disrupt other articles to prove a point. I suggest you not do that. I also suggest that you visit Talk:Terry Kath and explain your position. Thanks --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)"

Please explain how posting the Robin Williams Carpenter-Elliot joke is "disrupt(ing) other articles to prove a point" while adding the Kath/darwin reference was not, when it first occurred, "disrupt(ing) other articles to prove a point."

I thought you said this was a democratic process and that editors would decide whether something stays or goes. If so, then why warn me against putting up the Williams joke? Let the system you are so passionately defending decide whether it stays or goes. Why resort to threats and pre-emptive editing when you just told me it's all decided by people weighing in? (Really: this - "I suggest you not do that" - is thuggish.)

Incidentally - on the subject of deciding things by unscientific, popular vote - if you asked the people in the bleachers at Fenway Park if beer should be free, guess what they'd say? What a silly way to decide things. I'm asking you to step in and do the right thing. The popular vote is the popular vote, but it isn't always the right thing.

The Kath bio contains a trivial, hurtful, irrelevant tidbit about some third-party reference to his life. I'm asking you to take it out because it's the right thing to do.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spike_Wilbury"

71.202.86.56 (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)ProtectTK

I don't see anything similar between the Robin Williams joke and the Kath Darwin Awards text. The Kath entry is just a simple piece of referenced content. It expresses no personal opinion. It does not convey its message in any sort of joking manner. It just states a fact with a reference. 156.34.210.254 (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Darwin reference again, only to have my actions identified as vandalism, when my "good faith" was pretty obvious I thought. Based on the discussion so far there has been no clear resolution of whether or not to include this statement, so I don't see why those in favor are correct and those against are incorrect; perhaps instead, those in favor just edit more aggressively. Here is why I opt for removal: If someone simply stated in this article that Kath's death improved the gene pool, it would be instantly deleted. Here instead, there is a statement that he received this award, which means the exact same thing. By including this reference we legitimize the notion that Kath's death is good thing. This differs from when Malcolm X said "the chickens have come home to roost" (which is NOT currently in the Kennedy article, by the way), because in that case there is a context that illustrates the divisiveness of the country and of those that represented its factions. But this "Darwin award" is just some jokey award that exists for no other reason than to make fun of people who died. Kath's death is sad, not funny, and this reference should be excluded.24.6.7.233 (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleting referenced text is vandalism. The content is written is a neutral tone and has proper citations. Wikipedia isn't a fanpage. No reason to remove. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You keep overruling me without identifying your authority to do so or by substantiating your rationale. Just being a prolific poster does not elevate you above the democratic principles of Wikipedia. Why do you dictate policy and not follow it? The definition you offer of vandalism is your own; it is not contained on the vandalism page. "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Our differences on what constitutes this article's integrity makes me a vandal? Please also review the definition of blanking, which is the only type of vandalism you could be talking about. That does not apply here.

More on topic, do you really believe that all sourced information is appropriate for every page? There is a great middle ground between a "fan page" and one that legitimizes a site that states that Kath's early death is a good thing. My opinion of what is appropriate for this article is as valid as yours, and I think this reference is inappropriate and irrelevant. If you have a different opinion, please back it up without the curtness or didacticism. I am all for a productive discussion. But until you identify yourself as an administrator, you and I are on equal ground here, and I would appreciate a corresponding tone. Thanks. 24.6.7.233 (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

10/3/09 - The "Darwin Award" blurb is particularly irrelevant, considering that the person cannot have children in order to qualify. Kath has a daughter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.191.9 (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Tripod Tribute Site

There is an IP editor that insists on inserting Terry Kath Tribute Site into the links section - over and over again.

This site's links are all dead - except for the email link. This site is not active except for the front page and the email link.

It should not be inserted. If you see it, please delete it and warn the IP user.

Manway (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC) There is a fansite that is active and should not be confused with the Tribute site. The fansite url is: http://www.terrykath.spruz.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.129.203 (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Death section

I was mildly irritated at reading the following sentence in the 'Death' section: "Camelia was later married to Kiefer Sutherland from 1987 to 1990." Would it be possible to reorganise the article so that this sentence is not in this section? It does not really have all that much to do with Terry Kath's death. Coyets (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in this article at all. I removed it. Robofish (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Should have the two(?) adulatory remarks by Hendrix, no less.

Kind of critical in music history. Sort of like when Haydn said that Mozart was better than he was, or Schumann on Chopin. They need to be sourced however. The quotes are floating around.

Here's one "source" of the two: search YouTube for "Terry Kath tribute" posted by mysteriousjungalist.

I could not get the URL to copy/paste to work here using my iPad. Sorry.

Shlishke (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The missing link

@Ritchie333: First off, everyone's gotta know that Ritchie333 is the man. Secondly, the reference for this quote had said that it was located at page 2013 and although I don't doubt that someone wrote a 'bible' on Chicago, I kinda doubt it was that long. "I don't think there's ever been a better rhythm player. And then, Terry's leads are, for that day especially, world class stuff." So perhaps someone who has access to that particular dead tree can find the page. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 03:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Stupid mistake on my part. Should be page 3. The actual source is here and is actually a transcription from the Chicago box set. You can use shortened footnotes for sources other than books and journals, where there are multiple pages, which is the case here, and I find doing so makes the article easier to read and attempting to verify the content more manageable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Style of English (and related reverts)

As this edit points out, this article is about an American and should use US English - "favored", "colored", "rumored" etc. I wrote the original text (or at least it looks like I did) - being British I try and adhere to US English on related articles when I remember, but I obviously have the occasional lapse. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No problems; I didn't see any other "infractions". :) As a side note, you have done a great job with this article. I was initially a little skeptical about Danny Seraphine's book being used as a source because of its obvious potential for POV, but I think you've used it appropriately and avoided places for Seraphine's POV might be skewed. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I fixed it, and you put it and other problems back in, dawg ;) Yes, Danny's book is loaded with land mines: both obvious POV and subtle potential for POV, and then sometimes it just blurts out a little obscure blurb about a gigantic idea. But the book overall is a fairly comprehensive well written gold mine. I had also worked on this article long ago, and part of my contributions have been silent just because I could verify so much from having read a lot of that book. That book got me back into the idea of reading books again. Instead of just Wikipedia.  :-o — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Alcohol and drugs

A dispute arose recently on the administrators' noticeboard, regarding this edit (and many others like it), which changed the link from alcoholic beverage to alcohol (drug) and drug abuse to drug. I would like to ask the floor two questions :

1. Which, if either, is the better link to use?
2. Do we even need this sentence in at all? He was a rock star, he might have taken drugs, but that doesn't put him on the same level as Keith Richards. I think this might need an additional source to stick. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Hi Ritchie333. Of course we need to include the notable reason for the most notable tragedy in the band.  :( Like we discussed before, it's important to tastefully shore up and cauterize the topic so as to not invite idle answers to the wandering question of "why?". I assume you know the factoids, and I don't mean to belabor the point, and I hope I'm tightening the issue as requested. I'm just being trying to be thorough for posterity. Tragedies such as Terry's have been incorporated into my family's "just say no" policy on drugs and guns.

The band's community consensus is that he died in large part because of drugs, and wouldn't have died without drugs. He didn't maybe take drugs; poor Terry was a hard core long term drug abuser who definitely died explicitly because of a drug-induced lifestyle (including alcohol and alcoholism) during a time when drug education was lower and drug abuse was explosive (especially in that industry). It doesn't matter why; that drug abuse in itself is notable, because it was intense enough to have directly yielded his death, and the band's consensus is that he definitely wouldn't have fatally hurt himself without the drugs. The consensus is that his rock star lifestyle (extreme travel, lack of time for writing or anything else, extreme requirements for bursts of energy and improvisational creativity, and probably other business or personal stuff) depressed him and the drugs and the resulting sleep deprivation fabricated his state of mind and his dangerous decision-making. He had a habit of being awake for days on drugs, including his final moments where his friend begged him to go to sleep. Everyone knows about the band's testimony in many sources including Danny's book, and Terry's own quote that he had to quit drugs or the drugs would kill him -- explicitly about the drugs, responding to being warned so many times. All of this together is the common definition of life-threatening drug abuse.

After your revert, I read the ANI and saw that David Hedlund is on an oddly impressive warpath or crusade. It kinda sounds to me like WP:TEND, but he's sometimes correct, and I completely agree with the removal of society's reprehensibly illogical verbal designation of alcoholic beverage ("drugs and alcohol") as if it's not a drug. Anyway, at the minimum, Terry abused alcohol as a self-medicating and mind-altering drug (not just recreationally), as a long-term lifestyle. If I was to guess, my personal WP:OR might include "possibly inducing morbid ideation", possibly to help sleep after a bunch of stimulants.  :( The scant difference between alcohol as a beverage and alcohol as a drug (potentially alcoholism) is found in its culinary and medical contexts, of which there were none in the relevant context of the end of dear Terry's life. So yeah sadly alcohol (drug) is correct, but I don't know why he'd replace drug abuse with drug, the imprecision of which doesn't seem to suit his crusade. So I'd suggest this: "Kath reportedly had a self-admitted history of drug abuse, including alcohol." Thank you, sir! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me - I've made the changes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A class?

I am asking this in part for the sake of this article, and in part to expand my understanding of the assessment system. If you look at the assessment criteria chart, shouldn't any valid GAN (such as this article) be set at A class? As the criteria are simply stated, and having personally checked almost all of the sources and facts in this article, it seems to me that this article does fit the criteria, without even so much as the possible problems listed. On a slightly personal note, I have never seen an A class article before, and I find multitudes (usually stub or start) that are improperly classed too low. Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 01:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Smuckola: An A class article is a higher standard than a GA. It basically has to fulfil the content part of the featured article criteria, but not necessarily the fine detail of prose and formatting. The idea is that you get from GA to FA in two stages - first of all, experts at the A class review (ACR) agree that its factually accurate and complete, then once that's passed, the FA review should be general improvements.

I've been meaning to start up A class reviews on Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock music, but just never got round to it. The Who is pretty much good to go for an ACR. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Guitar Lessons

The article appears to contain a factual error. It says: "In a 1971 interview for Guitar Player, he claimed he only went to a music lesson once, saying "all I wanted to do was play those rock and roll chords."[1]" The reference is to Corbin Reiff's 5/11/13 article in Premier Guitar called "Forgotten Heroes: Terry Kath." The line in Reiff's article does not say he only took one lesson. It says: "Only once did he attempt to get professional lessons, but it didn’t go as well as he hoped, as he recalled in a 1971 interview with Guitar Player: “He just kept wanting me to play good lead stuff, but then all I wanted to do was play those rock and roll chords.” The "once" is not a single lesson, it is the sole period of time during which he sought instruction. That is clear from the 1971 Guitar Player interview to which Reiff makes reference (available online at http://www.timmwood.com/kathgp.html). The original article says: "Three years later the self-taught guitarist felt it was time for some lessons, so he spent a year with a jazz teacher trying to learn to read chord patterns."He just kept wanting me to play good lead stuff," Terry recalls, "but then all I wanted to do was play those rock and roll chords." It may have been a single, year-long lesson, but that seems unlikely.107.217.189.70 (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Dr hilto (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dr hilto: Finally got round to fixing it. Done a few other copy edits and added a source. More improvements when somebody gets round to GA reviewing it. @Dr Blofeld:, @FunkMonk:, anyone, anyone, Bueller? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Threats to a new Wikipedia Editor

@Smuckola--

I stand by my edits which were done with integrity. And I edited only where the statements were so egregious, lacking fact, source, reference it amounted to a distortion. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable--that is Wikipedia's own guidelines. I happen to agree.

Someone in the band--"quoting" Jimi Hendrix -that Jimi Hendrix "said" Terry Kath was better a guitar player than Jimi Hendrix himself, is fabrication and myth. There is nothing--no cited source,no traceable reference, nothing whatsoever, to substantiate that assertion, and it is within anyone's right to delete speculation, wishful thinking or even a lie. So, yes, I took that out. Also the commentary about how Kath could have been or should have been a rockstar like Hendrix and again the dubious assertions "that even though Hendrix said Kath was better," that if Kath had fronted a project called the KATH EXPERIENCE or something similar--he might have been a star. This is once again taking license with "quoting" Hendrix, and attempting to mock reference of THE JIMI HENDRIX EXPERIENCE, as credible information. But, none of this is factual--so it has no relevance. It amounts more to the kind of commentary found in the National Enquirer--not Wikipedia.

It does not further concrete information about Chicago --or Terry Kath: it was sophomoric and juvenile ramblings--and yes, I edited that out. That is not disruptive editing and your threats to a new person attempting to edit was unnecessary, unfair and aggressive.

If the same content resurfaces, I will simply contact the Jimi Hendrix estate, and inform them, the kind of liberties being taken with the Hendrix name. So I won't have to edit out poorly constructed and biased opinionated content. Wikipedia will be served with a cease and desist. And that's a shame. I've come to respect Wikipedia as an informative and reliable source.Apekzp (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the threat part, I don't know what that is about but obviously no one should be threatening anyone. But I mostly agree with Apekzp that the current statement in the article that Hendrix said Kath was better than he was is misleading. I don't agree that there is no source. There is a source, I don't think anyone doubts that the one band member from Chicago said that Hendrix said that. But I agree that it is not a very reliable source. There is all sorts of evidence from psychology that memories are very unreliable and that we tend to remember things the way that we wished they happened rather than as they actually did. The other bandmate from Chicago is probably sincere and Hendrix probably said something complimentary about Kath but whether he said specifically Kath was "better than" him (Hendrix) is highly debatable. For one thing Hendrix was extremely modest when it came to his proficiency as a guitar player. Saying "wow he's even better than me" assumes that the person making that statement is known to be very good at what they do. It isn't the kind of thing Hendrix would likely say when he (Hendrix) was essentially still an unknown and only playing guitar with a group that wasn't based around him. I think it should be changed to something like "according to fellow band member X Hendrix once said..." so that it is clear this is just the statement of one person from the band not something Hendrix said to a reporter or on video. As it is now: "Jimi Hendrix was a fan of Kath, and declared him to be a better guitarist" I think it is very misleading. There is no evidence at all that Hendrix was a fan of Chicago or Kath's guitar playing. Hendrix died in 1970 and Chicago had only released 1-2 albums at that point and wouldn't be well known until later. Except for the one encounter at the club I doubt Hendrix even knew of the band or Kath, at least I've never seen any evidence that supported this. I plan to change this. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Norwegian Descent

Stated at the 2:00 mark in the Terry Kath documentary trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP4bm-T-1-E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doommaster1994 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Terry Kath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208080907/http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140820/norwood-park/daughters-film-tells-story-of-chicago-guitarist-you-dont-remember to https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140820/norwood-park/daughters-film-tells-story-of-chicago-guitarist-you-dont-remember

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Removing Unsourced Claim about Dweezil Zappa

The article currently says that Kath is one of Dweezil Zappa’s favorite guitarists. The reference for that is a page not found on Dweezil’s web site. I tried pasting the URL into the Wayback machine but it wasn’t archived. I also tried looking at interviews where Dweezil talked about his favorite guitarists and saw no mention of Kath. Hence, I’m removing the dead link ref and the claim. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Accidental or self inflicted death?

There seems to be some minor edit warring going on where one Internet user (I wish people would get accounts if they are going to edit) keeps changing his death to "self inflicted" and another to "accidental" or "unintentional". Based on the evidence I've seen I think unintentional or accidental is the correct wording. There was one eye witness and according to his testimony it was an accident. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Marriage: He was never married to Camilla Ortiz. That is a mistake. She has claimed she married him in 1974. How can that be when he wasn’t divorced until 1975. Also who cares if she got remarried to Keiffer Sutherland. What does that have to do with Terry.

That issue should be changed. 2600:6C64:517F:DFA8:8433:975E:3C34:4BD7 (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you about her remarriage and have removed it. However, the source says she was his wife when he died, and we go with the source. Schazjmd (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Terry Kath vocal range

Robert Lamm’s vocal range is in between Terry Kath’s richer, deeper baritone and Peter Cerera’s high tenor voice. The Wikipedia states: “ Kath was one of the three primary lead singers of Chicago, with a vocal range between those of the other two, Peter Cetera's higher tenor and Robert Lamm's fuller, lower baritone.” Kath’s voice was lowest of the three. Not in between. should be corrected. 2601:802:8300:3420:D2B:9066:C4B6:E02F (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Back to relentless, uncited "they weren't married" edits

There's another round of insistent, uncited edits about Kath's marriage. There's only one source anyone has come up with (Boston Globe obit, I think) and it says they were married. Is it possible that the Globe got it wrong? Certainly. But nobody has come up with a reference that supports the view that they weren't married. Special-T (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)