Talk:27 Club

People Who Should Be Added

These are Celebs who died at 27 who should be added, given the peramiters of the page: Aaron Hernandez Thuy Trang Pat Tillman Harry Hains 2600:1702:1931:2420:5CB4:E43F:BA17:2B5E (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Ryuchell (Japanese social media personality/model/LGBT rights activist): Died of Suicide at 27 on 6/12/23 following a messy public divorce and scrutiny/harassment after publicly announcing his gender identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.2.124 (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Mac Miller 69.130.1.204 (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Please, someone add this, please. I cannot update the graph properly!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Johnson 2001:5B0:235C:3F38:3903:6212:CE9C:BA38 (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Robert Johnson 86.1.0.214 (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

– Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@86.1.0.214 He's fourth on the list. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps King Alexander of Greece? I know his a king and not a creative celebrity but there is another king on this list, Ghazi of Iraq 2A02:C7C:7B32:1B00:4844:CF83:9C99:572C (talk) 08:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Can someone please add Li Tobler? She was an artist and the partner or HR Giger when they were young. She committed suicide at 27 2601:400:C380:280:499E:998C:7166:1F38 (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The only source connecting Tobler to the 27 Club are a medium.com blog article we can't use because of WP:MEDIUM, and a comedy podcast called Y'All Heard which admits that she is not well known. Not reliable enough to list here. Binksternet (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you add Jacob Miller, lead singer of the reggae band Inner Circle? He has a page here at Wikipedia and died in a car accident when 27 years and 324 days old in 1980.

Can Paola Luz be added? She was a Filipina rock singer and photographer. She died due to adrenal gland tumor on August 28, 1991 which is 27 years and 168 days. https://www.philstar.com/lifestyle/sunday-life/2016/08/21/1615566/paolas-story — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostpurple (talk • contribs) 03:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2024

I would like to suggest Paul Hunter is added to this list. Thank you. 92.3.252.49 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2024

Adding another member to the 27 Club bracket, specifically Pete ham - lead vocalist and guitarist of the band "Bad Finger". He died at 27 on the 24th of April, 1975, just 3 days shy of his 28th birthday. I just think because they're at least a prominent band, be should be here. Zombillions (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, Pete Ham is already listed in the table of identified members. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Spelling should matter in an encyclopedia

Further to my belief that the tone of an encyclopedia should not be that of people sitting around a fire, drinking, and mulling over ideas and recollections, I believe that in the text QUOTE: Daughtry's song "Long Live Rock & Roll" from their 2013 album Baptized references the club with the lyrics "they're forever 27 – Jimmy, Janis, Brian Jones" UNQUOTE (which exists in this article at the date and time I'm typing this talk-page comment) should have the phrase 'Jimmy, Janis' changed to 'Jimi, Janis' if there's no basis for the opinion that the official lyrics really are 'Jimmy' there, and should be changed to 'Jimmy" [sic] ", Janis' if there IS a basis for asserting that the lyrics, despite 'Jimi' being correct, are officially 'Jimmy'.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

@2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 Good point. The source used was from a unreliable source (user generated content), so the spelling was entirely unofficial and would appear incorrect. I've fixed it. It still needs a source cited though. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 06:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Total Days

Because we reach 10,000 days in our lives at 27 years and 138 days (depending on leap years) I think it would be an interesting column to add. For example: Walkie made it to 9,991 and Kami made it to 10,002 and Dickie Pride made 10,018… I don’t know how to calculate that or how to add a column to achieve that. Torturella (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Not unless WP:Reliable sources discuss it that way. Binksternet (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2024

Anton Yelchin (actor) - 1989 - 2016 should be included on this list. 2A04:4A43:4B8F:C54A:0:0:DE6:2162 (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

He already is.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Tone and fan-like tags

The reason I added the tags which were reverted is that the tone of this article is not encyclopaedic. For one thing there is numerous repetition of the term cultural phenomenon, it is even used as a section title but is not a suitable term for a serious article. The Identified Members section has a peculiar unserious tone such as "Because the 27 Club is entirely notional, there is no official membership." Overall this article promotes an urban myth that has been disproved by scientific research and therefore I'm tempted to nominate it for AfD based on WP:NOT despite it passing WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: Gee, I dunno. It seems pretty encyclopedic to me. And it describes an urban myth, it doesn't promote it. The Scientific Studies section explicitly refutes the idea that rock musicians and others are more likely to die at age 27, a refutation also mentioned in the lead section. And the statement about there not being an official membership is also sober-minded -- since the 27 Club is a "notion", the membership list in the article is based on third-party references. If the phrase "cultural phenomenon" is overused, feel free to improve the prose, or suggest how it might be improved. As for WP:NOT, I don't see how that would apply to the article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I won't bother with the AfD but I think it needs a rewrite imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Atlantic306 What would you suggest instead of "cultural phenomenon"? If seems an accurate description to me, I also don't see what's unserious about the sentence. The very fact you're suggesting AfD makes me concerned that you've a misplaced idea about the purpose of Wikipedia. Just because something is a disproven myth does not mean it should not be in an encyclopedia. Notability is the criteria for inclusion.

The article is far from perfect, and does have issues (particularly list cruft), but I don't see anything particularly fan-like about it. Do you have any particular examples of anything being written from the POV of a fan? And a fan of who/what? Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 06:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Notability is not the only reason for inclusion otherwise we would just copy newspapers, which to some extent is happening here, see WP:NOT which lists many reasons for exclusion including Not Newspapers. I disagree with you about the tone of the article, the constant use of cultural phenomenon is promotional wording. Also the reason I came to this page is because it was being linked to the age of death of Chance Perdomo who has recently died which myself and other editors consider inappropriate. Also the references used to justify his entry are weak - a sensationalist story from a sports tabloid, and TV Insider, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Atlantic306 Are you sure you understand what phenomenon means? Also what occurs on the Chance Perdomo article is not the responsibility of this article.

The source used to this may be weak, and I have argued a number of times that creation of a list of "members" is not the purpose of this article. It should limit itself itself to pertinent and prominent examples only to illustrate the meaning of "the club". But this has been discussed a number of times here already, and we always end up with a list that grows over time. But that list is at least factual, not promotional. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

From your link: "In popular usage, a phenomenon often refers to an extraordinary event. The term is most commonly used to refer to occurrences that at first defy explanation or baffle the observer." Considering the debunking of this myth by science it no longer should be considered extraordinary so a description of urban myth rather than cultural phenomenon would be more appropriate in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The cultural phenomenon is not that rock musicians (and other figures of popular culture) are more likely to die at age 27, or that a lot of rock musicians have died at age 27. The cultural phenomenon is that people often talk and write about the people who died at age 27, and refer to them as the 27 Club. And that sometimes they erroneously think that something strange is going on. With that being said, it is an urban myth -- or urban legend, perhaps? -- and the article does already say that. Still, it should be possible to improve some of the wording of the article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Atlantic306 So you don't understand its use here. From the lead of that article: "A phenomenon , sometimes spelled phaenomenon, is an observable event". In this case, in western culture of recent times. I also note that the bit you're quoting is not supported by the source it quotes, which says nothing about cultural phenomena defying explanation or being baffling. The Cambridge Dictionary has real life examples here, this includes describing schools and the invention of pottery as cultural phenomena. There's nothing baffling about them.

It's not a perfect description, but you are mistaken in thinking it is promotional or suggesting it's unexplained. As far as "urban myth" goes, may want to read previous discussion on this. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this article is a mess and I don't like it

I'm really not a big fan of this article and how it's set up and what people's criteria for the 27 club is. The problem is, it's all up to people's interpretation what makes them part of the 27 club and I think that's a terrible bar to set for eager Wikipedia editors that just wanna validate their favorite artist, band, musician, whatever.

You've got artists on the list now that don't even have wikipedia pages. Four of them. That would be "Murda Killa," "Yoo-ju-eun," "Yung Trappa," and "Julian Figeroa." I'm terribly sorry that those people died so young and I'm sure they had their fanbases, but clearly they aren't even notable enough to have a wikipedia page or even a verifiable source confirming that they even died to begin with.

Also, the criteria for what makes someone part of the 27 Club is to me just backwards. You've got the king of Iraq (Ghazi of Iraq), a person who only even mattered to anyone because of nepotism and political hegemony and was by all means a tyrant (I've never heard a positive "spin" put on this guy by anyone, not even Iraqis). Then you've got on here a guy who was an "artist" named Dash Snow that, according to his article, made "collages with his own semen."

Do the right thing guys. Absolutely annihilate this article and only leave like, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Amy Winehouse, etc...Household names, not literal jagoffs that make collages with their own semen and get called an artist somehow. Emandudeguyperson (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm with you on the fact that the list that is infesting onto this article needs removed, however there needs to be a clear criteria of who is worth mentioning on the article as example members. And any one editor's estimation of their worth isn't going to be an acceptable criteria. This is why the criteria has always been, imperfect although it is, of a mention of both person and club in a reliable source. Both your examples there have Wikipedia articles, and sources. What anyone thinks of their lives about to the age 27 isn't relevant. And the others you mention have Wikipedia pages in other languages, and sources. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

So you would basically say, as long as the person is noteworthy enough to have a wikipedia article, that they should be added to the list if they're dead at 27? Emandudeguyperson (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm saying a better, far more restrictive, criteria is needed that isn't based on who deserves to be mentioned in the opinion of editors. But we have always been unable to reach agreement on a better criteria than appearance in reliable sources. If you look through the talk page archives you'll see this discussion has been gone though multiple times before, including those suggesting they personally know who deserves a mention, and who doesn't. (There was even for a while a ridiculous two-tier membership, entirely based on who editors thought deserved to have some kind of VIP membership.) If you have a better criteria, very happy to hear it.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I understand what you mean. But back to what I said in my original post, regarding only allowing household names on the article, that's basically the criteria I would set up. Like a ton of people are aware of Jean Michel Basquiat, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, and I could even give a pass on some of the less well known musicians maybe. I guess what I'm trying to say is I feel like it should be exclusively viewed as a club of artists. I don't think it's a good idea to start adding political figures... I could go down the list right now of some of the names on here... "businessman," "military," "king of iraq," I think all of those should literally be deleted. And even some of the more obscure artists, musicians, etc. should be deleted as well. I meant what I said originally which is basically that unless that they are internationally, damn near universally recognized, then we should probably keep them off the list. But I also respect that you want to use the criterion of the sources linked to their deaths actually naming them as part of the "27 club" as well, which seems fair. I dunno, for me, like I said, I think a lot of the names on the list right now are just a big "WTF?" and why are they on there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emandudeguyperson (talk • contribs) 11:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's my take on this: The cultural phenomenon known as the 27 Club is the idea that a lot of popular musicians died at the age of 27 -- and, as part of this concept, any popular musician who died at that age is a member of the 27 Club. (By "popular musician", I don't mean that the musician was popular, I mean that they worked in a genre of popular music such as rock, blues, jazz, and so on.) Therefore, the table of "identified members" should include any musical artist who died at age 27 -- even if we don't have a reference saying that they're a member. But to not accumulate an excessive and unmanaged list, the table should only include musicians who have their own Wikipedia article, or who were a member of a band that has its own Wikipedia article. (As Escape Orbit said, these ideas have been discussed before, and a similar, previous suggestion by me was not met with universal acceptance. But now is a good time to bring this up again, I think.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I have boldly removed the table entries for people who were not musicians, here. Although we have not yet established a consensus that that's the way to go, I thought it would be helpful to look at the updated list, which in my opinion is a significant improvement. (I have retained entries for musicians who have an article in a non-English Wikipedia.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Your action goes against Wikipedia content guidelines. We are not here to decide what the rules are for the cultural phenomenon called 27 Club. Instead, the media decide—WP:Reliable sources. We are not allowed to decide that it's only musicians, and we don't decide that every musician dead at 27 is in the club, regardless of sources. You can't remake Wikipedia to satisfy your preference. Binksternet (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mudwater I understand your thinking, but unfortunately reliable sources have extended the original definition to include other famous people as club members. The article needs to reflect that, no matter how appropriate you feel it to be. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit: The 27 Club originally was for rock musicians. That's supported by reference like this. And there are other references that support the concept that any rock musician who died at age 27 is a member of the Club. With that being said, if there are other references that show that the concept has been expanded to include non-musicians, then I suppose we're stuck including them also. It's too bad though. Being in the 27 Club used to mean that you were a glamorous but wild rock star, often one who died of a drug overdose, or by murder or suicide, or in a car crash or by other misadventure. Now they'll let just anyone in -- soccer players, businessmen, and even the King of Iraq. It wouldn't have passed muster, back in my day. *Shakes head sadly* Okay, now I'm kind of kidding. But, yes, generally speaking we should of course base the article on reliable references. With that being said, there's still some room for deciding how best to do that. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I also discourage anyone to go against wikipedia policies. Please don't edit the article to fit your own standards, etc. That's why I wanted to come here and talk about it first and foremost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emandudeguyperson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussions on this topic over the years show a clear consensus that the current inclusion criteria for the Identified Members list are unsatisfactory. The article's subject is the cultural phenomenon of the 27 Club — and yet the overwhelming majority of editor time and discussion is devoted to maintaining and policing The List, which has grown to take up double the vertical space of the article's prose. This is a list article in all but name. The lead even makes that explicit.

Here are 4 different ways the current list is listcruft (quoting from that essay):

1. The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
2. The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable.
3. The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date.
4. The list attracts the addition of little that is of clear importance or even relevance in the context of the topic.

The problem is that we haven't established consensus on an alternative set of criteria. I think that's mainly because it's the same few editors repeating the same points and there haven't been enough participants to build momentum for an alternative.

I agree with @Escape Orbit, @Mudwater, @Emandudeguyperson that a better, more restrictive inclusion criterion is needed than mere mention in reliable sources. As MOS:CULTURALREFS states, "Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist."

But we do need criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and common sense. — Goffman82 (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Interpretations of Cobain's mother's quote

@Michael0986 I'm undoing your reversion with explanation here for discussion. My edit is intended to improve the WP:NPOV of the paragraph, which is about the different interpretations of Cobain's mother's quote. The earlier version wasn't explicit that there are competing interpretations of her quote. I gave it a topic sentence so it's clear what the paragraph is about, and re-ordered the content for clarity but did not add or remove content. My newest edit tweaks some words for more NPOV. Feel free to refine further if you see issues, or discuss here. Thanks. — Goffman82 (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought the earlier version was quite clear actually, and the order of interpretations more appropriate; the association with rock stars is more commonly accepted as her meaning. "On the other hand" is more appropriate for Segalstad's interpretation, which is not as widely accepted. Michael0986 (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

If I understand your concern, it sounds to be more about style than content. I moved Segalstad's interpretation to the beginning of the paragraph precisely because it offers a response to Cross's common interpretation established in the preceding paragraph. I'll make another edit that I think is a compromise. — Goffman82 (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Reverting History and Identified Members edits

@Binksternet I don't understand your revert edit summaries. Please elaborate on the rationale for reverting 1) my edit of the History section that was under active discussion here between me and the other editor, 2) my edit of the members list which has valid references? — Goffman82 (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You are referring to this edit of mine, with the edit summary of "the source says some people were in the 27 Club, and some other people were not". I thought that was very clear. The mentalfloss source starts by saying some people are in the 27 Club, then it says that other people have also died at age 27. It DOES NOT say that these people are also in the Club. That's why I removed Pope John XII, etc. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the article is actually a bit ambiguous on this point. It says that "Club 27 is headlined by..." the famous musicians, but I think there's a strong implication that the others named are also to be considered in said Club, only that they're not the headliners. This sort of analysis is a bit on the silly side anyway, given that the Club isn't a real thing anyway. But I'd be inclined to include those listed myself.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. My reply below is in response to Binksternet's message above. — Goffman82 (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

That's an extremely narrow reading of the source:

On Saturday, Amy Winehouse passed away and became the latest member of Club 27—an exclusive club you don’t want to be in. Club 27 is headlined by musicians Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, and Brian Jones, who all died of a drug overdose, suicide, or accident at that young age. But the musically inclined aren't the only ones who die at 27. Here are 10 other people who didn’t live to see 28.

I think it's reasonable to assume that the article's author has the same definition of Club membership as the one stated in the lead of 27 Club: celebrities who die at 27. It's hard to imagine they decided to write an article about the 27 Club simply to inform us about 10 famous people who died at 27 who are not members for unspecified reasons. — Goffman82 (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, and I think this illustrates the problem with reliable sources forming the basis of who should be in a list. Some reliable sources are free and easy about including other people, which is fine, but we really should be asking; What does including all these people add to the article? Most of the time the answer would be; "Nothing." We do not need an every growing list of people matching an increasingly loose definition, in the opinion of maybe one source, to fully illustrate to the reader what the "27 Club" is. It's not as if the concept is difficult to grasp, the reader does not need dozens of examples to get the idea. And if the reader then wishes to decide that someone, who otherwise is not in the list, because no reliable source has mentioned them, is a member, well, who cares? There is no official factual list, there is no standing that can be falsely appropriated by a "false" member. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. While I continue to follow the existing inclusion criteria, I strongly agree that they need to be updated. — Goffman82 (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Since no one else has spoken up in favor of this revert, I'm going to reinstate the list additions for now. @Binksternet you haven't provided a rationale for reverting my edit of the History section that was under active discussion here between me and another editor. Is there one? — Goffman82 (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I did indeed provide a rationale for removing the names you added. I noted that the mentalfloss source did not explicitly place the additional names in the 27 Club. Failed verification is the problem here. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

You stated this, but from the comments in this section so far, nobody here agrees with you. The names are in an article about the 27 club, and the article doesn't say they're not in the club (as if that even means anything anyway) so they are valid entries.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

In my view, the Mental Floss article does not say that those people are members of the 27 Club. In fact, the article strongly implies that only rock musicians are club members. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

On reading the source more carefully: being pedantic (as we must) the mentalfloss source does not say these people are in Club 27. Indeed, it could be read that it is actually saying that they are not. As I said above, this issue just illustrates the almost arbitrary nature of our inclusion criteria. A slight rephrasing by one writer (Stacy Conradt in this case) can change if someone is in or out.

I'd also re-emphasis; the inclusion of these people does not add one iota of value to the article, or makes the slightest difference to how these people are regarded. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

At this point in the discussion it looks like there is no consensus to keep the mentalfloss.com source and its unusual list of people who died at age 27, including a pope. Goffman82 and Amakuru want to keep it, Escape_Orbit changed from keep to neutral, possibly leaning remove. Mudwater and I are favoring remove. When discussion is at an impasse, disputed text should stay out of the article per WP:ONUS. Note that Goffman82 has recently expressed a wish to tighten the inclusion criteria,[1] which would certainly result in the Mental Floss names going away. Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)