Talk:Avicii

Hi there, some improvement suggestions. I think the wordings around his death comes across a bit strange, referring to allegations in TMZ as a source. Maybe this should be worded in a way so that readers understand that this is only a rumor with no official confirmation?

This is the current text:

Bergling died on 20 April 2018 in Muscat, Oman, where he was on holiday, at the age of 28. No cause of death was immediately given. On 21 April, the Omani authorities stated that there was "no criminal suspicion" or evidence of foul play in Bergling's death. A day before Bergling's death, a friend expressed concern about his mental state to his father Klas. TMZ later reported that he died by suicide, using a glass shard to cut himself. On 26 April, his family released an open letter stating:

This is what I think the bold text should be changed to:

Bergling died by suicide.¹ Various sources have reported that Bergling's family was notified about his deteriorating mental state in the days leading to him taking his own life.² In an article, TMZ alleged that Bergling used a sharp object to cut himself, however there are no official or confirmed reports on method used. On 26 April, his family released an open letter stating:

Sources to add to the ones already existing:

¹ Mosesson, Måns. I’m Tim – The Official Autobiography of Avicii. Sphere, 8 september 2022, s. 301. "Tim had taken his own life". ISBN 978-0-7515-7902-4.

² Mosesson, Måns. I’m Tim – The Official Autobiography of Avicii. Sphere, 8 september 2022, s. 292–293. Description of a call from his host in Oman, describing his health status. ISBN 978-0-7515-7902-4. Copperbalm (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

One of the problems with matters related to 'celebrities' is that when significant or shocking news occurs, there's a lot of scrambling immediately by news and semi-news sources to find out "what happened". In the early interval, it's common for an assortment of unverified things to be described - which are later either dismissed or clarified. The problem is that editors will want to be the first to 'break the news' in the article, but it's premature (see WP:NOTNEWS), so those early reports should likely be removed...but they wind up staying there forever. I'll give the material a bit of copyediting to clarify the details. The 'shard of glass' claim is sourced only to TMZ, who sourced it to anonymous parties - fails reliability. No details from the autopsy reports were released, so out that part goes.

Note that it's not 'The Official Autobiography of Avicii', it's 'The Official Biography of Avicii'. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:08, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Pinging Meganenohito (talk · contribs) who is repeatedly restoring the disputed material, and introducing other errors. Please read this thread before reverting any further. Edit warring isn't the right path. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 06:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

• Everyone, this is a WP:BLP and thus WP:BLPRESTORE applies. If you repeatedly make changes without valid sources or consensus (if the changes are disputed) you might face consequences. Please also note that we require WP:IRS for things on wikipedia, and it is not based on WP:OR. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

  It's slightly muddied by the fact that the article subject is no longer living (WP:BDP). However, contentious claims, gossip/rumors, poorly sourced, etc., shouldn't "outlive" the subject in my personal opinion, though that holds no meaningful weight. TMZ is sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but in the main they're a celebrity gossip site, and anonymous sources for that kind of material make money from TMZ for the claims. Followup isn't a high priority, and no other sources have verified those early claims. The claims about Avicii are not reliable. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 07:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that TMZ is not a reliable source, but since articles from TMZ are cited by outlets like Stereogum,^[1] Spin,^[2] The Observer,^[3] and Business Insider,^[4] I think it's best to make the changes Copperbalm suggested. Meganenohito (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

  That niche websites (Stereogum, Spin, The Observer) and one that has spotty reliability (Business Insider) uncritically regurgitated what TMZ reported is immaterial to Wikipedia's rules and guidelines on sourcing. None of the other sources performed any verification beyond what TMZ claimed.

  If TMZ is not a reliable source, and other websites repeat uncritically and without verification what the unreliable source has stated, that doesn't magically confer reliability to their repetition of the information.

  On the other hand, the autopsy report is reliable information, and as I recall from one or another of the reliable sources, no details were released from it; that should be the canonical position we use for our 'reporting'.

  The 'Death' section is cited with impeccably reliable sources: the BBC, the New York Times, Variety, the Sunday Times, the Straits Times, the Guardian, and the Independent (and three Swedish language sites of unknown reliability), none of which repeated TMZ's claims. Diving down to a questionably reliable celebrity gossip site, or niche websites that repeated their claims, to include gossip and rumors that have never been verified in the intervening seven-plus years, seems a poor choice.

  However, I don't own the article, and as is apparent, others disagree with my position. I think perhaps an RfC would be appropriate to get uninvolved editors included. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for pointing out my obvious BLP gaffe. Yes, please take the discussions to this talk page. I think this issue of trying to whitewash out the suicide has been ongoing for some time. We just dont remove things like that. Personally WP:TMZ is an excellent source for some types of celebrity content. Need to see on a case by case basis. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Note, I'm not interested in censoring or whitewashing, my concern about the claims about the means used for his suicide is strictly on the reliability of those claims: paid anonymous sources. There seem to be two factions: those who indeed do want to whitewash/censor, and those who are perhaps ghoulishly intent on including the bloody details, which don't seem relevant to me (relevant: he took his own life, and remains dead).

I actually think BLP should just be BOP - Biography of Person. While libel and other claims are unlikely to arise for the bio of, say, Heraclitus, I think all content and sourcing should be rigorous in any bio (notwithstanding that sourcing should be rigorous everywhere!). cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 01:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

So we are discussing removing the glass shard here? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes. That's the only content that's sourced to paid anonymous sources. I guess I should say allegedly paid - it's an acknowledged practice at TMZ, but there's no telling wrt any specific instance of sourcing. IMO, paid anonymous sourcing saying that Kim Kardashian has a big butt isn't problematic. Paid anonymous sources claiming to describe the exact means by which someone took there life is problematic. Again - my opinion, only. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 01:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me how TMZ gets their content. Its probably more reliable than NYT just making it up and attributing it to anonymous sources. I personally have no objection to the glass shard and think it is (somewhat) encyclopedic. But I not strongly on the keep camp either. Lets see how others chime in. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)