What could have caused him to do suicide in the first place or did he even suicide.

I don't know the but I can't believe that a talented person like him would just give up on life like that share your thoughts about this to me. 2A02:908:D24:4480:B87A:2F3E:4935:F79 (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, our thoughts on this aren't relevant unless related to improving this article (WP:NOTFORUM). Funcrunch (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Concur that WP:NOTFORUM, but it would be unwise to say with confidence that he was murdered given the slew of reliable sources saying he did not commit suicide
References
https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/openai-whistleblower-suchir-balajis-mother-alleges-murder-demands-fbi-investigation-into-his-death/article69048961.ece
A reliabe source WP:THEHINDU
Another ref
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/28/openai-whistleblower-suchir-balaji
Reliable WP:THEGUARDIAN etc Codonified (talk) 12:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and the Tucker Carlson interview with Suchirs mother is very insightful. So many questions and concerns about the evidence in his apartment and the crime scene. 69.128.84.76 (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is very misleading. RS status isn't conferred to anyone and everyone an RS quotes or paraphrases. They're RS's for the claim that the mother said those things. Wikiuser815 (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mother of Suchir Balaji interview on Tucker Carlson podcast

Mother of Suchir Balaji interview on Tucker Carlson podcast and debuted on January 15, 2025. There are many questions that are yet to be answered and the death of Suchir must be investigated further. Many very suspect aspects containing evidence of the crime scene have not been investigated or explained by the police or authorities. Is Sam Altman involved? It must be proven either way and the parents of Suchir must be provided with answers and proof. 69.128.84.76 (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page is being vandalized. It needs protection.

Please look at this anonymous edit made yesterday. It is like adding insult to injury of the victims. It has changed the narrative of authorities and the parents by changing the key adjectives and verbs to opposites.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suchir_Balaji&diff=prev&oldid=1269780390 Neiyenz (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If what his mother is saying about the crime scene is true then the edit is correct. Rxm1054 (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, look at the edit again. The IP editor was fabricating a citation, a paraphrase and a quote. Another IP editor was misrepresenting what the chief medical examiner said. I can't be the only person watching this page and reverting people who keep changing it to homicide while providing no verifiable citations. @Sdrqaz: Please protect this page again. Wikiuser815 (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should be that he died under mysterious circumstances with citations to both homicide and suicide. That it was ruled a suicide despite forensic evidence showing otherwise. Rxm1054 (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can't add information like that unless it's backed by reliable sources. The second autopsy, which we mention in the article, hasn't been independently verified. Wikiuser815 (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How can someone conclude in the wiki that it’s a sucide, it’s a insult to the individual, please correct it 2601:646:8200:9090:141B:921A:C3D8:69D1 (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Protest edit' is maybe a better phrase than vandalism. Though the problem is mostly people adding poorly cited or uncited information in good faith. I reverted one or two good faith ones (e.g. this one) and didn't include an edit summary, because I couldn't think of one at the time. I won't do that again. Wikiuser815 (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for any ambiguity. I support your actions. I am referring to the vandalism that you corrected. The edit you reverted was clearly and act of mischief which is aggravated by the gravity of the topic. It's an article about a deceased individual who's death is being investigated and there are allegations of foul-play. The anonymous user had completely flipped the narratives of the Police and the Parents by changing a couple of words- as if it's funny. I was requesting that this page be put under more restriction to avoid any more of this. Neiyenz (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was also unclear, by 'protest edit' I meant things like that diff. While you could say they're being mischievous, it's also possible that they're expressing their unhappiness with us calling his death a "Suicide" (as I insist we should, since that's what the authorities have told us, and because there's no reliable source indicating otherwise). Wikiuser815 (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for reverts

I got a warning for edit warring from User:TNM101, so I'll explain here about why I reverted the edits.

User:DivideBy0 was adding information indicating that the SFPD had re-opened the case, and implying that "suicide" was only an initial ruling, which they were now reconsidering. The reference was "Mercury2025", which says nothing of the sort. That article states that police have "repeatedly" said the death was a suicide. Nothing about a case being "re-opened", nothing implying that the suicide conclusion had been overturned or was being reconsidered. The diffs Special:diff/1271279526 and Special:diff/1271281209. The second one pushed me past the "three revert" limit.

There should be no confusion about what the sources say, there's absolutely no "new development" based on this source, or the SF Standard one that editor originally used.

Some quotes from Mercury2025:

"Despite San Francisco police repeatedly saying OpenAI whistleblower Suchir Balaji’s death was a suicide,"

"The San Francisco Medical Examiner’s Office has issued a preliminary ruling that Balaji died by suicide, but said a final autopsy report won’t be released until toxicology tests are finished."

"The family [...] declined to share the autopsy [with this newspaper]." Wikiuser815 (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It goes without saying that this is a recent death, and so WP:BLP standards apply, per WP:BDP. Wikiuser815 (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

To add to this article: mention of blood spots (which have been mentioned in articles about Balaji's death, but, for some reason, not mentioned at all in the current version of this article). 76.189.135.48 (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Death of..." (possible WP:REQMOVE candidate)

We have a significant number of articles about people who might not otherwise get over the WP:NBIO threshold if not for the circumstances of their death (e.g., Death of Mahsa Amini, Death of David Oluwale, Death of Brian Wells, Death of Elizabeth Shin, Death of Dan Markingson, etc.). With this in mind, it seems that there may be a good case for renaming this article too (i.e., move "Suchir Balaji" --> "Death of Suchir Balaji"). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, topic was notable before death due his whistleblowing and contribution in the creation of ChatGPT,
See Similar articles like
Etc Codonified (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Seems like we're not being consistent in how the guidance is applied (e.g., see this discussion). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What! Are you seriously comparing a homeless dude drowning from police brutality to a man who played a role in ChatGPT's making and won the TSA sponsored competition for improving passenger screening algorithms. Plus due to his whistleblowing he received additional notability. Codonified (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
also see similar discussions
like this Codonified (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See below. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 February 2025

Suchir Balaji → Death of Suchir Balaji – Per past practice regarding articles about people whose notability hinges largely on the unfortunate circumstances of their death (see examples above). In this case, the question seems to be: would we have an article about Suchir Balaji at all if this was a case of an ordinary, uncontested suicide? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - It should be moved to Suicide of Suchir Balaji instead per the uncontested (by forensic experts) determination of the OCME, "Death of Suchir Balaji" might lend undue credence to a conspiracy theory. Now, apparently the parents' own lawyers say the second autopsy (a report of which hasn't been shared with any news service) shows the cause of death was a self-inflicted gunshot wound, albeit one with a bullet trajectory that's "atypical and uncommon in suicides" (The Mercury News, a local newspaper). Though it's true that the subject wouldn't meet notability criteria if it weren't for the public reaction to his death, including the conspiracy theory about a cover up by city officials. Maybe the move to Suicide of Suchir Balaji should wait until authorities have released further information, which should be within the next two weeks. Wikiuser815 (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see examples of past practice (linked here) upon which the suggestion is based. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hence "weak" oppose. The Death of Dan Markingson and Death of Elizabeth Shin were suicides. But there are a lot of "Suicide of" entries too. You can type in "Suicide of" into the search box. Wikiuser815 (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I suppose that we could wait until such time as the "suspicions" have subsided (although the conspiratorial aspect of these things tends to snowball), and cause of death is irrefutably established – though in either case (suicide or nefarious plot), the main question remains the same (i.e., would we have an article about this person if not for the circumstance of his death and the fact that he was an ex-employee of an AI company that attracts rather a lot of attention?). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment leaning toward oppose: He is known for more than his death. He made prominent whistleblowing allegations and was featured in The New York Times before he died. So he is not just some non-notable person who would be unknown if he had not died. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of how significant his whistleblowing might have been in the long-term if not for the conspiracy theories, would he pass our notability criteria for that one event alone? This would still seem to fall under WP:BIO1E. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The New York Times interview is the only news article written about him prior to his suicide. The fact that the NYT interviewed someone who was involved in their lawsuit doesn't make that person worthy of a Wikipedia article. If what he said in the NYT article had been notable in itself, other news services might have picked up on it prior to his death.
    He also wasn't the only OpenAI employee mentioned in the NYT's court filings as having relevant documents, apparently there were others.
    He is notable because he died a month after the interview, and before he was going to testify against OpenAI, which raised a lot of eyebrows. His whistleblowing is background information. However, he may have become a well-known person if he had testified and continued his whistleblowing. Wikiuser815 (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. That he may have become a well-known person is WP:CRYSTALBALL. If he was not WP:NBIO at the time of his death and has become so posthumously (for reasons other than his death), then where are the sources that confirm this? If not, the article's title should reflect this by including a qualifier that expresses why we have the article here in the first place (e.g., either Death of... or Suicide of... or something else, if there's a better way to do this). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given those further explanations, I have struck out my "leaning toward oppose" above. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not fully conversant in how the WP:REQMOVE process works. By striking out the previous position, does that mean you now support the proposal? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case it just means I don't oppose it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Subject is notable before his demise due to his whistleblowing, not only that given that there is a chance he may have been murdered(suicide according to officials) for his whistleblowing by reliable sources/references. It would be unwise to rename the article as it would suggest a different scenario/narrative to audiences to what may have occured. For now changing it to death would indicate he was murdered.
References
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/technology/openai-copyright-law.html
https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/openai-whistleblower-suchir-balajis-mother-alleges-murder-demands-fbi-investigation-into-his-death/article69048961.ece Codonified (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear to everyone, no reliable news service has written, in editorial voice, that Balaji may have been murdered. WP:HINDU has Balaji's parents saying it. Wikiuser815 (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah bro, but the name change would make it seem like he was murdered no doubt Codonified (talk) 09:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I think you meant WP:THEHINDU, That is another one Codonified (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article could also be titled "Suicide of Suchir Balaji" as Wikiuser815 points out above (however, this is a more nuanced question of syntax and semantics). Either change would be an improvement, if we keep to the guidelines. The underlying issue remains that the subject probably does not pass WP:NBIO (especially without the coverage generated as a result of his death). If the NYT and Hindu articles do not establish notability (which seems the probable outcome if contested), and if this is a "role in a single event" situation (per WP:SINGLEEVENT), then without a change of name, the article could easily fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines (per WP:DEL#REASON#8). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, topic was notable before death due his whistleblowing, contribution in the creation of ChatGPT and improving passenger algorithm,
See articles like
Codonified (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for cross-posting from above thread. I will keep any further comment here for simplicity.
It seems a stretch to compare Balaji with Floyd, Martin, Rafiq Uddin Ahmed, et al. His death has not sparked world-wide protest nor has he become a cultural icon; he has not been memorialised with awards or public places bearing his name. Perhaps in future, but for the time being, he is known because he worked for OpenAI and killed himself a month after speaking out against his former employer (quoted in an article in which he is not the primary topic nor the only OpenAI person mentioned – thus very unlikely sufficient sourcing for GNG or even NBIO unto itself). Also, as Wikiuser815 points out, the NYT is the only news article [...] prior to his suicide, so no, he was clearly not notable before death, as you assert.
The issue here is one of naming consistency, and also, protecting the article from an eventual AFD (Reason #8), or MERGE (Reason #4) – which, in my view, it would not survive. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, what about Rodney King, he was in some ways also notable for 1 reason, his encounter with police brutality. I still do feel he is notable anyway would love to hear your thoughts. Codonified (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Rodney King beating was covered by news media around the world and caused a public uproar (which led to criminal charges against the police, acquittal, rioting in the streets, the Christopher Commission, books, films, and myriad other notable outcomes), and is comparable to some of the other examples on your list above in terms of long-term cultural significance and historical importance. The footage of the incident is also a precursor to the oceans of viral evidence video that has since followed. Oddly, it is not mentioned in our our viral video article (and probably should be).
As a side note, on grounds similar to the examples you are highlighting here, I earlier suggested dropping "Death of..." from the David Oluwale article (which was rejected).
In any case, we are going way off-piste, as all of the above examples seem significantly different from the Suchir Balaji case – which appears to be a tragic, premature death of a promising but not (yet) particularly notable young man. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per @Codonified's arguments, and the impact SB's information is having on the value of OpenAI's IP and the IP of the billions of authors it relies on. RememberOrwell (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How is this process is meant to unfold? For the sake of simplicity, my inclination would be to: either close the initial WP:RM thread and start a new one whereby the proposed change is Suicide of Suchir Balaji (rather than "Death of..."); or simply shift the discussion here towards that conclusion. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not uncommon for an RM to have a somewhat different outcome than what was proposed; a new RM is not needed for that to happen. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suchir_Balaji
No tags for this post.