Talk:Cass Elliot

Edits

Can an editor more familiar with this topic review these edits. They were made by someone who made other edits that needed to be reverted. —siroχo 00:00, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

The pipe incident

FWIW the official site has an interview (Rolling Stone October 26, 1968, No. 20) in which the following exchange is given:-

"Is that a true story about a pipe falling on your head…

     It’s true, I did get hit on the head by a pipe that fell down and my range 
     was increased by three notes.  They were tearing this club apart in the 
     islands, revamping it, putting in a dance floor.  Workmen dropped a thin 
     metal plumbing pipe and it hit me on the head and knocked me to the 
     ground.  I had a concussion and went to the hospital.  I had a bad 
     headache for about two weeks and all of a sudden I was singing higher.  
     It’s true.  Honest to God.

The Las Vegas gig that "ended badly"

Those into schadenfreude will enjoy the article from Esquire Magazine June, 1969 by William Kloman entitled SINK ALONG WITH MAMA CASS, found at the official Mama Cass website

Title of nobility

When I stumbled across this article, it claimed that Cass Elliott was Baroness von Wiedenmann by marriage to Baron von Wiedenman. I do not know Baron von Wiedenman, but I doubt he was noble.

If he were or was American or Canadian, he wouldn't be noble, because both countries have no peerage.

If he were British, then why would he be named von Wiedenmann? That is a German preposition.

Finally, if he were German, Austrian, or Swiss, those countries again have no peerage.

Admittedly, if he were German, his wife would by law receive the surname "Baronin von Wiedemann", but that doesn't mean she is a Baroness, only her last name would reflect her gender, and in any case, it would be Baronin, not Baroness. That only leaves the possibility that Baron von Wiedenmann is a baron in the peeerage of Liechtenstein, an area over which I have no knowledge. That, however, I consider highly unlikely! And finally, all three times that the nobility of Cass Elliott was added, it was under an anonymous IP: [1], [2] [3] Blur4760 22:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It was clearly vandalism, you were right to remove it. I don't think she was ever married, but she certainly wasn't married to royalty. — Frecklefoot | Talk 00:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. She was married to Donald von Wiedenman who is identified all over the place as a Baron. See the official Cass Elliot website - http://www.casselliot.com/imagepage2.htm - for a photo with the caption: "Cass and her second husband Baron Donald von Wiedenman, 1971" Tvoz 00:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Time obituary was appearently written by somebody who did not know much about Germany. Her husband could not have been heir to a barony, because Germany was a republic at that time. That is also the reason why she couldn't become a baroness. Legally, all former noble titles form part of the surname, thus her husband's name could have been Donald Baron von Wiedenman. This man was then appearently known under the name Baron Donald von Wiedenman. However, his wife cannot be a Baroness, because he is legally not a baron. Furthermore, under German law, her name would have been registered under "Baronin von Wiedenman" (not Baroness von Wiedenman) if it was registered in Germany at all. Again, that does not mean that she was a baroness; it is just common practice that former noble titles that form part of the surname of a person will be inflected according to gender in Germany. And there is no source so far that claims that she was a baroness (and if there is, it would be absurd: Germany is a republic, and has no baronesses; I thought that was common knowledge. People can be known as something, but that doesn't make them that). My source for the legal situation regarding last names and titles of nobility in Germany would be "Die Adelsbezeichnung im deutschen und ausländischen Recht" ("Titles of nobility under German and foreign law") by Karl Friedrich Dumoulin, 1997. I am sorry there I have no English source, but I guess there are not many books in English that deal with the question of what happened to former German noble titles after Germany became a republic. All that said, I am removing the claim that she was a baroness. Blur4760 22:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The claim that someone cannot be a baron in Germany is (and I am speaking as a German academic social historian here) nonsense, because while the nobility as a judicial category was indeed abolished in 1919, all titles were at the same time legally converted into surnames and are borne as such to this day by the descendants of the 1919 titleholders. This means you have a situation where many people have the legal name "Baron von X", "Count von Y", "Prince von Z", etc. (and where incidentally there is no legal way of simply taking up such a name unless you acquire it by birth, marriage, or adoption), and where it is absolutely common practice to say of these people "so-and-so is a a baron / a count" etc. I have heard people say that and read people write it in post-1919-Germany for hundreds if not thousands of times, and everybody knows exactly what it means unless, like the poster above, they want to split hairs for teh sake of splitting hairs.

So the reason for not calling the protagonist of this article a baroness is not that nobody can be a German baroness, but rather that her husband's claim to being any such thing appears entirely spurious, and his name an invention of his own. There is no record anywhere of any German (or Austrian, or Dutch, Danish etc.) family of barons or simple nobles of this name (which, incidentally, looks suspiciously like the Anglo-respelling of a name that would have to be "Wiedenmann" with two ns in German), let alone of anything that could make this man an "heir to a Bavarian barony", because they are no Bavarian baronies; whenever the Kingdom of Bavaria granted the title of Baron, all male-line-descendants of the person to whom it was granted would automatically have the title from the moment of their birth. The idea of a barony which only a single holder could hold at a time is something drawn from the British (and French, etc.) peerage system which has no equivalent in Bavaria. It seems clear that Wiedenman, presumably an American with German ancestors, simply chose to invent himself a pseudo-noble family history (including adding the "von" to his name) at a time when Americans would have neither cared, nor had much of a chance of fact-checking it. 77.13.12.61 (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Only after writing the above reply did I notice a subsequent, unsigned & undated comment starting with "Cass was indeed married" etc., to which for whatever technical reason I cannot reply directly. Everything it contains though fits my above interpretation, and I absolutely agree with its conclusions. 77.13.12.61 (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Cass was indeed married for a few months to Donald von Wiedenman, who does indeed claim, repeatedly, to be a baron. The thing is, although the USA has never awarded titles of nobility and Germany does not award them anymore, those who derive from families who used to have them may continue to say so and to trade on them, as it were. However, in the second chapter of his book "Close Personal Friends," Wiedenman identifies himself as having a German background and of being "a third-generation American, born of solid peasant stock on both sides." Which makes his having any connection with German, Austrian, or other European nobility very unlikely. The book is available on Kindle, but I didn't feel like spending $9.99 to find out what his excuse for claiming the title could be. Going out on a limb here, but "baron" von Wiedenman seems to be rather full of himself and I have doubts about his honesty. And Cass was just starry-eyed enough to fall for the idea of marrying a baron.

Um… might not ‘Baron’ be his first name, rather than a title? I’m thinking here of Sacha Baron Cohen, aka Ali G. but there are other examples of ‘Baron’ as a forename. Just a thought.

References

Is including a urban legend relevant to a page or only sensationalizing false information?

Now that Elliot's cause of death is accurate, I am wondering what is the point of keeping the myth of the ham sandwich. This urban legend seems to stem from fatphobia and does not necessarily have anything to do with Elliot, but more about the need to sensationalize and make jokes about her death. I compared this to Richard Gere and his wiki page. His page does not include the infamous rumor/urban legend of the gerbil because those on his talk page stated that this is a encyclopedia and not a gossip column. Should the same thing be said for Elliot? Orangesky6791 (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• I agree. The statement as it stands now is tabloid in its presentation. The entry is not included at WP List of urban legends so it is not notable. Second, the other urban legends associated with Cass' death (that she died from a drug overdose, that the FBI had plotted to assassinate her, that she was pregnant with John Lennon's child) are not included in this section. Yes, it may be the most popularized, but that does not mean it necessarily belongs in an encyclopedia. Perhaps if it were to be included in reference to Dr. Anthony Greenburgh's initial report: "From what I saw when I got to the flat, she appeared to have been eating a ham sandwich and drinking Coca-Cola while lying down — a very dangerous thing to do. This would be especially dangerous for someone like Cass who was overweight and who might be prone to having a heart attack. She seemed to have choked on a ham sandwich," thus generating the urban legend, then maybe, maybe, it might warrant inclusion. But not as it stands now. I vote to delete. Although I have a feeling it will continually be added since, sadly, this will forever remain linked to the singer. Maineartists (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we can keep it out of the article, as distasteful as it is. And it's downright ugly in the "Death" section. But it's a pre-Internet meme that is very well established, and perhaps could be fit somehow in the popular culture reference section instead? Other than that, I agree with Maineartists completely. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 06:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I first want to acknowledge that this page has come a long way and that it seems to be an uphill battle to keep this page accurate and rumors at bay. Based on Wiki's rules, Mainartists points and jpgordon's point this "urban legend," should at the very least not be in the death section. I know this is a very infamous rumor that has stand the test of time but that is not a valid reason to keep it on the page, at least in this section, especially when pages of other notable people do not include their infamous rumors. Also the ham sandwich rumor is in several youtube videos, tik toks, gossip sites...maybe that is the platform for that rumor.

However, like jpgordon and maineartists have pointed out people will most likely try to keep adding it so here are two suggestions on where to put this tidbit. Maybe if there was a section discussing (accurate and tasteful one,) that discussed Cass having to deal with discrimination and fatphobia maybe somehow tying in that even with the insults and discrimination she is still a celebrated musical artist. Not my favorite suggestion, but just an idea to put out there. My other suggestion is that there is a "Social Stigma of Obesity," page maybe that is where that rumor should go if there is room for it. This could be put in pop culture, but if so people might as well put in all the other rumors about her in, and then the page will be convoluted and something wiki is not.

I am at the least going to vote to get it out of the "Death," section, unless there is a better way of structuring the sentence. I was also looking at Kurt Cobain's main wiki page to see how they dealt with the rumors of his death, and it seems they handled it more on the respected side. With that said there is a whole page dedicated to his death, that list conspiracy theories, but it still seems focused on giving facts. A very different example but I wanted to put that out there, as we think about how to frame such information relating to Cass. Thoughts?

You both are right, this is probably a never ending battle but it is worth to keep this page accurate and respectable. Orangesky6791 (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It looks as if an unregistered editor has removed the content. The problem with introducing any of the supposed "rumors" regarding Elliot's death in comparison to other main wiki pages such as Cobain's is that with Cobain there is factual evidence to back actual claims; even if they are considered "rumors", "ambiguities" or even "conspiracies". All the rumors surrounding Elliot's death are just that: rumors. All of which are not based in fact but are simply Tabloid-esque with a touch of sensationalism. I would not vote to introduce various rumors onto this page but I would vote to respectfully introduce any medical and law enforcement findings that would lead to possible misinterpretations of her death. The only connection to a plausible rumor that became mainstream and still exists today is the ham sandwich scenario which is directly linked with Dr. Anthony Greenburgh's initial report. By stating this report, it can easily be introduced in a respectful manner that due to this finding and subsequent release of statement it "gave rise" to what is now the infamous rumor that Elliot died by choking on a ham sandwich. Maineartists (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

"Due to speculation by the (some or another adjective) physician, Dr. Greenburgh, inaccurate rumours regarding her cause of death remain widespread." We don't have to go into any details about the rumors. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

My take is that if something is prominently reported by reliable sources it's not our job as editors to hide it. The New York Times recently (May 9 2024) published a long piece about Cass Elliot that treats this myth. It's at [4].

An excerpt:

For years, the origin of the story that Elliot died from choking on a ham sandwich — one of the cruelest and most persistent myths in rock ’n’ roll history — was largely unknown. Then in 2020, Elliot’s friend Sue Cameron, an entertainment journalist, admitted to publicizing it in her Hollywood Reporter obituary at the behest of Elliot’s manager Allan Carr, who did not want his client associated with drug use. (Elliot died of a heart attack, likely brought on by years of substance abuse and crash dieting.) But that cartoonish rumor — propagated in endless pop culture references, from “Austin Powers” to “Lost” — cast a tawdry light over Elliot’s legacy and still threatens to overshadow her mighty, underappreciated talent.

Claims that this is "not notable" seem to be overstated. Yes, this article should be respectful and factual. The fact is that lots of people believe this myth. A simple one sentence statement like "She did not die from choking on a sandwich, as a persistent popular myth claims." would be more than sufficient. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, now we know more precisely what happened, so we can say precisely what happened. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

OK. well what do you propose to say precisely what happened?

My reading of the Times article is that Elliot’s manager Allan Carr falsely claimed that she died from choking on a ham sandwich in order to "protect" her from the public thinking she had died from a drug overdose. This was repeated by reporter Sue Cameron in The Hollywood Reporter even though she knew at the time it was false. From the article:

Cameron heard about Elliot’s death in the newsroom of The Hollywood Reporter, where she was working at the time: “I kicked into professional mode and said, no one else is going to write that obit. I’m going to do it.” She tracked down Carr by phone in Nilsson’s apartment. “He could barely speak,” Cameron recalled. She asked what happened, and he said he didn’t know. “‘Oh, wait,’” she recalled him saying. “‘I see a half-eaten ham sandwich on the night stand. That’s good. You tell everybody that she choked on a ham sandwich, do you understand me?’”

“And I did it,” she added, “because I wanted to protect Cass.”

Agree with the editors above that we don't need to repeat every rumor about the subjects in our bio articles. But this isn't just a random rumor, it was presented as fact at the time. And it persists to this day, to the point that the Times titled their article:

Cass Elliot’s Death Spawned a Horrible Myth. She Deserves Better.

The Mamas & the Papas singer was known for her wit, her voice and her skill as a connector. For 50 years, a rumor has overshadowed her legacy.

Objections that this is somehow "not notable" in light of the Times article seems absurd. Agree that it's a distasteful and disrespectful aspersion, but Wikipedia is not censored. I just don't like it is not a viable argument. As the article now reads, it's like the dog that didn't bark. It's conspicuous in it's absence. The right thing to do here is address the false claim head on and say clearly that it is false.

I don't think we need a lot of detail - my editorial judgment is that one sentence will suffice and if our readers want more detail they can follow the cites. I don't understand why having it in the Death section makes it "ugly"; that seems like the obvious place to put a simple succinct statement clarifying that the "rumor" is false. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Age at death

The article says born September 19, 1941 and died July 29, 1934 (age 31). Shouldn't that be age 32? Or maybe the dates are wrong? Ada42 (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)