Talk:Deaths in 2006/Archive 1

Order of dates reversed

Is there any reason why the usual date order (latest shown at top) has been reversed? JackofOz 00:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Stupidity :) Make sure to begin each day with a semicolon only, to avoid the Table of Contents. 17:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want to avoid the toc, then hide the toc, but please leave the headers so we have the ability to edit sections instead of having to edit the whole list at once. Gamaliel 19:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Billy Hughes

@Gamaliel about Lassie actor http://news.google.it/news?hl=it&q=morto%20lassie&sa=N&tab=wn Clutcher 22:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Billy Hughes the Lassie actor died December 20th and is listed there. Williamb 23:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Barry Cowsill

There are reports that Barry Cowsill's remains were identified in Baton Rouge as one of the Katrina victims. If this is true what date will we put his death at?

Cowsill was last heard from on, and appears to have died on, September 1, 2005. Sometimes we put (body identified) dates, but these are reserved for cases where date of death is very speculative. Since Cowsill was found on a wharf, I think it is safe to save the flood killed him quickly. 07:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

They Shoot Horses, Don't They?

Re Jeune: What's the threshhold for including horses in this necrology? Seems to me there are lots and lots of "Cup"-winning horses that could be included, but do we really want to? Wouldn't we then have to include names of Best in Show dogs and cats? Call me species-ist, but I think this list should be limited to humans. Bruxism 18:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, animals don't belong here. It also seems to be a rather parochial addition as the vastly more significant Danzig also dies this week but didn't garner a mention. Andypasto 20:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This question comes up with monotonous regularity, and we go thru the debate all over again every time. It's like recreating the wheel about 6 times a year. There really should be a clear rule about this so that everyone knows for certain whether animals are in or out. You can't let one horse in and exclude others. JackofOz 20:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that animals should be included on the list. Gamaliel 21:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 Yeah no horses! BDSIII

I think if it's an animal that would be known outside the niche (say like Koko the Gorilla or Dolly the Sheep), then it's a candidate for inclusion. Otherwise, forget about it. Canadian Paul 09:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a better idea just to have a seperate page for recently deceased famous animals? --Rai 10:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In previous discussion, the consensus was that there are too few of them, per month, to bother with a separate page. Xoloz 13:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rai, a separate page for the animals would make more sense... Joe Mariachi 16:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ariel Sharon

What's with people's egos lately? Ariel Sharon is sick but still very much alive. Twice now his name has been added and removed. Can't people just wait till a guy is actually dead before adding him here? Being the one to add a new name is really not that huge a deal. JackofOz 10:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there were silly rumours in Israel that the government are covering up his death. --Whouk (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought doctors said he would survive under any circumstance. Has this been changed? Or was I misinformed?- TopAce 14:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Sago Mine deaths

While everyone agrees that the deaths were very sad, none of those listed were "notable" in the sense of this encyclopedia. If these names are kept, then I would petition for the names of everyone who has ever died in such an accident to be added to Wikipedia. --Zaphod Beeblebrox 18:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, if it made headlines then it gets in WikiNews and possibly the current events header...but unless we have individual articles for each of the miners, showing their role in the collapse, then there's no reason for them to be on here. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 19:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Formating

Is it appropriate to start a discussion about the formating of entries, several recent ones have been confusing. For example it reads like Baron Stratford was the minister for Sport, stroke and cerebral haemorrhage. --Gonzo 17:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Betty Hockin

Why is this lady listed here? Being a notable person's grandmother is not, in itself, notable. JackofOz 20:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. I have removed her entry. Cheers TigerShark 20:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The Thames Whale

Now I love whales as much as the next guy but is a whale really "notable?" It's kind of in the same vein as the horses eh?Galuple 01:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same but left it in on the grounds that it has its own full article. --Whouk (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Family members

What are Rose Nader (mother of Ralph) and Alex Smith (son of Ian) doing on this list? What did they ever do in their own right to make them notable? JackofOz 20:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree and have removed them. Cheers TigerShark 22:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think including family members of particularly famous people on the list is pretty harmless, but I'm not going to press this point. However, I've restored Rose Nader because I think a NYTimes obit indicates sufficient notability for inclusion for anyone. Gamaliel 21:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally I agree we shouldn't, but I recognise it'll be a 50/50 split among people's opinions...and I'd rather save my efforts for fighting against the constant US executions being listed instead. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the US execution listings have also been discussed amply, and are at least likewise 50/50 among the community. Xoloz 04:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with listing late family members here if they get a significant mention in the subject's own article. By significant, I don't just mean that "Joe Bloggs had a daughter named Phyllis". Phyllis must have done something in relation to her father's life that is worthy of mention in Joe's article. That would make Phyllis noteworthy in her own right, not merely because she just happened to be the daughter of a noteworthy person. That it might not justify Phyllis having her own Wiki article would not matter.

I realise this is a double-edged sword, however. Some children of celebrities become noteworthy (notorious?) because of their "lifestyles". If they were the children of nonentities, the media would not be fawning over them and the world would never have heard of them. Once a person becomes well-known - however that may have come about - that is usually enough to keep them well-known and in someone's spotlight. Money creates money, and fame creates fame. Some do of course fade into the obscurity they so richly deserve. (I think I'm ranting now so I'll stop.) JackofOz 08:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

American Executions

Does every executed prisoner in the United States need to make this page? I can understand Stanley Williams, but Marion Dudley? --Visual77 04:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Please review the archives for the ample discussion on this topic. Certainly, each side has arguments, but opinion is at least split 50/50, and, as a general rule, Wikipedia defaults to inclusion. Note Dudley now has an article. -- Xoloz

Also, now that Dudley has an article, you may seek to have that deleted via AfD. Many precedents suggest the article will be kept, but you are welcome to try. -- Xoloz

I have nothing against articles for those executed, though I still dispute their place on this list. But at the very least, we should take a stance of "If they don't have an article, then no". If somebody wants them on the list badly enough, they can take five minutes to draw up a nice stub article at least Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 18:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

We list other folks who have red links here, assuming articles will be written -- if they have a source, and meet general criteria, they're in. Readding the latest. There is really no point in playing the revert game about this, as the result of default inclusion is acknowledged by everybody as the likely outcome. -- Xoloz

Well, personally, I think that the fact that only the executed from the United States are listed, and not the thousands others who are put to death every day all around the world is an injustice to the anonymous, rarely reported. Also, for a worldwide organization like Wikipedia, the listing of American criminals, is very Americo-centric. In consequance, believe that either everyone be listed (which would be ridiculous) or that no one is.Yellowmellow45 21:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

(I'm only opposed to their listing on the recent deaths page and not them having an article)Yellowmellow45 22:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

In general, I would say that only people who are notable enough to have their own article should be included in this list. This should apply to executed persons, as much as anybody else. We should therefore remove any "execution" entries that are not notable in their own right. TigerShark 22:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel somewhat as if I'm repeating myself but: 1) Executions in the US are notable, verifiable, and controversial events (the Roman Catholic Church, largest denomination in the US, opposes them.) I wish we could list all executions, but executions in closed states are not verifiable, nor are they controversial (in the sense that there is domestic dispute documented.) This is why other nations aren't listed: no other free nation has state executions besides the US; if one did, it would be here. Not Americo-centrism, just an unfortunate reflection of reality.

2) Executed criminals survive AfD routinely. Even those "less" famous executed are still the subject of at least state-wide press over the course of their arrests, trials, and deaths. Additionally, even the "less" famous are valid subjects for criminological study -- studies of crime do not rely on the Bundies and Mansons of the world in isolation. As such, there is much information to be shared on each person, sufficient to pass WP:BIO, and none has ever been deleted at AfD. Longstanding precedent dictates that anything living valuable enough to merit an article merits listing here: we don't make additional bars of noteworthiness, to avoid squabbles over what countries' artists, leaders, and notables are "worthy".

3) Although no one has mentioned this directly yet, Recent Deaths doesn't list only "likeable people" who have died. The mission of an encyclopedia is to chronicle both the noble and the ignoble extremes of experience. Although it is a bit odd to list a criminal next to a Nobel-prize winning scientist, it is essential, if the encyclopedia is to avoid seeing the world through "rose-colored" lens.

All of this has been argued ad nauseam before, by me, and many long before my time. See Deaths in 2005 talk archive. Based on the warrant of the 10 or so AfDs I personally remember on this subject, I make sure to maintain executed criminals on the list; enough people find this information useful such that striking it is a waste of time. -- Xoloz

I am not going to rehash the argument here, my point of view has been stated. I do think that to prevent having this discussion over and over again a formal, binding, survey on this issue would be warranted. I have too little time myself to set it up and such but I would welcome it if it happened.--Kalsermar 16:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

IMO, the late Mr. Jacob Robida sheds more light on our question. He was "suspect", unconvicted, in a crime that is certainly notorious at the moment in the US; but, the shelf life of his story is questionable, I think. Yet, he has an article, and I strongly suspect an effort to AfD him would fail. The average executed criminal, given the time spent on death row, has at least a decade in the public eye, albeit somewhat marginally. My point is, though, that this long duration ensures the average convicted, executed killer has much, much more press attention than Mr. Robida. To me, Robida is the test case/fence-sitting figure for criminal notability, not someone who has been subject to trials, appeals, and the press coverage thereof. Xoloz 20:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he seriously breaks the mold for "He's only famous because he's dead", and certainly nobody outside the US cares about the case I imagine. Surely we're not going down the slippery slope of listing people killed in shootouts now? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 22:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Press attention in itself really isn't much of a criteria, considering that most of the USA believe capital punishment is a done deal and wish the press would stop yammering about it so much. What the press decides to publish sometimes is really a far cry from what is actually notable.

This appears to be from Williamb, and is a strange comment. While a majority of the US does support capital punishment, a significant minority (between 30-45%, depending on your source) is very vocal in its opposition, including (I say again) the very significant US Roman Catholic Church. Of course, internationally, the US is widely questioned for the practice, now unique in the western world. These facts together obviously generate, and justify, newsworthiness. His contrary argument is merely POV, I'm afraid. Xoloz 16:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet your insistence on listing every last one whether they get very much press at all seems to be as much POV as anything else. Williamb 20:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No, because I came to my view through the experience of arguing this question over and over, and realizing that striking could never succeed. As it happens, I support the death penalty, albeit much less extensively than it is used today. When I first came to Wikipedia, I couldn't have cared less whether the executed got articles or not. Now, I perfer to argue for inclusion just to keep us from jumping through the same hoops over and over. Remember, "writing for the enemy" is Wikipedia guideline, and good advance in analytical thinking generally. Xoloz 01:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone is notable enough to have an article in their own right, then they should be on here regardless. Then it's an AfD thing rather than a Deaths in YYYY issue. —Whouk (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Xoloz 16:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've said this before, but speaking as a historian, and considering Wikipedia as a research source, and not as a topical magazine, having information on every executed criminal in the U.S. (and other states), and the legal process by which the sentence was imposed, is a very valuable resource. Scholars, whether they want to argue for or against the death penalty, will be able to find quick information and links on executions for general reference or for studies they may wish to do later. That's what an encyclopedia is for, in my opinion, and that's why an inclusive encyclopedia, when space is not an issue, is the ideal. Bruxism 22:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense! The United statyes execution page on wiki has enough info already. This is just another ploy to get around it being POV. Basically the POV anti-death penalty are going to force their view on everybody else whether they are actually right or not. Williamb 07:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I support the death penalty, and continue to agree with Bruxism. You are incorrect in your characterization of this choice as a "ploy". Xoloz 15:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm also a feverent opponent of the death penalty, but do not want American executions listed on here, because it is horrible US-centric, and most of them are really not notable. "omg, Carter killed 2 people in 1978! I've learned so much today" compared to reading about a Serbian politician, an Chadian music conductor or the inventor of 2000 Flushes. shrugs so no, as Xoloz said, this really has nothing to do with personal POVs about capital punishment. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 15:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Jack Taylor

The wikilink for Jack Taylor, who died on 2/6 and was apparently the heaviest man in Britain, directs to a disambig page (here), but none of the men listed are the Taylor who died recently. I removed the link, but my edit was reverted. Does this guy have an article? I can't find it. Is he notable enough for a mention on this page? --buck 23:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I am also wary of Mr. Taylor noteworthiness, he should have a chance to get an article (and be AfD'ed), as he is sourced, and some probably consider weight records notable. I have added a red-link to the disambig. page to distinguish him. His link at Recent Deaths is probably best left blue (to the disamb.), only because Jack Taylor is a very common name. Xoloz 17:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

*Zachary Edward Holmes,13,Humboldt, Tennessee

- Febuary 17 2006 We lost a dear friend of ours. He was strucken by a car along with best friend Benjamin Pratt. Which is still in critical condition). Zach donated all of his last working organs in hopes that he could save someone else.

I think someone's put this in the wrong place. And the subject may be tragic, but is also non-notable.

User who keeps removing middle initials

You keep breaking the link to the original article, pointing to a disambiguation page, or pointing to an entirely different person with a similar name. Don't remove middle initials just for the heck of it. Fan1967 19:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Check the history, you should be able to find the culprit(s) that way. Joe Mariachi 16:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_2006&action=history There's the history page if you need it... Joe Mariachi 16:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Actors and roles

When an actor dies it is common to include a well known, or preferably "best known" role as part of the summary. I notice that Darren McGavin's has been changed a few times since his death. Unless there is a role that immediately recalls the actor and is synonymous with him or her (eg Dennis Weaver in McCloud, Bob Denver in Gilligan's Island, Don Adams in Get Smart, Elizabeth Montgomery in Bewitched etc) it should not be mentioned. In my opinion, McGavin's best known role is Kolchak:The Night Stalker. I don't care - that's my POV. Christmas Story (which I've never heard of although I've followed McGavin's career with vague interest) is obviously someone else's POV. Let's keep this sort of thing off the page - this is not a forum for voting for our favourite performances. If there is no clear cut iconic role to mention, the name, age, profession and cause of death should suffice. Thanks. Rossrs 09:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of Kolchak and not a fan of A Christmas Story, but CS is mentioned in every McGavin obit that I've read, often more promiently than KTNS. Last time I looked, both were mentioned, but now neither appear. There's no harm in mentioning one or two promient roles, and is a lot more informative than "TV and movie actor". Gamaliel 09:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It is mentioned rather prominently isn't it? Citing both, as you have, is good. Rossrs 09:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

John Parkinson

This entry links to a john parkinson from the 1650s.... is someone going to create a stub for the titanic john? Lukas 22:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I set the bar pretty low for inclusion here, but is the president of the "Belfast Titanic Society" important enough to note? Gamaliel 07:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that gives me pause is that the Titanic was built in Belfast. It is remotely possible that, as a young boy, Parkinson did something to "assist" in building the ship. I agree, though, citation is needed. -- Xoloz

It turns out your hunch is mostly correct. He did work at H&W. He was too young to work on the ship, but his father did work on it. Gamaliel 19:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Eldred Gunniernos

Could someone please create an article for Eldred Gunniernos. -DGFS6691, March 4, 2006

Kirby Puckett

I know it looks dire, but there has not been confirmation of his death as of yet. --Mhking 01:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Kuhn

I rm this person; while all deaths are tragic this person is not even notable enough to appear in the Lake Forest Academy article. While I'm sure someone will get around to inserting Kuhn into the article in question (perhaps quite properly), merely being mentioned in an article does not make one notable.

Also, there is no source for this obit; Google returns zero hits for "Stephen H. Kuhn" "lake forest academy" shot and likewise zero for "Stephen Kuhn" "lake forest academy" shot. Well, if it did happen, it happened today, so perhaps this will change. But I still would want to see some grounds for notability. John Reid 04:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ivor Cutler

Removed duplicate entry at 8th.

Mortimo Planno

Planno is listed twice, on the 6th and 5th. Plus, he's referred as Mortimo and Mortimer. And... two ages (85 and 76). Appears as though two different people.