Talk:Deaths in 2014/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Ref titles and formatting being ignored

It appears some people are ignoring the reference formatting guidelines for this page. Someone (plural?) even creates fake article titles. Is there any reason for this? Frankly, I view it as disruptive editing behavior (what I'd normally template a newer user for) and would very much like it to stop. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Speaking for some of us that do this- We arent plagiarists. Using other people's words without directly attributing them is plagiarism in its purest form. The Name, Nationality, Age and Cause of Death are all publicly documented. The notation for notability is something that should be obvious and need not be co-opted from an article. When I edit articles outside of this one, I always fully use citations. However when I use full citations here they are reduced to only the article title- which is plagiarism even on a link. I will not be a party to it. I was asked by several people privately to put in a reference to fill in the bottom section so that they can be easily verified, which I have no problem doing. But I do have a problem with out and out plagiarism.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Reflinks tool located at http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Reflinks automatically adds the article title to an otherwise bare URL reference. It converts, for example, [http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2014/02/140210-giraffe-copenhagen-science/] to [http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2014/02/140210-giraffe-copenhagen-science/ Giraffe Killing at Copenhagen Zoo Sparks Global Outrage].
I am sure the Wikipedia administrators will be surprised and disappointed to learn that the tool they have approved for use throughout Wikipedia results in plagiarism! WWGB (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
There are a number of Citation tools out there...check WP:CITETOOL. But you are using another's words without naming the author or publication in the same area. That is plagiarism.Sunnydoo (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The publication IS named. It's the first part of the URL (nationalgeographic.com.au). But it is plagiarism if you say so, even though the cite tools are approved to cite in that way. WWGB (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
A hotlink is not a proper citation. That only tells you where to find it. Not who wrote it or even who published it...only who is hosting it, as a portion of these obits are completed by the Wire services (AP, Reuters, etc.).Sunnydoo (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Equally, whether we personally agree or not with the referencing style utilised in this article, its use was approved by general consensus - which was a lengthy process. Editors deciding unilaterally to opt out are not doing themselves, the agreed principles of Wikipedia editing, nor this well used article any favours. I can accept those largely unfamiliar with this page may not always follow the agreed style, but other regular users do not have, IMHO, a valid excuse.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
For a few principled veteran editors (or just one) to go from a full detailed cite that bogged down the page to an established more common tool such as Reflinks to not listing any titles to now only listing names or parts thereof is most certainly conflicting and disruptive. It is also a major reason I myself do not contribute here much any longer. As for Reflinks not naming publications, try it. Most times, it gives them or the website. — Wyliepedia 12:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree Wylie. One of these days we hopefully will hit upon a system that works for everyone. I really feel for some of these guys who come over from the other language Wikis and who speak English from a 2nd or 3rd language perspective. They drop full cites in here and then they get whacked down to the nub. I am sure they dont understand the reasons why. If it helps I wont enter titles at all anymore, but like I said, I had about 3 or 4 people ask for them, so I acquiesced on their behalf.
As for my friend from South Brisbane, Queensland (hehe), one of my favorite Ayn Rand quotes just for you- "The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles." Rand, Ayn (1961) "For the New Intellectual," Random House (New York), pg. 165.Sunnydoo (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen many "other language"-ers drop many full cites here recently. Most, if memory serves, either follow suit (the format given either above or below their entry) or just list bare URLs. And how do you know, Sunnydoo, that they don't understand why their cites get trimmed? I have gone straight from here to some blue links to verify cross-reports and most have bare URLs there, as well. As for the "spread of evil", that is yet another personal attack on WWGB that, I, for one, won't stand for and think it needs to stop. Consensus and conformity have cleaned up this page immensely, affording most of us efficient load times, especially when it comes to fixing references. Those who are non-compliant only cause extra work for others. — Wyliepedia 15:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Even ProveIt only requires a URL, title, and access date. If you have an issue with the ref formatting as plagiarism, bring it up on ANI or Village Pump. The format was agreed by consensus and commonly used on Wikipedia. Please abide by the consensus. Otherwise, you are being disruptive and I, for one, and getting quite frustrated by it. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
It is not an attack on WWGB. It was a message to the person who logged out and then put up an IP address that locates to Brisbane that called me a Horse. As far as I know, I believe WWGB lives in Melbourne (and to be fair- I spend half my time in Colorado and half my time in Tennessee). WWGB and I do have a history, but I dont think that even he would stoop to that level. I do have a pretty good suspicion who it was however. You can check it if you like- ‎ 124.171.52.117 goes back to APNIC PO BOX 3646 Brisbane, Queensland, Australia 4101. They are a domain registration service in Aussie land. **Update-You can actually look it up on their site...# goes to a suburban Perth site somewhere near Subiaco...I dont think that is WWGB. That kind of thing takes a certain level of maturity or lackthereof and I can tell that most of us arent spring chickens. The ones that are stand out. Sunnydoo (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I removed the image, since it was a "drive-by". Anyone who thinks it belongs can revert. I also struck my comment about the evil thang. Carry on. At least it wasn't a giraffe. — Wyliepedia 17:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I was just happy it was the front side of the horse.Sunnydoo (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sunnydoo - you're edits are disruptive. Please stop refusing to follow the consensus format for references. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

My edits are anything but disruptive. They are respectful and made with the best of intentions.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Frankly they cause headaches for all the other editors who need to clean up after you. I admit I'm in a foul mood at the moment, but I've need trying to understand why you refuse to properly format your references for a couple weeks now. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Wylie asked that I stop putting in extra words in the reference to make the tag at the bottom, so I have stopped doing that. I would assume that the little program will run correctly now. I wouldnt have started had 3 editors not asked me to to begin with. I hope your mood improves. Maybe go for a little walk...that helps me when I am in a bad mood and my dog likes it.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I see you stopped adding your own titles, but wonder why you don't add the real titles. But yes, Reflinks can fix your refs easy enough. It's late where I am so I'll just go to bed. Pardon the grump. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir:, bare URLs are far less "disruptive" than listing something other than the title. I would rather clean up after the bot than go searching for proper titles. Sunnydoo and the dog are making progress. — Wyliepedia 12:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Tibetan or Chinese?

Does Wikipedia have any policy or precedent for using "Chinese" to refer to Tibetans? Given the dispute there, I'd think Tibetan was the NPOV term to use. Really don't want to start a huge debate, just wondering if there's precedent for the Deaths pages. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

A Googling ("tibetan" "deaths by month" site:en.wikipedia.org) shows we do indeed have several dead Tibetans. A lama, a physicist, various spiritual/religious leaders. It's not a state, but its non-statehood has made it a notable place. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I see we also use Taiwanese. I'm going to change the edit. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The policy is you state the Nation (nationality) and Territory for disputed or large territories...so we use American (tribe of Indian) or Puerto Rico, Chinese Hong Kong, Macau or Tibet, Spain Basque, British and Overseas Territory like Bermuda, Falkland Islander, etc. This was a raging topic 2 years ago and we dont need to revisit it. It almost got several of us banned. This works for everyone as both the affiliated group and the Nation holder are both stated (which thankfully cuts down on a large number of edit wars...everyone is happy and sad, but treated equally...the best compromise available).Sunnydoo (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's not very consistently enforced. I see "Taiwanese" and "Tibetan" used on other Deaths pages. Also, the page says "country of citizenship", if that differs from "nation" at all... I'll dig in the talk archives for the discussion tomorrow. Not willing to fight much over this. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I cant speak for the other pages, I can only speak on this one. Like I said it was a very hotly debated subject along 3 different lines. Some took the position of only listing the passport agency (China in this case), some wanted only the self-identifying side (Indians instead of Americans for example) and we eventually settled on both. The discussion began with Russell Means death on October 22, 2012, as some wanted him only listed as American. As you can tell it was a very memorable debate and not one that I ever want to revisit again. I am sure WWGB feels the same way.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I learned something today. The Macanese are not called Macaques. I've been calling them that, but thankfully, not to their faces. Didn't mean it in a monkey way, anymore than I think all Afghans are rugs. But thanks for the enlightenment! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I got to put in the last living member of the Ottoman Empire last year. I am looking forward to one day getting a Danish Greenlander. We actually had a run of 3 or 4 Danish Faroe Islanders a couple of years back too.Sunnydoo (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Apparently, the Québécois are immortal here. Doing the same site search as for Tibet, Google says it has nothing, then offers Infinite Jest for top hit. Fascinating. I remember first hearing about that Ottoman here. Good job! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

ARTCON - American, British, or other English?

Do we have any precedence or rules for use of English spelling variants? I noticed this edit and it made me wonder. Also, is there a specific list of the rules for the "Deaths in" pages? Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the only Deaths-specific rules are at the top of the article. And some clarification in the FAQ at the top here. The whole colour vs color war is a general MoS thing. Recommends using the kind relevant to the article's nationality. So here, Canadians are "honoured" and Americans are "honored". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes that is correct. We use the POV of the person that died. You see it most often in CoDs such as haemorrhage v. hemorrhage, motor neuron disease v. amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, tumour v. tumor and in a couple of other places like labour v. labor usually in relation to unions. I always notate it in my notes when I add someone using one of the variant words to give the other editors a head's up on why it is the way it is. I believe there was a day last week where I put in a brain haemorrhage and a brain hemorrhage on back to back edits. That was pretty crazy.Sunnydoo (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay! So follow the WP:TIES? Works for me. Just was curious. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014 deaths

When would it be okay to delete the redirect to 2014 deaths and move the article data about 2014 April deaths to its own page? Robert4565 (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thats not how it works. There is a system in place. Talk to WWGB or Wylie (both linked on this page already) in private on the matter if you want to know more.Sunnydoo (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
May 7 (or 7 May) 2014 is the day we put April deaths with Deaths in April 2014, as per the FAQ above. — Wyliepedia 05:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Zeituni Onyango

It makes no sense to refer to Zeituni Onyango as "Kenyan computer programmer, involved in immigration case during 2008 US presidential election campaign..." Ignoring that she was Obama's aunt ignores the very reason she is notable. It's not important that she was a computer programmer.Viknyc (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It was a compromise between WWGB and myself. He likes to play the wiki policy:Notability not inherited card and I didnt feel like getting into it with him again as long as the death stayed listed. So we worked on the entry and kept Obama out of it and used the flash point that was created as an immigration topic during the 2008 campaign as her reason for notability. Both she and he were investigated by the Justice Dept and the White House had to issue a formal statement- which should suffice for the notability concern. The programmer part is just her description (and from all accounts she was an exceedingly good one). The reason for notability part is the 2nd part.Sunnydoo (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
And in WWGB's defense, he is not from the US so he does not understand the political powers or topics in play- just as I cant really comment on the political factors in Australia or Mongolia for that matter. It is one of the fun and frustrating parts of Wiki being global trying to explain each others culture to one another. I am just glad we both speak English as a first language.Sunnydoo (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm a firm believer in "no relative name dropping" here, myself, and was one of the ones to remove this entry's Obamability. — Wyliepedia 09:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
While I understand that, there are certain cases where it does qualify. There were political motivations against her as a proxy and there was concern of wrong doing on the other side. She was bound in the middle by his stature.Sunnydoo (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed--

The font and spacing keep changing on the front page but not on the talk page.

Is someone horsing around with the settings?Sunnydoo (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Possibly something to with Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 125#Font size and style. --Racklever (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Ya thats it. Thanks Rack. Going to have to figure out how to put that script change in my preferences. Humans always messing with things. I have an eye disease and sudden changes like this tend to freak me out a bit until I get used to the new way.Sunnydoo (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Awaiting Confirmation

2 of the World's Top Terrorists are believed to have been killed tonight in shoot outs with Yemeni forces. Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, 32, and I believe to be Saudi Arabian was Al Qaeda's master bomb maker responsible for the shoe and underwear bomb. Nasir al-Wuhayshi the leader of Al Qaeda in the Peninsula (AQAP) is also believed to have been killed in a separate but near by tiff with Yemeni Special Forces. I dont know who will make the official announcement or when we should decide to list, but it is a developing and serious situation. [1] Sunnydoo (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, we won't have to wait as long as we will for any detail on the 63 others. I'm sure a lot were just in the wrong place, but part of me still believes some must have had notable criminal careers to lead up to this. But it's almost always just "suspected militant". These reporters are depriving Wikipedia of some good bios.
As for the two with published names, I think they're fair here as soon as any source reports it without the "maybe". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
At least the government has confirmed it's trying to identify who it killed. But as of 19 hours ago, no word on Asiri or Wuhayshi either. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The only confirmed death I'm seeing is Munnaser al-Anbouri, who apparently did nothing newsworthy (at least in English) till this. He was a "local commander", but no indication of who he commanded, or what they did. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, there is a body that Yemen has that is being DNA tested. They believe it is Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, but the tests have not come back. The leader Nasir al-Wuhayshi is more murky. They may never say whether he was captured or killed.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Apparently they missed. The actual dead guy who supplied the DNA was identified as simply Saudi. Not a wanted bomb maker, either. That narrows it down a bit. Whoever he was, at least his family is presumably one of those compensated. With rifles. Maybe he'll become newsworthy yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Senator from not for

From my talk page Masterknighted (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Would somebody please infirm this editir tvat a United States Senator is officially referred to as from rather than for.

John Kerry was born in Colorado. He was not the Senator from Massachusetts. He worked and was elected for the State of Massachusetts.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC) How many tomes do we have to have this conversation the senator is addressed as the senator from in the U.S always has beenMasterknighted (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

No it is not. Its just of the media likes to play fast and loose with the English language. Its the use of the wrong preposition. I like to use the term House instead of the entire thing. But some on here dont like that so we have to use the entire thing. Its just a case of using the preposition the right way. Just because someone uses it wrongly doesnt justify that we do. The term automobile crash is another. If you look up the word crash, you can see how many times the media uses it incorrectly. When we talk "from" we are most often describing a person's birthplace not in this context. It is easier to say "for" as he is elected and represents the people of Massachusetts and is "for" their interests.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not the media it is the way the Senators are addressed in session, as described by themselves and there is a residency requirement so that they represen tv where the state they are fromMasterknighted (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC). Googlle the two terms with the position and a state and tell me what you find overwhelmingMasterknighted (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC) and conclusive evidence that you are wring

And this discussion belongs in the relevant arena, not this one. 86.112.67.18 (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The weight of numbers, and official usage, appears to support the "from" case. For example, Obama's official biographical information describes him as "a Senator from Illinois". WWGB (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand that. But he is also from the State of Hawaii. You are going to confuse people with this. If you want to talk Illinois, here are the 2 relevant Senator's websites...both state FOR their particular jurisdiction.[2][3]. And I will look up all 50 states of the Senator's homewebsites just to make my point. Standby.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Alabama- [4] Sessions FOR [5] Shelby took down his webby after it was hacked.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Georgia-[6] Chambliss FOR [7] Isakson neitherSunnydoo (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Tennessee- [8] Corker FOR [9] Alexander neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Florida- [10] Rubio FOR [11] Nelson neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
South Carolina- [12] Scott SERVING [13] Graham neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
North Carolina- [http:n//www.hagan.senate.gov/] Hagan FOR [14] Burr neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Virginia- [15] Kaine FOR [16] Warner FROMSunnydoo (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
West Virginia- [17]Rockefeller FOR [18] Manchin neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Kentucky- [19] McConnell FOR [20] Paul neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Ohio- [21] Portman FOR [22] Brown FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Michigan- [23] Stabenow FOR [24] Levin neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Maryland- [25] Mikulski FOR [26] Cardin FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Pennsylvania- [27] Casey FOR [28] Toomey FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
New York- [29] Gillibrand FOR [30] Schumer FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Delaware-[31] Carper FOR [32] Coons OF.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
New Jersey- [33] Menendez FOR [34] Booker neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Connecticut- [35] Murphy FOR [36] Blumenthal FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Rhode Island- [37] Reed FOR [38] Whitehouse FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Massachusetts- [39] Warren FOR [40] Markey FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Maine- [41] King FOR [42] Collins FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
New Hampshire- [43] Ayotte FOR [44] Shaheen FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Vermont- [45] Leahy FOR [46] Sanders FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Indiana- [47] Coats FOR [48] Donnelly FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Mississippi- [49] Wicker FOR [50] Cochran FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Missouri- [51] Blunt FOR [52] McCaskill neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Wisconsin- [53] Baldwin FOR [54] Johnson FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Minnesota- [55] Franken FOR [56] Klobuchar OF.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Iowa- [57] Grassley OF [58] Harkin neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Arkansas- [59] Boozman FOR [60] Pryor FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Louisiana- [61] Landrieu FOR [62] Vitter neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Texas- [63] Cruz FOR [64] Cornyn FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
New Mexico- [65] Udall FOR [66] Heinrich FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
California- [67] Feinstein FOR [68] Boxer neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Hawaii- [69] Hirono FOR [70] Schatz FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Alaska- [71] Begich FOR [72] Murkowski FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Arizona- [73] Flake neither [74] McCain's site down.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Oregon- [75] Wyden FOR [76] Merkley neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Washington- [77] Cantwell FOR [78] Murray FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Idaho- [79] Risch FOR [80] Crapo neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Montana- [81] Baucus neither [82] Tester FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Wyoming- [83] Barrasso neither [84] Enzi FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The Great State of Colorado- [85] Udall FOR [86] Bennet FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
North Dakota- [87] Hoeven FOR [88] Heitkamp FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
South Dakota- [89] Thune FOR [90] Johnson FROM.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Nebraska- [91] Fischer FOR [92] Johanns FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Kansas- [93] Roberts FOR [94] Moran FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Oklahoma- [95] Inhofe neither [96] Coburn FROM.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Utah- [97] Hatch FOR [98] Lee FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Nevada- [99] Heller FOR [100] Reid FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

By my count that is 72 Senators whose websites describe them FOR their particular state. It is hard for us to get 72 Senator's to agree on anything, but apparently they do on this. I will say it again- the FROM thing is a misuse of a preposition by the yokels we call the American media (like their favorite term auto crash) and you can see clearly that it is also not a term that Senators use to self-identify with...something this page uses to identify other important elements. Clearly it should be FOR and not FROM. The DEFENSE RESTS. (PS- I am an American before anyone takes that comment the wrong way. I just think that the 4th estate is responsible for a great many of our challenges).Sunnydoo (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

They are, nonetheless, the reliable sources we quote, and the style guides on which ours is supposedly based, and they do, indeed, normally use "from" for members of Congress, making "for" sound wrong in our pages. Anyone who's listened to C-SPAN has heard "the chair recognize[s] the gentleman from Minnesota". "For" sounds correct for BrE locations, though. I think the "for" on members' web sites could be intended to mean the antonym of "against", as though it is a campaign slogan (e.g. "Bartlet for America"). Anyone who listens to media talk about Congress at all regularly should not be confused by "the senior senator from Massachusetts". I don't know if that's sufficiently large a group, though, and I can see there is an argument to be made (though not a good one IMO) for using the unambiguous "for", even if it alienates the core constituency of readers. Do we do that with any of the BrE-isms that sound odd to US-E speakers? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Rebuttal- Yes but several of us have tried to use the term "House" as well and have been shouted down by a vocal majority who instead want "House of Representatives" even if it is only a few cases to abbreviate in. We also use the term "for" in all MP terms (which is the foreign equivalency) and for the sake of consistency along with the evidence from the Senator's websites, I would use the term "For."Sunnydoo (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm for "for". When "from" is used, it's in the context of an assembly. We're outside. Their "here" is our "there". Johnny Pockets represents New Delaware by going to Washington "for" them. While he's there, he's no different to the guy who works for the hydro company, and comes from it to your house.
And holy crap, the sources! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Am also for "for". Am also against the proof overkill. — Wyliepedia 17:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Common parlance uses "from" even if they are not "from" that state. But Sunnydoo is correct that official websites say "for". Honestly I don't care one way or the other. They both make sense to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I like the overkill. It took longer than it had to get the functional point across, but it was an expression of passion and frustration, like other holy crap. I think we should frame it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
And this STILL belonged in the relevant arena - not this talk page. Some of you experienced editors taking part here know this, too. 86.112.67.18 (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Where is that? I'm only semi-experienced. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Try Senator, which will redirect to Senate. The talk page there is designed to thrash out, or debate, correct style issues for every aspect of the Senate or Senator. The reason being that those in the know who regularly visit that page can put "semi-experienced" (I suspect you're having a laugh calling yourself that!) editors right on established conventions. It also ensures that new issues are shared with ALL interested parties, instead of being buried here between three or four of you. On the basis that they will not necessarily come to the "Deaths" page to view this already top-heavy, overweight and, frankly, argumentative post. I AM experienced - I just can't be bothered to log in every time! Cheers. 86.112.67.18 (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sunnydoo: While I'm as disturbed by the editorial quality of the media of late as anyone, common sense dictates that there may be a more likely reason for them to consistently use the "wrong" pronoun in a particular situation. In the present case, it's likely because it was common to think of and write about elected representatives as being sent "from" their constituencies to wherever the assembly was held. The use of "for" on the websites could mean that this is a style point that they actively want to change and that the websites are either template/boilerplate-based (at least to start), or written/edited by a common group. I'll also say that these all seem to be in the headers of the pages, and they are primary sources. The way someone writes about themselves in the third person may well be different than the way other sources do (and we are supposed to give independent sources more weight). And could you please insert a space at the start of your sig? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC), edited —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me explain it like this. Besides Tennessee and Colorado, I also lived for a few years in Wisconsin in between during college. When I moved to Colorado and people asked me where I was from- I didnt answer them Wisconsin. I told them I was from Tennessee. Probably everyone outside the US reading this discussion thinks we are nuts, but in common vernacular in the US if someone asks you where you are from, you usually tell them where you were born.Sunnydoo (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it depends on the context. When traveling on business, especially internationally, one would normally give their current residence. There are plenty of UK- and IN-isms that seem odd, too. US is entitled to a few. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Canadians generally work that way, too, in non-business contexts. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Here is a for instance- ask Matt Damon where he is from. I bet he says Boston. Ask Peyton Manning where he is from or Harry Connick Jr. I bet both say New Orleans and not Denver or NYC where they both reside now. If you ask Peyton, he will probably tell you he plays for the Denver Broncos but is not from Denver. And on down the line.Sunnydoo (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
But the discussion is specifically about congressmen, not singers, football players, or other mere mortals. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Since this discussion is getting nowhere and we cant reach a consensus on For/From...lets try something else. As I said in my comment on the edit page, "From" is intellectually dishonest because he wasnt born in the district (talking about Staton who died yesterday in WV). He was born in Parkersburg, W. Virginia which is West Virginia District #1. He served the fine folks of West Virginia District #3 in Congress. So, lets throw out From/For and try "Serve" since that is what the people in Congress should be doing for their constituents.Sunnydoo (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Should, sure. But do? Only maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you more than proved your point with your sources. "For" is the correct preposition. Who, exactly, is against its use? We can start an RfC if we need to, but if official pages use "for" then that's what should be used here imho. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I come back to the stated WP preference for secondary over primary sources to exclude that long list of official websites, especially since they may all share original author(s), or at least a style guide. I support "from" only weakly for these reasons, and wouldn't burn the house down over "for". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Every now and then, problems arise stemming from editors who interpret "from" to mean "born and raised" and little else. Since we're supposed to be discussing recent deaths, let me bring it back to that for a second or two. Little has been written about the early life of Carl E. Moses compared to his business and political career, but what has been written calls into question that he could be considered "from" Santa Cruz as opposed to just born there. It is known that his family were residents of the Aleutian Islands prior to his birth. The best information suggests that they lived on Sanak Island, which is very sparsely populated and remote today, so imagine how much moreso it would have been in the 1920s without regular air transportation. It was fairly common in the early 20th century, at least amongst those who could afford it, for expectant mothers to leave Alaska to give birth. Now, Carl and mother did remain "Outside" for several years after his birth. Once again, details are scarce, but I would be inclined to believe that birth-related complications made returning to the Aleutians too soon a risky proposition. It could have even been a matter of economics (this was, after all, in the middle of the Great Depression) or availability of transportation back home. Getting to the point: like myself, this is a person whose primary connection to his birthplace is the birth itself. Moses spent the majority of his life living somewhere else, including accomplishing the things which made him a notable person. I've lost count of the number of biographical articles I've read over the years which were written in disregard for that latter point, instead giving as much weight as possible to the subject's birthplace, no matter how incidental it was to their overall story. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That may be fine and dandy for Mr Moses. But that is not the case 100% of the time. We try to be exact in our language here with things from CoDs to why a person is notable. For example, I am trying to permanently run the use of the word "businessman" off of the list forever. Why? Because it is not an exact term. There are 1000s of different business forms and sub-forms throughout the world and a person should have their work qualified. One of my biggest problems with "From" outside of what I have stated before, is that it assumes present time. I do not like assumptions when trying to be exact. I prefer the more scientifically exactness of a term that covers all of the time tenses and the word "For" does that.Sunnydoo (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Friends, editors, wikipedians WWGB and others, Sunnydoo may prefer one term to another but the term as it is in usage is "From" ---- The second is that the person is From (not where they were born) there is a residency requirement to serve. Next you are using a pedantic liftoff to leverage an argument for what you is more correct rather than what it is , in effect you are trying to rewrite what is. I know that we are all the obituary editors the great overlords of listed death , but the case here is that this incorrect.. the usage is carried forth is most if not all the articles on United States legislators say from... It is from.. from ..from= there is nothing wrong with creative writing (even on Wikipedia) but reshaping formalities to suit your own sense is clearly absurd. EVIDENCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_byrd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Webster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Kennedy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater Masterknighted (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

"Evidence" from other Wikipedia articles is hardly compelling. Are there statements from government on the correct way to describe a senator? If so, let's have them. If not, then it appears anything goes. WWGB (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
It seems that even your Constitution is not consistent on which word to use:
  • The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 1]
  • No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 3] WWGB (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
In our defense, our Constitution was done up by several different people like a certain website, and that was before spellchecking and proofreading bots. — Wyliepedia 05:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Lets not make this personal @Masterknighted:. I take umbrage at a few of your comments. I am employing the use of grammar and consistency while avoiding being untruthful about a listing. For is true in all cases, From is not- only certain cases in the sense of time. We use For for all of the other MPs, MLA, etc.
And I have another thing to add. From grammatically speaking is used to define a term of place [101] According to that slide show (Wiki has the full transcript here [102]), Article 1 Section 2 of the constitution requires Congressmen to be citizens of the state they represent, however, they do not have to live in their assigned district. So members of the House would automatically not be "From" because it is not a requirement and obviously not true in every case. Now you have a consistency problem where we are only labeling some members of the House one way and others another. And we have to verify all of that information as well. Then you have another issue where you are labeling the House one way and the Senate the other. Why go through all of that every single time? Why not be consistent and use the same term for everyone that applies equally?
And yet another thing...Do you work for a company or from a company? You may work from home, but if that is the way you are using the word "from" then it is also incorrect because for the most part, these guys all work from Washington DC and not their represented state. And yet again you would have to dig out the records to find who spent the most time where in order to qualify the use of "from." And like the above case, From doesnt equally apply to everyone. Many of these yahoos only keep residences in Washington DC and not in their home district after they have met the residency requirements as the individual State laws vary on that subject. One guy recently from Oklahoma only kept an apartment in his district, while he had a townhome in Georgetown where he spent the majority of his time.
And you still havent answered me on the individual Senator's websites. That is their use in their own words.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Soviet v. Russian

This has popped up now 3x in a couple of weeks. Just wanted to gauge everyone's feelings on it. I know the Soviet Union is gone now and most of the older folks who have been dying are of Russian ethnicity. But I feel like that if they were born to the State and made major contributions to it which were recognized and promoted by the Soviet Union, they should be labeled as Soviet. Specifically it effects both Tatiana Samoilova on the 5th and Alexander Flyarkovsky yesterday, as well as the rocket guy we had back in April. Flyarkovsky was a deputy in one of the Soviet departments, so his contribution actually goes further. Anyway, wanted to bring that up.Sunnydoo (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

As I discovered recently, it is common practice in listing people not to just list them by nationality, but also by country of birth. So we have people described as "Ukrainian-born British" and "Filipino-born American" on the list. In the case of Tatiana Samoilova, she was a Soviet citizen at birth and a Russian citizen for the last 20+ years of her life. So it would make sense to describe her as "Soviet-born Russian". Unfortunately, some will read that use of "Russian" as stating an ethnicity rather than a nationality, but it is not (and should not) be the custom here to refer to ethnicity in a listing. By nationality of birth and nationality of death, regardless of ethnicity, the description "Soviet-born Russian" is accurate. The same is true of Alexander Flyarkovsky. In both cases to just refer to them as "Soviet" without also mentioning that they were Russian citizens for the last 20+ years of their lives is to ignore a large part of their lives. Timothy John Byford is on the list referred to as "British-born Serbian, even though he only became a Serbian citizen 10 years ago and was a British citizen for the first 62 years of his life. But this seems the right way to list him, so Samoilova and Flyarkovsky should be referred to as "Soviet-born Russian" to correctly name their birth citizenship and death citizenship. 142 and 99 (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I typically consider time and place inextricable in births. If someone was born in a nation state, that's their nationality, later legalities aside. If they do something for that state, even more reason. But "Soviet-born Russian" isn't bad. Gives the extra info. Plenty of non-Russian Soviets to distinguish. "Czechoslovakian-born Czech/Slovak" sounds a bit odd, but meh. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Hulk, there is a possible problem when it comes to where people were born. When Joan Fontaine died last December she was listed as "British-American", not "Japanese-born British-American" despite the fact that she was born in Tokyo. This seems the right call, because she was never a citizen of Japan. John McCain was born in Panama, but was never a Panamanian citizen. When he eventually dies, I would expect him not to be listed here as "Panamanian-born American". Place of birth is objective truth, but it is different from citizenship. We don't list where a person's physical location was when they died (We don't say "Swiss-born American who died in Poland") so it is their nationality at birth that should matter rather than physical location of the birth. 142 and 99 (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Like I said at the time, just wait until Joan Fontaine's sister dies. Olivia is one of my favorite people in the world. She is one of the only people I know who is a citizen of 3 countries- United States, Britain and France having lived on and off in each for the better part of the last half Century (now living in Paris). And we were wrong on the listing for Fontaine. She was a citizen of Japan, but several of us were shouted down from using it. She graduated High School in Japan after she went back to Japan with her father after her mother and father got in a fight while they were living in California. That was one of the first salvos in the Fontaine v. de Havilland battle.Sunnydoo (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, Sunnydoo, maybe Fontaine was a bad example then for what I meant. McCain is still a good one for that point. Personally, I see no reason to list nationality at all, but I know that most disagree, so that's fine. But if nationality is to be listed, then surely the ONLY objective thing to do is to list ALL countries a person was a citizen of. Anything else gets into subjective opinions about how important a citizenship was to a person's identity and notability, which is a VERY bad idea. So if someone who dies had six different citizenships over the course of their lifetime, we should list them all or none of them. Anything else is unnecessary NPOV. While it might seem odd to some to list Bobby Fischer as "American Icelandic", he held the latter citizenship for the final three years of his life. I'd rather we have the occasional case that looks a bit odd than have consensus battles over differing subjective POVs.
But on the original point of this thread, the Soviet / Russian issue, does anyone object to my suggestion that the two who died in May be listed as "Soviet-born Russian"? Unless I see an objection I'll make that change. 142 and 99 (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
How about "Malayan-born Malaysian?" Lost one of them recently. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I have no familiarity with the history of that area, but based on the two minutes of googling research I (literally) just did, it sounds to me that this should be fine. But I would defer to people who know the political history better than I, which is just about everyone. As with designations like "Czechoslovakian born Check" or "West German-born German", it might have the look of redundancy, but they really are not. Martina Navratilova, for example, was born in Czechoslovakia, then lost her Czechoslovakian citizenship and became an American citizen, then became a Czech citizen without giving up her American citizenship. So she is a "Czechoslovakian-born American Czech". Again, there is no redundancy there as this description does chart the changes in her citizenship and in the existence of countries accurately. Navratilova is still relatively young and healthy, so I hope and expect we won't have to list her any time soon, but when that day comes, "Czechoslovakian-born American Czech" would be the only objective way to go. 142 and 99 (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
No. He is referring to the freedom fighter that died this weekend. She was born into the British Empire being from the Malaya peninsula, but fought against England in India and present day Malaysia for independence. This would be a case similar to the self-disclosure of Irish militants in Ireland/N. Ireland who fight on one side or the other.Sunnydoo (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm actually referring to the Indian National Army captain. On one side of the fence, she's a "freedom fighter". On the other, she's a "terrorist". Obviously, one side survived to tell the story. Wikipedia should sit right on the fence, and use straightforward descriptions.
But back to the original issue, I can see why it may not be in "good taste" to call her Malayan, under the circumstances. For what taste is worth. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I understand that but when the media sources are all calling her "Freedom fighter or Independence fighter" it is what it is. The reason I changed the entry was that her service to India only told part of her story. She fought in 2 separate wars of independence against England. The one you linked her to was the one for India. She also fought about a decade later for what is now Malaysia against Japan/England. That is why I did what I did so that both parts of the story were covered. It is kind of unique, although I recall that there were many similar circumstances during the Civil War in Spain regarding some of the people fighting.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The source we use here calls her a few things. We don't have to grab from the lead. Mine was much more precise, but only half complete. Yours is the whole enchilada, but a fuzzy one. Arithmetically, I can't say which is better.
Would you have a problem listing her two specific fighting roles, then her "fighting" role? A point for pro-India, and point for Malaysia and then a joining point for India-Malaysia seems right, trigonometrically. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. The MIC notation on her covers both points. The MIC was found in Malaysia to fight for Indian independence. It later started the fight for Malaysian independence after the war in India was over. It technically was a guerilla organization at that time, but that term was not popularized until the 1960s after the war in Vietnam had begun.Sunnydoo (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah. Thought you meant she was in two traditional wars, then ran with the MIC. Explains why I couldn't find the name of the second army myself.
Still for replacing the contentious label with a specific one, but not very important. Just enough to let the record show I was opposed to "freedom". It's a Word to Watch, not a Word to Eradicate, I suppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Remove "complications from" in CoDs?

I was under the impression that we avoided using "complications from" when listing causes of death (CoD). But I see it used a fair amount on the page so I thought I'd ask if (1) I was mistaken or (2) the page needs clean up.

If I was mistaken, should we consider making that a standard? I see the addition of "complications from" as cruft and generally unnecessary. I would suggest that we list only the primary cause of death and avoid qualifiers. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

We list it when its in the source or when there is a period of time between the initial illness and death...strokes, heart attacks, MD, MS, etc all are usually from a secondary infection like pneumonia or swelling (brain or vascular) after a period of time. Unfortunately the source isnt either clarified by the media or known and they put complications of ... Its the way the cookie crumbles. We use what they give us...nothing more, nothing less. There are a couple of sources (the Hong Kong English paper is an example) that will usually gives us both- pneumonia as a complication of a stroke, cancer, etc. But they are few and far between. And often times with rough diseases like aggressive cancer, it is usually the treatment that kills the patient not the cancer. Or in lingering diseases such as Parkinson's, dementia or Alzheimer's, it is usually pneumonia, peritonitis, or another killer that gets ya. But they dont say it very often. Just complications of Parkinson's etc.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Tricky when it comes to surgery, too. Kind of implies the doctors broke their Hippocratic oath. But yeah, I generally agree with the tree. Death itself a complication of an otherwise non-fatal series of events, and the term's vagueness draws attention to the fact that we don't know what the specific complications are. Wikipedia cannot appear ignorant in front of OxfordReference.com. And the way Google works, we're always in front of them. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
A couple of months ago, you were arguing about Cardiac Arrest. That is a complication, but a specific one that is often mentioned and listed. Remember a stroke or a heart attack is an event like you were saying. It has a beginning and an ending.
Secondly no one is making that assertion. There are plenty of things that can go wrong, even when surgery goes 100% the way it is supposed to. Infections are a part of life. If we didnt have microbes we wouldnt exist and we wouldnt have wonderful things like Wine and Beer. And you can cite all of the sources you want, but like the one I just entered Charles Marowitz [103]- "complications from Parkinson's disease" is cited and sourced right there. If you want to go obtain the Death Certificate or call the journalist that filed the report and give us a source, be my guest. Otherwise, it is what we think it is- a complication from Parkinson's disease. We cant invent what we think it might be, only what they tell us it is. Anything less is untruthful and doing the casual user a dis-service.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I argued that cardiac arrest was too specific a complication, and basically synonymous with death. Here, I'd say Parkinson's disease is a close enough root cause, till we know better, but I still say I'll defer to you. As for the surgery, I meant omitting the "complications of" implies murder (or something like it). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I just didnt understand that. I got ya now.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Certainly wasn't some of my clearest writing. While I'm here, if anyone is wondering, "the tree" is EvergreenFir and the Oxford comment was mostly an aside, a tomato thrown at an ivory tower from the cheap seats. Intended more as a Stunner, but in retrospect, it was more just ungrateful. Thanks for the solid foundation, Oxford. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I have looked randomly at quite a few "complications of" deaths, and that is how they are described in the accompanying source. So I think the way it is being done is quite appropriate. WWGB (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, if we want to stick with the wording if that's what the sources use, that's fine. Just find it a bit excessive. Won't belabor the issue though. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Let me put this another way. Lets say Mr X has a heart attack. They take Mr X to the hospital. The doctors stabilize Mr X and after a few minutes to hours his heart attack stops. However 2 days later Mr X dies from lets say something on this list [104]. Mr X did not die from the heart attack- the heart attack stopped 2 days prior as an event. He died from let say, Pericarditis, which occurred because he had a heart attack. Pericarditis is a complication from a heart attack in other words. However when Mr J the newspaper man relays this information, he tells us only that Mr X died from a complication from a heart attack. That again does not mean Mr X died from the heart attack event, but from a subsequent event afterwards related to the original event. As a reader, I can not determine what the cause of actual death is other than complication from a heart attack. I know that means Mr X had a heart attack and that something happened after he had the heart attack that killed him, which is important information. If I knew Dr Q who is the coroner, maybe he would tell me the Cause of Death if I filed a Freedom of Information request at his office and paid a small administration fee. However, I do not have the time, energy or inclination to find out this information for every entry listed for every date. Therefore I must accept what Mr J says as the truth until more information can be found.Sunnydoo (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Injuries sustained in a fall

I actually used this example in another Wikitalk about the proximity of death (yeah, I'm fun), and it seems relevant again: If I push you from a window, was it me, the fall, the landing or the "injuries sustained in a fall" (in the spirit of Cronkite)? Seems the same case as complications above, but two men have apparently fallen absolutely dead on the 12th, in perfect alphabetical order. If I hadn't already seen Harry Potter and Charlie Brown die in red here, these deadly falls might have been the most shocking ends of the month.

Discuss. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I see we have "complications from a horse fall" in May. This talk page has seen a fair bit of horse controversy this year. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Injuries sustained in a fall is a term I use (and probably only me). I will also use "injuries sustained in a traffic collision" on occasion as well. The gentleman you are questioning I believe is the guy that died after a week in the hospital after a fall. Now I could have gone for the typical "fall" but I feel that is a little misleading. He didnt die right away from the injury. He could have gotten an infection while in the hospital, he could have had swelling or something that cut off circulation or other vital bodily function, etc. And instead of assuming things and putting "complications" i will put injuries because it is a physical malady of some type. The "horse" fall is also different from a typical fall. Normally a fall implies you either fell from a height or hit your head (or other sensitive organ there are some crazy ways to die like falling on something on your chest and having it stop the heart but that is very not normal). However in this instance while he did fall, something also fell on him causing his injury or he was doing an activity that is not normally associated with a fatal injury of this type like climbing stairs, working on a ladder, etc.. That is why "horse" fall is more specific and not just a "fall." It is also verbatim from the source.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
The gentleman in question is two gentlemen. Mr. Crisco (suddenly) and Mr. Giger (later in hospital). Both their sources use the long term verbatim, but also (inherently) the short term. I forget, off-hand, how long they lingered.
As for mechanics, any fall involves your protective parts crushing your vital parts. But whether they should be considered separate parts is a whole other issue. Owen Hart was actually killed by two protective parts, a ribcage and turnbuckle pad. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
And again. You have to think of a "fall" as an event. It is something that happened and then didnt, which means it started then it stopped. If you die 6.5 days later after a fall, was it really the fall that killed you? Probably not. It more than likely was something that happened because of the fall as a bodily reaction or inability to react (ie weakened immune system).Sunnydoo (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Infections suck with broken bones. The more broken bones, the more they suck. But still, all "injuries". InedibleHulk (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Formatting for major loss of life events (such as 2014 Lao People's Liberation Army Air Force An-74 crash)

Hi. Although I am aware that historic consensus no doubt allows for the slight change in formatting used to deal with events such as the one quoted above (and I can see the reasons why), can I just register my opinion only on this page as to how it looks, aesthetically, were I merely a reader of this page and not an editor to boot. I can only say it is "bullet points gone crazy" and a tad messy. I didn't want to beat about the bush, so I'm not. A small tick in the "against" column. Thanks for listening, or rather, looking. Ref (chew)(do) 08:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Every death gets a bullet, what's the difference here? WWGB (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with it. There have been quite a few instances where we have gone with this format. The other side of the argument is that it gets repetitive and then people grouch about that. How many times do you need to see the nationality and plane crash (or whatever mode of transport) over and over before it gets monotonous? Plus it allows easy reference to the plane crash article directly from the site. So it adds even more value.Sunnydoo (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't like it. It breaks up the alphabetical listing of names. Is there consensus? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
There is precedent. WWGB (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course, if there are still only two Laotian blue links after one month, the others will be removed and the remaining blue links can be absorbed into the main alpha listing. WWGB (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Housekeeping will keep the list at the bottom of the day listed, so it doesn't "break up" anything. Be sure to leave them a generous gratuity! — Wyliepedia 15:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I thought it was an excellent idea / layout, meant I did not continually come across "repeats" of the misfortunate people that lost their lives in the accident, as would have happened if listed as individuals. Edmund Patrick – confer 06:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Red links

People often try to hide red-links, by linking the deceased to a related organization instead in order to prevent the deletion of the entry due to non-notability. An example is Amalendu De linking to the Asiatic Society, but there are countless others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.123.154 (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

All deceased without an article are removed after one month, whether the link is red or blue. WWGB (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't hurt to unlink/redlink those that are deceptively linked. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
That's not easily done. In the case mentioned, you would have to make a case to delete the redirected article Amalendu De. Such proposals generally fail, as the redirect is seen to be helpful to readers. WWGB (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Off topic but why do we get so many anon comments from Amsterdam? The other guy who complains about having to log in, one of the CoD hounds and several others all have IP addys back to Amsterdam. Are the internet police really terrible in Amsterdam or something? We love you guys...why dont you join us?Sunnydoo (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the stoners in Amsterdam have difficulty remembering a Wikipedia account name and password? WWGB (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I've seen a few rare cases where the names are piped to an organization (which we quickly remedy). As for the redirects, some are created long before their name appears here. Some are instantly redirected to their organizations, some are discussed elsewhere then redirected, and some have been established for those multi-linguists who wish to cross-translate from other languages (which also lead to redirects at times). — Wyliepedia 03:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Laureate

One is not a laureate of, one is a laureate. Masterknighted (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

So you're suggesting Gerald Edelman's entry (and others) to be Nobel Prize laureate in Physiology or Medicine? — Wyliepedia 21:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes someone is a Nobel laureate rather than a laureate of the Nobel prizeMasterknighted (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

See what a study of Latin can do for you. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 Fixed. I'm a laureate of Greek, myself. Or am I a Greek laureate? — Wyliepedia 08:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Multiple-Olympic-medalist entries

Protocol?

  • May 22: Imre Gedővári, 62, Hungarian fencer, Olympic bronze-medalist (1980) and champion (1988)
  • May 19: Zbigniew Pietrzykowski, 79, Polish Olympic bronze- (1956, 1964) and silver-medalist (1960) boxer.

Which is it, folks? — Wyliepedia 18:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the first style. No need to keep the reader in suspense about the deceased's sport. It's also consistent with other entries (English banker, etc). WWGB (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I dont have a preference...however, the highest rank should go first (gold, silver and bronze) in keeping with the Notability aspect (ie you are more notable for a gold than for a silver, etc.).Sunnydoo (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I also prefer the first usage, unless they merely competed and the simpler "<country> Olympic <sport> (linked year)" will suffice. Just asking for continuity sake. — Wyliepedia 09:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

To do list

The following may need adding:

-Racklever (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Added an example source (Potter) for what you're suggesting. — Wyliepedia 08:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Appropriateness of entries relating to criminal activity

Whilst it is clearly not the intent of this Wikipedia list to pass judgment or to infer anything other than fact, I find the inclusion of Elliott Rodger to be very questionable, especially when his six innocent victims go unrecognized. It may be appropriate to include Rodger in this list (personally I feel that all it does is glorify his actions by recording his murders and suicide as 'notable') but surely this must be extraordinarily difficult for the families of the innocent deceased and the survivors of his heinous crime? We should take a position that we will not treat criminals as celebrities. If we choose to leave this deranged man's name then please, let us add his victims above his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonBentley (talk • contribs) 13:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You are specifically asking this page to be edited to promote particular points of view about people who have died. This is and should be contrary to policy. We do not decide who does or does not deserve to be a notable person. We just record public information about them. One such piece of information is whether or not they have died. If a murder victim meets the notability criteria, they are listed. If a murderer meets that criteria, then they are listed. Whether or not a person being notable or not is upsetting or offensive to some people cannot be a consideration in how Wikipedia is edited for it to be a proper source of factual information.
As it currently stands, none of the people in this case - the murderer nor the victims - is notable enough to have had a Wikipedia page created about them. Based on Wikipedia's notability criteria none of them might meet the criteria, although there are many cases of perpetrators of crimes who are only known for that one thing who have Wikipedia pages and are considered notable enough to have pages. So it seems reasonable to assume that Elliott Rodger could eventually be the subject of a page, but probably not any of his victims. Thus listing him and not the victims on the deaths page is the correct, objective, factual thing to do. 142 and 99 (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
It should also be pointed out that, so far, Rodger's name is redirected to the massacre event. As such, if you are familiar with this page's protocol, his name will be removed on June 7 with all the other non-notable redlinks and redirects. — Wyliepedia 16:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

how sad that you hide behind a policy but since you have, let me point out....

'Notable' refers to people whose deeds or actions earn them a lasting place in our memory. However, when these deeds are not for good, the person is 'notorious' - the difference is the same as famous and infamous. Rodger will never be notable and so if you really want to follow the exact wording of your policy he should not be there. Notoriety may make a person famous but notoriety will not make a person notable.

My bigger question is that by not listing the victims (who have been almost as well reported in the media) you are indeed making a judgment that Rodger should be singled out as,'well known' - this destroys your argument that you are following a prescribed selection method unless you can show that there is some count that you use to measure it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonBentley (talk • contribs) 16:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"...you hide behind a policy...." I'm not hiding. I'm stating and supporting the policy. I have no idea why you think I am hiding or what I am hiding from.
"'Notable' refers to people whose deeds or actions earn them a lasting place in our memory.... if you really want to follow the exact wording of your policy...." It sounds to me like you have not read the policy, so let me quote it (even though I did link to it before and you could have just gone and read it there yourself): "For Notability on Wikipedia is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. For Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be 'worthy of notice' – that is, 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded' within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." So the policy explicitly rejects your famous/infamous analogy.
"...you are indeed making a judgment that Rodger should be singled out as,'well known'...." Wrong. There is no "should" about it. You can say that editors are making the judgment that he is well known, but whether or not we think he should be well known is immaterial.
"...the victims (who have been almost as well reported in the media)..." No, they haven't. Do a google news search and you will find a ton more mentions of Rodger than any of his victims. That's how it always goes in cases of crimes like these. But like I said, Rodger might never reach the level of notability to have a page on Wikipedia about him, and if he does not in a month's time his name will be removed from the death list, as Wyliepedia pointed out. But it is far more likely there will be a biographical page about Rodger than that there will about any of his victims, so listing him makes sense and listing them does not. Wikipedia is not a memorial site, even on this page. It's just information. 142 and 99 (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Consider that victims don't do anything notable. It's done to them. Without Rodger, there'd be no incident, thus no news. We'd just have people walking about. Especially with random victims, they could be replaced by anyone, and the story would remain virtually the same (to general audiences). That's not to belittle their lives, just their actions that day. Possibly great people, but no notable accomplishments, for good or bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


All valid points and I accept them

I suppose where I ultimately end up on this is that I am uncomfortable with our society's ability to group people into a category called 'famous' and afford them equal status and treatment. I do reject Wikipedia's misuse of the word 'notable' (even if their policy chooses to define it to include the notorious) for this is simply a grammatical mistake. I also reject the ridiculous assertion the number of Google hits somehow measures level of fame or infamy - I cannot be bothered to prove to the Editor that there will be 'notable' people in the list of deaths who would be significantly less covered by the media than the poor souls in Santa Barbara.

My final plea is that as human beings, we recognize that we cannot simply apply a set of criteria and assume that the fact that we are simply following a policy (that we wrote ourselves!) justifies a result that I am sure many found offensive. I do not support censorship or sugar-coating but simply human compassion.

It is hard to know how Wikipedia could have done differently. Perhaps a delay in putting his name alongside the truly notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonBentley (talk • contribs) 15:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Simon, you really don't pay attention to what people write. You write, "I also reject the ridiculous assertion the number of Google hits somehow measures level of fame or infamy" yet no one claimed that it did. You, however, made a claim about how well reported in the media the victims were and I said that a search of google news would prove you wrong, but that is a very different thing. Google news does generally measure how well reported something is.
You also seem to insist that two categories must be maintained based on how we evaluate people: the famous and the infamous, the notable and the notorious. But it is absurd to deny that there can be an evaluative-neutral word that covers the meaning that these pairs of terms have in common. We don't after all, have two words for "rich", one for the good guys and one for the bad guys. There's just the word "rich". So if you don't like using "notable" in an evaluative neutral sense, then pick whatever word you like that means the same thing but is neutral on evaluation. Or just every time you see "notable" read it as "notable/notorious". Because that is exactly what Wikipedia means. When Wikipedia decided that Adolph Hitler was notable enough to have a page about him, did you think that was an endorsement, too?
You want an encyclopedia that decides whether or not to discuss information based on value judgments about it's subjects. What you want is propaganda, not information. That's not what Wikipedia is. 142 and 99 (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


We seem to be talking past each other so let's agree to disagree. I cannot accept that purely for its own convenience, Wikipedia is ok with redefining an English word to suit their own use. Perhaps we are both wrong. I do support the need for factual content and despise the very idea that the content should be at an individual's discretion but Wikipedia is used to educate and by 'dumbing down' the English language by simply redefining words to suit your own policy surely sends the wrong message.

Self-written policies cannot ever be used to assume greater import. Unless mandated by some external interest, there can be nothing more dangerous than any group who defends its actions based upon the rules it wrote for itself!

But enough - I appreciate your responses and fully respect the work you do and the way you do it. Again, I ask only that all involved in Wikipedia understand the enormous impact that they can have (intentionally or unintentionally) and that we should never forget the human side of what we post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonBentley (talk • contribs) 19:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You still seem to have no idea what is being said or how things are done. First, unless you can point to an evaluative-neutral word that otherwise means the same as "notable" or "notorious", you offer no word that could be used in place of "notable". You also seem to ignore the fact that language changes over time. Just as "famous" now is an evaluative neutral word and "infamous" used relatively infrequently, "notable" has become (and is clearly indicated in dictionaries that it can be) an evaluative neutral-term. The term "well-known" is a possible alternative, but you are making an awful meal of what is mostly an outdated use of the word "notable". That is, unless you are bothered by the idea that Hitler meets the notability standard because you think that means we are fans of Hitler.
You also have said a couple of times that you think the response you are getting is just "that's the policy" with nothing further added. What I have added with every comment is an explanation and defense of the policy as a good one. That is not hiding. That is not using the policy to justify anything. It is to present reasons why that which is the policy should be the policy. You see circular reasoning where none is present.
We are not talking past each other. You are just not listening. We don't need to agree to disagree. We just need to agree that Wikipedia is not a site that promotes evaluative agendas. You can claim you wan t it to be otherwise, but you would just be wrong. 142 and 99 (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This Wiki is grossly inaccurate (read quickly before it is removed by the censors)

I have watched this wiki for a very long time, and I find it to be on the whole very inaccurate.

To me it is outrageous that only people who the 'bosses' have heard of are 'eligible' to be posted here. All lives have value and just because a couple of the 'bosses' don't personally know the contributions a person has made, they delete the entry. This is censorship and it berates the entire idea behind this wiki.

The idea behind Wiki is the sharing of ACCURATE knowledge, not a private club controlled by a few providing only what THEY think is important. It is disgraceful and damages the credibility of ALL wiki's by allowing this wiki to continue in this manner.

You can be sure this post will be censored quickly...just like this wiki is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeejo (talk • contribs) 13:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you opened a new Wikipedia account just to write this comment! I have no intention to respond to such a generalised rant, however, if you provide a specific case of "censorship" I am sure it will be explained patiently to you. WWGB (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
@WWGB: Nah, let's just delete the post. That's what we do, right? — Wyliepedia 02:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I doubt most of the dead people here were familar to the "boss" editors, while they were alive. The thing is, when a notable person dies, they have an Wiki article explaining their notable deeds. The non-articled whose death announcements offer a glimmer of wide-reaching significance get to stay as redlinks for a month. If someone's greatest accomplishments were only local, like being a model employee, citizen and father, that's important. Just not notable. There are 7 billion important people out there, many read Wikipedia, and thousands died during the writing of this sentence. You can see how it might be clogged down, if we were all-inclusive.
But yeah, if you have someone specific in mind, sharing would be helpful. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Am I in the "club?" It is hard to tell sometimes. Back to back interesting topics- 1 complaining about red links the other saying we should have more. <Sigh> guess you cant make everyone happy.Sunnydoo (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Findagrave takes anyone. Might make the "more redlink" crowd happy. Johnny Local (or some theoretical person) can even have a whole article, with pictures. Hard to get pictures here. Not quite Wikipedia-level traffic, but pretty good.
The "fewer red link" people could wear 3D glasses and wink. Time magazine used to have a more abridged "Milestones" version, which you paid and waited for. Might still. Could be just the ticket. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Joeejo - work to improve things as you see it from the inside, by joining us properly. You, too, could become one of the many "few", and qualify as a big "boss", with a little time and effort. (Please note the heavy irony used in that last sentence, to save confusion.) Hoping to see you constructively editing and criticizing soon. P.S. I have examined my comments here, and they pass censorship, so I will not be removing anything. Ref (chew)(do) 07:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Give us examples, or else this section can be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.132.94.7 (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-notable deaths

Why are non-notable people on here? LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're referring to the red links, we put them in so that we can give people the opportunity to create articles for those people. After a month, if they're still a redlink, they get removed. Rusted AutoParts 20:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Please see the second question about redlinks in the FAQ above. If you wish to further discuss any individual's notability, list them here. — Wyliepedia 20:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
There is also an edit notice on the Deaths in 2014 page which states:
(1) Please add only those meeting Wikipedia notability guidelines. Please include a reference to a reliable source. If a Wikipedia article for the deceased does not yet exist, please reconsider whether the subject is actually notable. If so, please consider writing an article yourself. Those without a Wikipedia article are removed after one month.
(2) Please understand that the intent of this article is to report notable deaths. Tragic deaths, while unfortunate, do not necessarily render the deceased "notable". If you report the death of a subject that does not already have a Wikipedia article, please consider starting one, provided that the deceased is notable. Please include third-party sources other than the obituary.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Bases=covered. — Wyliepedia 20:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
For that matter, how are race horses notable? Can we stop adding horses or any other animal please? If we have to keep them can we move them to the sports portal? Only a very small portion of the population cares about horse racing, even a little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.132.94.7 (talk • contribs)
They're notable enough to have their own pages, then they're notable enough for this list. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_2014/Archive_2&oldid=1136309711"