Talk:Deaths in August 2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marvin Hamlisch[edit]

We have 1 user who does not want to have The Sting put in as credit for Marvin Hamlisch. He wrote 2 pieces of music for the film score and arranged the rest of Scott Joplin's work for the film. He won an Academy Award for that work. I tried to placate this user by listing him as an arranger instead of just composer, but was rebuffed. You can look up his contribution under The Sting or you can find his Academy Award under Best Original Score or Adaptation for 1973. If you win an Oscar for your work, that work deserves to be credited- especially if that work is outside of the popular realm. Ragtime had not been a popular form of music culture since the last century before Hamlisch et al brought it back. Sunnydoo (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look upwards, Sunny. Rusted AutoParts 23:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I dont understand what that has to do with Hamlisch. I am here to discuss Hamlisch and why you dont think The Sting is either worthy to be listed among his credits or how you want to put them into his credits. I have noticed that several people and just not me have attempted to put The Sting in today and you have turned each one back. What gives? Sunnydoo (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guess you didn't read my edit summary. There is a sizeable difference between a composer and a composition arranger: One actually writes and composes all the music, the other takes the recorded music and arranges it in a way so the music accompanies the right scene. Sure, he may have received an accolade for it, but it doesn't change the fact his main contribution in life was composing, not arranging. And you said in your own edit summary to "TALK PG", so i could only infer you meant the rating that's given to films that require an adult presence. Rusted AutoParts 00:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
You realize there is a limited character formation on the Edit summary line like Twitter? I ran out had to re-edit back and just about everyone who works in data or information knows that page is abbreviated as pg. I dont know why you seem to find that funny, but I digress. I dont think you realize the work that goes into arranging on a scale or even adapting music into a film. Look at someone like Nelson Riddle or look at the Song "At Last." They took music that you wouldnt recognize at first glance and turned into something completely different through arrangements. "At Last" was originally done by Glenn Miller but the version you would recognize is completely different and is done by Etta James through the magic of arrangement. Getting back on point, the fact is that Hamlisch received an Oscar for Best Original Score or Adaptation for his work as the arranger as well as the composer on 2 pieces for the movie The Sting. That in itself is notable in a career. I tried to include him with The Sting in the composer section for the 2 pieces but you had an issue with that because most of the music was Scott Joplin's. So that is why I changed it to arranger. He brought back a form of music, Ragtime, that had seemingly passed its time in history. Yes, the man wore many hats in his life and is only one of a handful of people to do the EGOT and his achievements are probably too numerous to mention in one blob (god help us all when Meryl Streep passes), but The Sting was a very notable cinematic achievement for a great many reasons in its time and place and all of the major players who were factors in its production deserve mention on their passing. If you think about the film, can you imagine it without the soundtrack, what that would be like and think that it would have been as successful? I cant. Sunnydoo (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The other disconcerting thing I am noticing is a gravitational pull towards the latest projects like The Informant and 3 Men and a baby that is now showing. His work for "A Chorus Line" and the song "Nobody Does it Better" were both more important works than either of those mentioned. Nobody Does it Better is listed as #67 on the AFI list for Songs in Movies and was a #1 hit for Carly Simon. It is one of the 3 best James Bond 007 songs and not going to start an argument over that.
Examples of his filmography. Doesn't exactly have to be everything single award winning film he did. Rusted AutoParts 03:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
But with the really influential people, you not only want the great performances, but also the ones that inspired others. His work in A Chorus Line inspired a whole new generation of composers. A Chorus Line is the 5th most successful Broadway effort ever. You are telling me that is not as important either economically or artistically as 3 men and a baby? Sunnydoo (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just so the world knows that I havent lost my mind on this one http://news.yahoo.com/hamlisch-left-signature-decades-films-065730075.html and no I didnt write that. Sunnydoo (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is confirming, yet again, that we need guidelines on what works should be listed for deceased actors, musicians, authors etc. Anyone like to start? WWGB (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the new discussion topic below (Guidelines for parenthetical credits) that I just started. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to start an issue or being argumentative about this. I am more incredulous than anything else. If you have someone like this that wins multiple awards for a varying skill set, you need a good cross sampling. Using Hamlisch as an example, You definitely include "The Way We Were" because it won a Grammy and an Oscar. You want to include an important influential piece especially if it meant that inspired a new generation, so you should put in "A Chorus Line" (which also covers the Pulitzer he won). I actually get the reference to "The Informant" because it was one of his last notable works and you would want that in to present the spectrum of his career. You would also want any other major sellers or notable works- which in my opinion- would have to be The Sting because of his overall contribution to one of the All Time great movies (it won 10 Academy Awards) and "Nobody does it better" which is on the AFI list.
To sum up: Any art that wins in multiple EGOT arenas, an influential piece, last relevant work and the space remaining with popular art based on a list like the AFI or Billboard sales figures.Sunnydoo (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Kovar, really???[edit]

Why add him? He's only been on one reality TV show, two if you count Celebrity Rehab. I wouldn't know who the guy was if the Real World wasn't added to his name. Also, his name redirects to that Real World article. I vote for removal, not notable. — WylieCoyote (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But, why not give him the usual 30-day "grace period"? No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I fear, since his name is not red-linked, it will be forgotten and overlooked. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I check every entry one month after the death. Any redirects are deleted at that time. Then RAP deletes the redlinks. Regards, WWGB (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we associating Phyllis Diller with a show (The Pruitts of Southampton) that no one has ever heard about? Juve2000 (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I don't think that that TV series helps with any recognition of the deceased per se. I mean, people know who Phyllis Diller is ... or, they do not. For what it's worth, that TV show was later renamed The Phyllis Diller Show. But, I agree. It was a short-lived and essentially unremarkable (i.e., barely known) program. I will remove the credit. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmmmmmmm. On second thought, I think that that credit is listed to "justify" labeling her as an "actress". So, to that extent, it is indeed a worthwhile listing. Most people know that she was a comedienne. It's probably a very little known fact that she also was an actress. So, I think the credit does serve that purpose ... i.e., to "justify" listing her as an actress, alongside her more well-known label as comedienne. What do others think? For now, upon second thought, I will not delete the credit after all. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Badruddin Haqqani[edit]

We have a user who keeps deleting this entry. It is from a BBC confirmed source. He does not believe the BBC is a real source. Please assist or I may have to report the user.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19378474

Is the article in question-

2 quotes

A key commander in the Pakistan-based militant Haqqani network has been killed in a US drone strike, according to a family member and local sources.

Tribesmen in North Waziristan and sources in the local administration told the BBC he is now dead and buried.Sunnydoo (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that this death is uncertain. The BBC headline puts the expression 'killed in Pakistan' in inverted commas which indicates that they are quoting an opinion and not necessarily a fact. Operatives are often claimed to be dead (or alive) for propaganda purposes. The fact that the BBC finds it necessary to add "The death has not been confirmed by US or Pakistani officials" also suggests lack of clarity surrounding the death. I don't think we need to rush and publish an uncertain death, especially when the person is a redlink anyway. WWGB (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have 2 issues with that though. First off there are other sources in the world than the US government and it could be political on their part for not confirming the death because of the ongoing debate over their CIA's drone program. Secondly if you look at either the BBC main page or in their news section http://www.bbc.com/news/ you can see it prominently displayed. If a major news organization were concerned over the source of their material, it probably wouldnt be displayed like that. And this guy was important but not a lot of information is out on him. His brother is the leader of the Haqqani's. This guy was either 2nd or 3rd in command of the outfit and they have been a major thorn in the side of everyone in the region. These 2 were partially responsible for blasts in India and the attempted assassination of Karzai among other chicanery. One other thing, Al Jazeera is now trying to independently confirm thru a process different than the BBC and they should know something soon.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC main page still reports Drone raid 'kills Haqqani leader' rather than just Drone raid kills Haqqani leader. The added inverted commas still bother me that there is uncertainty. WWGB (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the BBC doesnt have the same authority and DNA confirmation that the govt of Pa k has, which the report says have not confirmed this. Consensus s not on your side, Sunnydoo AND THIS IS a BLP violation. You cant spcualte on someones deathLihaas (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be enjoying starting an edit war. I have only made 2 undo's. This is your 3rd and you are the one out of step with current Wiki policy. I have done nothing but treat you civilly and yet you have copped an attitude with me this entire time, called me names and questioned my honor. Sunnydoo (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Closing mine as irrelevant, though not refactoring other users offtopic message, per NOTAFORUM for both
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You reverted THRIVCE. and that was with 24 hours after i told you to read abotu BRD. Then you post on my talk the first time an d claim youre being civil? I can dicuss and sort issues easily, but i dont have to take abuse. If you edit war AFTER being told to discuss then that is not AGF. WHy? because it violated BLP. You cant make someone dead, that too after exlaiming in an edit summary "good riddance" on someone death. And thats honourable?Lihaas (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#Death_Page_Problem-_Badruddin_Haqqani Going to ask for some outside assistance with this problem as there seems to be some kind of personal problem between us. I apologize to all of the normal contributors for this problem.Sunnydoo (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sunnydoo. Lihaas, what's the problem? I just had a quick look and every media source in the world is reporting the death of this guy. And since when is the BBC not a reliable source? --Pete (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haeve absolutely NO problem listing him on this page, all i [rightfully] asked for was a source. the listed BBC source doesnt not confirm this as mentioned by WWGB and me. If there is another affirmation then by all means confirm it and add that.Though based on BBC (whcih we agree is RS), it would need to be confirmed where they doubted.Lihaas (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why isn't he on the page now? His death was confirmed 18 hours ago. --Pete (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then by all meansADD it. The edit in question went to the osource that hboth WWGF and me showed was not an affirmation. If you have the evidence with a RS add it, please.Lihaas (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add it, please? It would show good faith and help to calm ruffled feathers. Just quietly, but it would give me the creeping shivers to be editing this page. I hate hearing about people dying, regardless of who they are, it saddens me. --Pete (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Just read the source: "Afghanistan's intelligence agency says " vs. "Taliban, which...have said " and ", a senior Haqqani network commander, denied ". Though "One senior Pakistani intelligence official...had fled a compound...then was ". The article then, like the BBC one, concluded "If Badruddin's death is confirmed". This is not exactly an affirmation.Lihaas (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how reliable this source is, but it has no hedges. Other reports are talking confirmation from other national agencies and the family. The Taliban says he's alive and well and planning more, but just how reliable a source is the Taliban? --Pete (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the AFG govt reliable? I think they certainly have a vested in interest in showing their battle turn one way or the other. (as does the Talib) Thats why we need a relaible indication. Perhaps we could tack on a couple of sources for verifiability as this is controversial. Though, ideally, waiting a while for DNA tests from either Pak or the US' could add certainty. (though thats not to say there isnt an agenda here). More perfectly an independent media or NGO would be more authoritative.
The link to google given above is all cited to Afghan sources, with a talib denial and a NYT "believed dead". Isnt that grounds to wait. We dont want to give a false impression of a BLP death? Its only been 2 days in a place with diffciult confirmation. We dont want someone "deaD" surfacing on a video claiming something ni a few months.
Ive notified WWGB, lets get some outside opinion. Ive also told Sunnydoo to come here.Lihaas (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that he's now late on Wikipedia and he's going to stay late until a RS says otherwise. I don't consider the Taliban to be a reliable source. If Will McAvoy says someone's late, they are late. --Pete (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the most reliable sources (NYT, Washington Post, CNN etc) and most are hedging their statements with terms like "reported killed" or "Taliban deny". The most definite reference is The Guardian. If he had a Wikipedia article, the circumstances of his death or survival could be contrasted. Here, we deal with absolutes: either alive or dead. Given that there remains some uncertainty about his death, I favour no death listing until there is a stronger position. Just my two rupees ... WWGB (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do truth on Wikipedia, we do reliable sources. They're reliable sources indicate he's likely dead, but it would be undue not to mention the Taliban disputing the claim. The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform the reader; post the claims and the references and the reader can decide from themselves which sources they choose to believe. Nobody Ent 13:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As WWGB says, this page doesnt list controverisal deaths (that would be BLP violations too), with a WP page then the possibility could be discussed. (on can create that as he was notable). Unless you want to put up the caveats on this page. Id think it may spoil the page's set up. But thats a seperate question.Lihaas (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Sokolov,[edit]

It states "Russian commander". Since his years of service fell during Soviet times, I believe it should read either a "Soviet commander" or "Soviet/Russian". But considering he retired during the Soviet era, it should be "Soviet" only. Norum 14:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet Union was a block of 15 countries under central control, hence the name. Russia was and is a country.--Racklever (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
During the Soviet times, they were NOT independent countries. You had athletes representing Soviet Union, not Ukraine, Russia or Kazakhstan etc etc. Soviet Union was the official country, not any of the republics. Russia was a sole independent country from the IX century until 1922, when it became the Soviet Union (formed by 4 republics - Russia, Ukraine, Belorus and Transcaucasia). Russia did not become a sole independent country until 1991, when the Soviet Union officially dissolved. And, during those days, people had Soviet passport, not Russian, Ukrainian or Estonian etc etc. Norum 03:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People born in Russia during the Soviet era regard themselves as Russian not Soviet. This is also true of the other states (See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles). As an example I don't thonk that Estonians would like to refered to as Soviet. --Racklever (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was different then and it is different now. True, they might have been Estonians, Latvians and so on and on, but they held Soviet passports and they had Soviet citizenship. Ethnicity and citizenship are two different things. Norum 06:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Deaths in August 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Deaths in August 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 36 external links on Deaths in August 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Deaths in August 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Deaths in August 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]