Talk:Deaths in February 2008

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

The Maharishi[edit]

Maybe the Maharishi should have a ? after the 91 (see his article)... I do not know what the protocol here for such things is. MookieZ (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoang Minh Chinh...[edit]

...should be added. 85.178.15.200 (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have, but so could you! WWGB (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Kazmierczak[edit]

Why do these murder-suicide people always get listed as notable deaths? The guy did nothing noteworthy in his life before killing people, so his death is NOT notable!! The EVENT is a notable event, his death means nothing. At all. Please get rid of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsox05 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely!! By listing creeps like this (mass murderers/death-row executions), you are giving them exactly what they wanted - 15 minutes of fame - you also encourage other disturbed individuals to believe that they to can be a footnote in history (all-be-it pathetic). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.151.199 (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that records history. It is not a societal control device. It may be more productive to investigate why the USA has so many spree killers. WWGB (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And this history is recorded on the article about the shooting. In 5 years, who is going to remember the name of the guy that shot up Northern Illinois University? Absolutely no one. He is NOT a notable figure, and he does NOT belong on the notable deaths. Like I said the last time one of these happened, if his death is notable, so are all the victims of the shooting. The event, not the person responsible, is notable. I don't care if it's "giving him exactly what he wanted" or not at all. It's just a matter of his death not being historically significant enough to be mentioned in the Notable Deaths page of an encyclopedia. I've yet to hear an argument close to dissuading my beliefs on that matter. Hsox05 (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not determined at Recent Deaths. It is determined through processes like Wikipedia:Afd#How to list pages for deletion. WWGB (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True. Though the opening statement says "The following is a list of notable deaths in 2008" so people should be considering the notability of the death before they post it. Hsox05 (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So in 5 years, it could be deleted. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so then let me change it to say go to your next door neighbor today and ask them who was responsible for the shooting. It's not a notable person. Hsox05 (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a better chance that neighbor would recognize this guy's name than that of, say, H. H. Holmes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that's what you were going to respond with. :) Of course, the general public is pretty 'special' and isn't what we should be going by anyway. For example, last night on Jay Leno, he asked a girl who lives in the vatican and gave her a hint that he "wears a big hat" and she guessed Abraham Lincoln. Back to the point... whether people know his name or not, he isn't a notable death. He did nothing noteworthy INCLUDING the school shooting. Are we going to start putting every criminal as a 'notable death' when they die? I think Cho SHOULD be listed as a notable death, because the shooting at Virginia Tech was the largest mass shooting in the history of the country, and certainly at schools; however, this guy is just another all too common school shooter that did nothing in his life to be noted about and should not be listed in a HISTORICAL encyclopedia.. whether it be user written or not. If they still made the type of encyclopedia that you would get in print, do you REALLY think this guy would be noteworthy enough to even have a blurb about him? Hsox05 (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You knew I was going to ask about H. H. Holmes? Wow! What's your prediction for the NCAA tournament? Ya know, I never heard of most of the guys on this list, so I don't think they're notable either. Besides which, nothing on the internet, least of all wikipedia is any kind of "historical document", as it is all subject to change and/or instant disappearance. This ain't the New York Times. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know you were gonna ask about H.H. Holmes, smarta**... :P I knew you were going to ask about someone else that is not a well known NAME on the list. It's kinda funny how some people get mad when things like HD DVD are added to the list, and others want anything and everything to be included on the list and think that it shouldn't be met with the same criteria as an actual encyclopedia. Probably the same people. Again, if he is notable, why are the people he shot not worthy of noting in this "encyclopedia"? It's all tied to the same event. I still say the same thing, that no one has dissauded me from. he has done zilch in his life that warrants him being listed as a notable death. Just another loner that got fed up and shot down a school. There was a huge accident yesterday involving a log truck and it completely decimated a car. That happens less frequently than school shootings, we want to include those victims too? He's nobody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsox05 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as we know, his victims were just random targets. He's the one that "did something". And we don't know much of anything about why he did it, but it's of some potential interest, hence the article about him. The story made front-page headlines, and yet is somehow not notable, even though some guy who played 1 major league game 100 years ago is notable??? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous people that make the list that I wouldn't include on my own personal list of 'notable deaths'. These open-fire-in-a-public-place-suicides that happen 3 to 4 times a year just aren't worthy of putting on the notable deaths page. Again, unless you include everyone that died in the event. The even itself is noteworthy enough to have an article about it, but the guy killing himself is not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. I personally don't think the guy should have his own page on wikipedia either. Any info about him can be included on the page that details the event. And come on... again, are we going to put everybody that died in front page headlines on here? That log truck accident falls into that category too. Don't see that person listed here.Hsox05 (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You realise that this particular individual's entry has been extensively discussed here, right? Every time one of these guys commits an atrocity, there is an identical debate and an identical outcome. If you want to change policy for such entries, it seems this page is not the ideal place to have the discussion.Be best (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I hadn't looked there, but that does help; however, that discussion is whether he should have his own page, and this one is whether he should be listed on the "Notable Deaths" page. They may very well go hand in hand, but they are two different things. I would certainly think that when his page gets deleted and merged into the shooting page as it should, his name will be removed from this list as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsox05 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree.Be best (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About which part?Hsox05 (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he has an article, which he does, he definitely needs to be here. I am not saying he should have an article but htat he does and there is simply no reason to not include him. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, a guy in my hometown took a shotgun and shot 6 people last night in an apartment complex, killed 3 and injured 3... and apparently killed himself. We gonna put him on wikipedia too? Or do we not care because it's not another school shooting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsox05 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Fossett[edit]

Declared dead 15 Feb, disappeared Sept 3 2007 - surely his 'date of death' should be the earlier date, since it's extremely unlikely he dropped dead as soon as the court ruled he was legally deceased? Also, declaration of death isn't a cause of death. Be best (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think I remember reading somewhere on Wikipedia that where a date of death is unknown, it is usual to give the "date last known alive" instead? I favour moving the d.o.d. to 3 September 2007. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of moving him.Be best (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but with a comment saying words to the effect of "3 Sept is assumed to be his date of death, but this is not known with certainty and perhaps never will be" - or, at the very least, "(assumed)". -- JackofOz (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved him - the comments about DoD should be added to his biography.Be best (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That should all be documented in the biography, I guess. CoD would have to be 'aircrash' if you have anything, but of course, he could have survived a crash only to have died of thirst. Tricky. But completely agree DoD should be moved. Be best (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or he could still be living, although the chances of that happening are very slim. Editorofthewiki 16:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even known if he's dead, so stating a cause of death is a bit silly. He could have been consumed by ravenous wolves. Or he could have joined a commune and dropped out. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can say he died, we can even put an entry into September 3, we certainly cannot claim any CoD as that would be original research on our part, and in this case that would be completely unaccepotable. Obviously adding him to Friday's death list was also a mistake. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, we can't say "he died", but we can say "he was declared legally dead". Only he and God (and the wolves) know if he's dead or not. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, and certainly what the article says. I thought it was bear country but what do I know? Thanks, SqueakBox 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mountain lions and tigers and bears. Oh, fie! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tigers escaped from the zoo did they!?!?!?. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of the rare southwestern US species called the Vernon Tigers. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being in Cook County, they have plenty of experience with disappearances and legally-dead issues. Maybe Fossett went to the same place Judge Crater went. In any case, the ruling on the 15th effectively turned off the Fossett. Shall I go on? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

School shootings[edit]

So I'm guessing people who shoot up a school and then kill themselves (Steve Kazmierczak) get to be listed in the recent deaths list, but a sole targeted victim of one (Lawrence King) gets removed?JanderVK (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the situation.
Its cos Kazmierczak has anb article and King doesn't. If you think that is wrong you should try to change the afd policy, personally I would get rid of the Kazmierczak article, indeed I would remove most murderers [1] though there is always the question of where to draw thew line. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disliking what they do is not cause for removal. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well we shouldnt be bringing our personal tastes into any of the editorial decisions we make, I dont believe we should have an article on Bellfield or Kazmierczak but not because I dislike what they did. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't personal tastes, and opinions, the only thing we DO have to rely upon when we make the judgments we call editorial decisions? If it were so clear cut it wouldn't need either an editor or a decision. --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of folks on the “Deaths” pages don’t have Wikipedia articles about them, viz. Vladimir Troshin and Alain Ledesma on the 25th of February. What is the “afd policy”, anyway? I'm not familiar with that one. --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For non-controversial redlinks like Ledesma, etc., there's generally a grace period of a month for them to get an article before they're removed from the Deaths... page. As far as i recall this is the not the result of a specific rule but the product of consensus among the pages' "usual suspects". in my own opinion it's a pretty good system. (Obviously "non-controversial", etc., are judgement calls). tomasz. 18:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a good point but I think we should respect the privacy of murder victims by not posting them on this page. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Unless they're already public figures, obviously. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they are a public figure they'll have an article already. This issue certainly came up during the Virginia tech massacre. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know this isn't Wiki's policy to do this, but I think the privacy of the victim isn't a good thing in this specific case, because the media (atleast in the midwest) has seemed to dropped the ball on even covering this event. MANY people are outraged at this fact. At any rate, sooner or later he WILL have his own article, as they're prosecuting the killer with a hate crime, hence Lawrence will be considered the victim of a hate crime. I think that warrants an article by Wiki's standards if I'm correct. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.JanderVK (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I forgot to mention that there was a diversity bill introduced on behalf of King. That's pretty notable. JanderVK (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Deaths in February 2008. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Deaths in February 2008. 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.

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_February_2008&oldid=1207195130"