Talk:Deaths in February 2019

Kristoff St. John

Re: Kristoff St. John. I believe that his body was simply found on February 3. I don't think that sources are listing that as his actual death date. Please edit accordingly. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done There was no indication that they suspected he’d been dead longer than when he was found. Rusted AutoParts 04:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's a fact that his body was found on that day. It's not a fact that he died that day. They don't know how he died. Someone just went to his house (on that day) and found him to be deceased. Quote: The star was found dead Sunday after one of his friends went to check on him at his home in the San Fernando Valley. The cause of death is still under investigation. There is no requirement that "they" have to indicate that they suspect that he had been dead longer than when he had been found. Why are you adding that extra requirement? You state: There was no indication that they suspected he’d been dead longer than when he was found. I could likewise say: There was no indication that they suspected he died the same day that he was found. See how that works? Both ways. I will add the note myself. But, thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Here’s the coroners report. I’ll be removing that tag now. Rusted AutoParts 05:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

As for my “extra requirement” (which, considering I don’t own the article I can’t enforce), there’s a specific dialogue that is used in reports like this when there’s doubt of when the person died. In the case of Annalise Braakensiek, no one had heard from her in several days prior to being found dead. There’s also the more evident language of someone being reported dead and that their death happened “last week” or “last month”, no citing a specific day. That’s where I’m coming from, that language wasn’t present in the articles I read about St John. Rusted AutoParts 05:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

That report doesn't say anything about his date of death. It simply lists "February 3" in the time-line / range of his life, which may simply be an internal indication of when the body was found (as opposed to simply leaving the date blank). And the report says "deferred pending further investigation". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, I assume that that is a primary source, not a secondary source. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

That is the Los Angeles medical examiner making a clear timeline of life. The deferred part is in regards to the cause of death. And it has been included in secondary sources, which I provided on his wiki article. Rusted AutoParts 05:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

"Clear"? Where do you get that? It's anything but clear. The whole cause is deferred due to pending further investigation. He is suspected of dying of an alcohol overdose. He could have been lying there for days (the weekend: Friday, Saturday, Sunday, etc.). The friend and police arrived at 2:05 AM. What are the "odds" that he just happened to die in that very narrow 2-hour window? Come on. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

All of that is your own original research. The cause of death is not certain, the date of death is not what’s in doubt on that end. The medical examiner would not list a DOD if it wasn’t known. Please provide reliable sources that support the possibility of him dying days beforehand. If not this is a case closed situation. I provided a reliable source that gives a DOD. And by the way police arrived at 2:05 PM, not AM. Rusted AutoParts 05:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

First of all, that does not give a DOD. Second of all, that's a primary source. Thirdly, you do not think that "cause of death" and "time (date) of death" are related? Oy vey. Forget it. You just want to "win". We will wait until after the deferred investigation. And, maybe you are right. He just "happened" to die in the very narrow time-frame between midnight and 2:00 AM. He probably died at 12:01 AM. And, as soon as he died, a friend just happened to visit his house, within minutes. Yeah, that's probably how it all happened. Not sure what I was thinking. Thanks for your insightful analysis. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Article I read said 2 AM. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Correction. So, you don't flip out: 2:05 AM. Not 2 AM. I was 100% wrong when I typed 2 AM instead of 2:05 AM. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

This article gives 2.05 pm. WWGB (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

This article gives 2:05 AM: [1]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You are joking right? The Daily Mail? It’s not considered reliable. Especially when compared to a paper like WaPo. Rusted AutoParts 06:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Why would I be joking? I read an article. It just happened to be in The Daily Mail. It said 2:05 AM. Period. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

What an abhorrently uncivil remark, Joseph. You think I’m just out to “win”? What a cynical remark. I want to be ACCURATE. You condescendingly say “you don’t know the difference between cause and date” as if the two are constantly intertwined. We can know a date of death and not know a cause of death, so I’ll ask what are you talking about? And if the bloody city of Los Angeles’s medical examiner is listing a timeline of life, why is it something to be doubted? Why would they include an expiration date if that was in doubt? That’s just not professional to give that information of its wrong. All the sources I’ve seen said 2:05 PM. The USA Today cite currently used on the list, People Magazine, Washington Post. So the structure of the two hour window is completely demolished. But thanks, thanks for another snide reminder that regardless of the cites I can use to bolster my stance I’ll still be treat as a dumbass/prick. Thank you. Rusted AutoParts 06:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

If you're gonna accuse me of "stuff", at least get it right. I did not (condescendingly) say you don’t know the difference between cause and date. What I said was don't you think that the two items -- cause of death and time of death -- are related?. So, to carry that to its logical extension ... they are unsure of the cause of death. So much so that they are planning further investigation. And the "official" cause will be deferred until then. So, if the two are related -- as I suspect they are -- the date of death will also be impacted by the cause. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

”Thirdly, you do not think that "cause of death" and "time (date) of death" are related? Oy vey.” If you weren’t leaning on a condescending angle, so be it, but that’s how I perceived it. And if it’s impacted it’s impacted. Right now we can cite that DOD is considered February 3. If it becomes February 1, or 2 or January 10 it’ll be fixed accordingly. Rusted AutoParts 06:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

[N.B. The untrustworthiness once pinned to the Daily Mail (UK) was refuted long ago. It has been restored to the Wikipedia source ranks for quite some time. Other than that, carry on arguing. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)]

As far as the time is concerned, either AM or PM could be a typo that all the other news services picked up and ran with. Errors like that have happened before. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Vast majority of sources say PM. Rusted AutoParts 06:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no problems conceding the PM; however, that does not invalidate my premise that those same "vast majority of sources" have promulgated typos without doing their own independent verifying. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

As for "date body found" vs actual DOD, I kind of have to side with Joseph. The coroners report that Rusted AutoParts gave the link to is an extremely bare-bones precis with absolutely no details given. I think the date of "Feb. 3" at the top is more for paperwork/online purposes than for an actual DOD.

If the so-called report (or any other source) had stated something like "examination provided/suggested a time of death between X time and Y time on such-and-such date," then I'd have no problem with a specific DOD. However, such is not the case and I do not understand all the hullabaloo about having a "(body found on this date)" as part of the entry. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I reiterate again that they just would not submit any DOD unless it’s known. It’s just not a wise thing to do if you don’t know. It would be indicated in the preliminary report. Rusted AutoParts 07:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

If you go to this website and enter date of death February 3, 2019 it comes up with St John's death. That is absolute. It is a reported date of death. WWGB (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Peter Tork

I've amended the listing for Peter Tork as American musician and actor, and listing 'The Monkees' as sole credit. I think that both The Monkees music and the TV series are interchangeable to some extent; when people talk about The Monkees its more the music side than the TV series that they discuss. Someone added the movie Head as an acting credit; that would be fine if Head was not The Monkees' 1968 Movie, but it is so I don't think we need to include it. Finally, I checked back over the deaths for February 2012; when Davy Jones died he was listed as a British actor and musician. To my mind, we need to apply the KISS method to Peter Tork's entry. David French (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A musician can be someone who both plays and sings, so of course "musician" is the succinct and preferable description. Generally I agree though because I firmly believe that entries in the Deaths pages should only form a pointer towards much fuller information to be discovered when accessing the linked article for the subject and also the source link provided. We should avoid over-elaboration where possible. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Death of Mark Hollis

There are reports online of the death of Mark Hollis (musician), best known as the singer of Talk Talk. For example, this tweet from the official account of Hollis's contemporaries, The The. The death has not yet been independently verified and date of death is not known at this time. I'm keeping an eye on the page but am busy today and could use some help, if anyone who regularly handles such things is on hand. —BLZ · talk 18:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

From Anthony Costello's Twitter account... here. Still need better confirmation though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I've now added it, based on this NME report. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't sure where to turn or how to handle something like this, and you have been great help. I've now added a section about the reports of his death to his page. I'll monitor the situation as much as I can today to see if a date of death is announced. —BLZ · talk 19:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

So will I. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Consequence of Sound have one of the most convincing reports, to my mind, at https://consequenceofsound.net/2019/02/talk-talk-mark-hollis-dead/. They feature links to just about every one of their sources. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

andre previn did not compose "my fair lady"

This should be deleted from his death notice. He worked on the film, but not as the composer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.212.91.243 (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done - I've no idea why someone included that there. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I mean he won his Oscars for his adaptions of it, so... Rusted AutoParts 16:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

However, we can't be seen to mislead anyone by what's claimed in the subject line, so "composer" should only show what he "composed", keeping the truth paramount. Yon IP editor found it confusing, why not others? Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I was briefly confused. Then replaced My Fair Lady with Dead Ringer in the composer bit, making a "conductor" role for the former. Buddy conducted entire significant orchestras in general, though, so maybe unfair to put the focus on one movie (even a famous one). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Now I'm slightly confused by RAP invoking the Rule of Three to make two composer credits. Only slightly, because I figure he's counting the one conductor credit as close enough. The nerd in me thinks one skill's chiefly dependent on intelligence and luck, and the other needs moderate charisma and dexterity, but the gentleman in me won't press the issue. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I invoked rule of 3 because we try to only include three credits regardless. If there’s a discussion to be had about what should be there (I personally just don’t see the necessity), then go for it I guess. I put My Fair Lady there per it’s film significance as well as him winning an Oscar for his work on the film. Rusted AutoParts 17:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The audiophilosopher in me wonders if noting one's awards doesn't inherently credit one with receiving them on television (in itself a much-ballyhooed act). If so, we're at seven. Per The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two, we might surround the perfectly acceptable picture in the conductor field with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra and London Symphony Orchestra, stereo-style (though it'll be tough avoiding a line break). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Rule of three gets blitzed when subject achieves four or more equal and notable during their lifetime, such as Oscar wins. Which devalues the rule of three concept anyway. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Sue Casey

Hello all,

I found the birth act of Sue Casey who died February 21, 2019 (see his obituary in ref on his page). I searched a Sue or Suzanne on FamilySearch that was born in Los Angeles on April 8, 1926 and found nothing. But in an interview here at 0:25 seconds she says she was born in Lennox and on FamilySearch there is a Suzanne Philips here born in Lennox on April 8, 1926. I was sure that it was her. And when I read in his obituary that the first name of his mother is Mildred and in the birth act of Suzanne Philips his mother is Mildred I am sure it is her. Thanks. --Danielvis08 (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

And I just saw on IMDb they say his birth name is Suzanne Marguerite Philips but I don't know where they have taken Marguerite... --Danielvis08 (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Should this not actually be on the Sue Casey Talk page, so that they can effect any changes they see fit? All we do is report a death according to reliable sources - we've nothing to change here as far as I can see. Plus none of those links are really reliable enough for this page (though editors at her own page might see it differently). Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Refsworldlee: Yes, but I assume editors start here, since entry talkpages rarely get frequented, even in death. — Wyliepedia @ 17:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

But I don't see the point, as our entry here is complete. Just saying - leave this here as long as you like. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Caroline Mwatha

Caroline Mwatha died of an unsafe abortion : the kind of abortion women have to choose when their agency over their own bodies is being denied. Calling the cause of death an abortion obfuscates what led to her death and is the actual biased way of talking about what happened. 1Veertje (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The clinic attended by Mwatha is under review. There is currently no adverse finding against it, including the conduct of an unsafe abortion. In fact, that term is not mentioned in the reference. For now, it is sufficient to state she died of "complications of an abortion". WWGB (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Her autopsy states it's a botched abortion which isn't surprising since the law doesn't leave women any other option and the "clinic" isn't a registered health facility and doesn't have physicians. 1Veertje (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

As a compromise, may I suggest an illegal abortion, which by definition implies unsafe. Editrite! (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

no, it's the very definition of an unsafe abortion: an abortion performed by people lacking proper medical training. Of the 6 people arrested in connection to her death, only the clinic owner has medical training. She is a nurse, which is not an adequate qualification to abort a 5 month pregnancy. One calls himself "dr. Mike", but isn't actually a doctor. Illegal again obfuscate what happened. When abortion is illegal it can still be performed by trained medical personnel. As you can see in the movie Vera Drake the rich girl in that movie was able to bribe a physician. --1Veertje (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

In that case, you could say illegal and unsafe, as it's clearly both. 203.196.41.161 (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC) Editrite!

Any procedure that kills a person is so clearly unsafe that saying so is an insult to the average reader's intelligence. "Illegal" is a less ridiculous proposal, but we've never bothered with that detail for shootings, traffic collisions or drug overdoses. I think it'd open a can of worms for cases without charges and convictions. The pathologist (not to be confused with an autopsy or autopsy report) says the circumstances are up to investigators, as is normally the case.

What's probably confusing Veertje is the way the reporter (not to be confused with a pathologist) ambiguously phrases her lead. Could mean the post-mortem exam (which includes an autopsy) showed Mwatha died after a botched abortion or that, after a botched abortion, the exam showed she died of excessive bleeding from a ruptured uterus. But to someone who knows a medical examiner's purpose in objectively determining how people die (not why), the idea that "botched" is his opinion is out of the question.

If we want to be clear and verifiable, I suggest relaying how she died (bleeding from a ruptured uterus). This would stop people from wrongly guessing the "complication" was a drug reaction, infection or the other thing. It'd make sense to add "after an abortion", for context, since everyone agrees an abortion preceded it, but controversial nuances, neologisms and politicizations beyond that are best discussed only in her article. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

What's insulting is that women's medical needs aren't being met, leading to a very late stage abortions and the death of women. The private is political, and it's just as political to make no distinction between her death and a deaths from medically sound abortion. Any medical procedure has risks, people do also die after proper procedures have been observed. Making it appear that this was also the case here is an obfuscation of the facts. Illegal abortions can be safe, safe illegal abortions tend to be out of reach due to their expense. unsafe abortion isn't a neologism. 1Veertje (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I've thought up an analegy that might make you understand: if somebody dies on a racing circuit, we wouldn't call it "died in a car crash". We would add the qualifier "in a race", because racing cars is dangerous and crashes happen frequently. Meanwhile most car crashes don't happen on a race cercuit but on the road. Most abortions, especially in the western world, are performed by medical professionals and rarely result in the patient dying. Unfortunately, there is a subtype of "having an abortion" called an unsafe abortion that regularly kills and maims. Su much so that there are currently 180+ papers in wikidata discussing how this is the leading cause of maternal mortality.1Veertje (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The same applies to traffic. Most drives, especially in the Western world, are performed by competent state-licensed drivers and rarely result in death (proportionally speaking). When people drive dangerously, it's often called dangerous driving and when it causes death, many call it causing death by dangerous driving. But Andrew Mallard died in a botch commonly known as a hit and run two days ago, and we called that a traffic collision because it avoids presuming anyone's guilt or innocence while giving a clear enough picture of what plainly killed him (I'd still prefer "hit by a car").

The same applies to guns. Most shootings, especially in the Western world, are operated by competent state-sanctioned shooters and rarely result in human death (proportionally speaking). When humans use these so-called deadly weapons to kill another human, many call it murder. But Lyra McKee was killed by another human with a deadly weapon two days ago and we say she was shot because it avoids presuming yadda-yadda and so on.

We're also completely unconcerned (as it pertains to this list, at least) with whether the drugs that kill celebrities come from a legit Doogie Howser or Anytown's friendly neighbourhood dopeslinger. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes "unsafe abortion" is the correct term and is one well defined by the World Health Organization.[2] And this is not at all true "Any procedure that kills a person is so clearly unsafe". People do die from safe procedures. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I suppose it depends. "Safe" can either mean harmless or unlikely to cause harm. Routine hernia surgery is likely to be harmless, as a rule of thumb, but Ted McKenna's hernia surgery in particular harmed him from head to toe. I'd be willing to bet the broader public regards anything harmful as unsafe, but I'll admit you're not technically wrong and can appreciate why someone who's taken a Hippocratic oath might want to forget the former definition of this adjective exists. I'm not trying to call doctors generally or willfully harmful, to be clear, because they're not. Accidental harm is a better harm, but no less harmful. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Lots of references support that it was the unsafe version of the procedure.[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Plenty of references for plenty of details about plenty of deaths in plenty of bios. The question is only whether we want to detail it here. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Why are you proposing keeping the inaccurate label? What use is it to argue with you when you make are unwilling to recognize that there is terminology you previously didn't know of? As you can see by the references to the WHO: there is no ambiguity about its definition. It's a very distinct form of an abortion and conflating the two is insulting 1Veertje (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing inaccurate about plain "abortion". The baby successfully died, too, even if you want to hush that aspect as "graffic discrimination". It's just not overly specific. If your favourite term is so important to you, why haven't you included it in your article, where readers might actually expect it? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

An abortion procedure is a medical procedure. Medical procedures are typically performed by medical professionals. This wasn't the case here leading to the death of both mother and the fetus. I have to check where it got lost in the versions of the article itself. It's clear that you think yourself more of an authority of what to name things than the World Health Organization. 1Veertje (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

On Wikipedia (where people often turn to learn about things they read on Wikipedia), an abortion "is the ending of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus before it can survive outside the uterus." Nothing more, nothing less. The World Health Organization regularly uses the unmodified word to refer to the same general practice. Might be safe or unsafe, legal or illegal, consensual or forced, secretive or open, induced or accidental, expensive or free, fatal or survived. Only the last variation matters here, and even it goes without saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Sources