Talk:Deaths in July 2017

Skip Homeier

Am I the only one troubled/bothered that the report of his passing only comes from two FACEBOOK posts?

Granted, the two are supposedly by family members; but where is the "official" or "legal" statements/releases?

Just wondering. 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your rationale - there are countless independent sources, including the one being used in the Deaths entry, to back up his demise. And some notable ones too, such as the Hollywood Reporter. I think what you are really saying is that they (and us) have been fooled somehow. Really. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

If you check those "countless independent sources," you'll find they all used the two Facebook posts as their source. ALL the ones I checked (The Hollywood Reporter, MSN, Comic Book, TrekToday, YouTube, StarTrek, Malay Mail Online) ONLY sourced the Facebook posts. Only one I found -- The Obit Patrol -- didn't source Facebook, it sourced The Hollywood Reporter. None of them sourced what I would call reliable, truly independent and unbiased sources. (I don't consider immediate family and close friends to be reliable, independent,&/or unbiased sources.) Plus, I thought Wikipedia 'treated' Facebook like they do IMDb -- as a somewhat "unreliable" source. And, yes, there have been posts that have turned out not to be factual -- anybody can say/claim anything. Facebook is not, and never has been, an information clearinghouse nor fact checker.

Another red flag, at least to me, is that several of those "countless independent sources" used the EXACT SAME HEADLINE. How "independent" can they be when they can't even create THEIR OWN UNIQUE headline. Plus, a few of them printed the EXACT SAME article. I'm sorry, but I don't consider that to be "independent." To me, that's just passing the pablum on.

I'm not saying that anyone has "been fooled," I'm just saying that certain sources may not always be reliable. And I've always been suspicious when other places jump on a single source bandwagon without checking other 'places' for independent verification and mentioning those sources as well.

If the statement had been released/issued by a doctor, hospital spokesperson, mortuary spokesperson, city/county coroner, police spokesperson -- I think you get the idea -- then I would probably have no problem with the SOURCE.

And, according to most of those "countless independent sources," Homeier's passing was announced on July 2 --- a FULL WEEK after his death. Call me paranoid, but I always think that there's more to something if whatever news is released/issued more than a day or two after the fact. If the family did it to have "uninterrupted, and uninterferred with, personal and family time," that could've been stated as part of the release. I've seen/read similar such statements in other announcements.

And that's all that's been released - - - posts and statements/announcements. Not one, at least as far as I'm concerned, has been a "true" or "real" OBITUARY. Granted, not everyone has an obituary written, but most celebrities do. I just did a "'Skip Homeier' obituary" search and the only thing that turned up, besides the ones mentioned above, was "The Obit Patrol" which I also already mentioned.

Overall, my main concern is the reliability of the source. 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The reliability of independent sources using Facebook posts from his wife and son, you mean? I'd say the reliability is pretty solid. Rusted AutoParts 18:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

And of course, like good Wikipedians, we are trying to avoid "original research". Going into deep questioning of references, and their validities, amounts to just that, in the absence of any glaringly obvious reasons to disbelieve and discount them. By the way, we are not required at all to hark back to the primary source of information before posting an entry here in good faith - if it's being reported on the internet by the many many reliable outlets out there (you've already listed a lot of them), then that's all the validity we need as editors to go ahead and create an entry. If the source alone was just Twitter or Facebook (as in the recent cases of Marike Bok and Carlo Turcato), then the entry may well be struck out until such time as properly reliable sources came about. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the modern era of "journalism" being done from a desk and a computer, although, back in the day, news came "off the wire". As a former sports reporter, I can avow that this is how things are: very similar news stories with slightly different headlines or ledes, but, once you get into the heart of an article, you see similarities. As others have stated, FB and Twitter have become the new "wires". The onus should be placed on the reporting agencies to at least confirm the news before reporting it. As for confirming listings here, I usually read the ledes to see if the source is original or exclusive (doesn't say "as reported by...") or if it's just a Tweet-dump (as some smaller foreign agencies are). All that said, this is why we have a talk page to call attention to such matters. Also, don't be surprised to find the sources here mirroring the WP bios, another fine example of lazy journalism. — Wyliepedia 00:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I said NOTHING about "original research" and my comments in NO WAY inferred or implied anything about "original research."

My main concern has ALWAYS BEEN about the RELIABILITY of sources and references.

And if you want to be nitpicky, using the original/first place that reports something as the reference/source IS, technically, "original research"!

To me, verifying to make sure that what reportedly happened ACTUALLY happened is NOT "original research," it's RESPONSIBLE journalism. You have more than one source that references more than one attribution. If "fact checking" does not happen, it's just not "lazy journalism" (thank you, Wyliepedia), it's not any kind of journalism. 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Ryke Geerd Hamer

Personally I'm not happy about the obvious slant which has been introduced into the description for the above, who died on July 2, 2017, and occupies an entry in Deaths in 2017. As well as the emotive nature of the description, it is extremely "point of view" slanted; better in my eyes to work in the phrase "discredited physician" (the more true description, as he was barred from practice in that field) to replace the word "charlatan", which hardly appears anywhere as properly sourced when you carry out a Google search involving the deceased's name and that one-word description. Would like to hear from others on this - or is it just me? Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Charlatan is definitely too much. --Folengo (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm the one who added it. Also considered "fraudster" and "quack", this seemed the politest accurate description. While it's true he was a discredited physician, this didn't stop him from working, as that term implies (to me). It also suggests he wasn't also a legit doctor for 23 years, (probably?) longer than his shady practice. On the other hand, despite its length, his legal run attracted far less attention, so perhaps it should be ignored. If there's a single encapsulating word for a doctor-turned-quack, it would be best; absent that, I'm not particularly attached to "charlatan" and what's fine by you is fine by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

My worry is that we're seen to be perpetuating some kind of lofty judgments, using quite emotive descriptions, if not making such judgments ourselves, rather than maintaining the strictly neutral ground we should be occupying. It's all to do with perceptions; mine is that "charlatan", "fraudster" and "quack" are oh-so-simple name-calling terms ill at ease in an article such as an obituary announcer like Deaths. A bit more consensus would've helped here, so no change as it stands. Thanks to two of you for bothering though. Ref ^(chew)(do) 03:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I think those words can be used for name-calling, and are often enough that they've picked up a certain emotional flavour. But there are also times when they're just the right words. Plenty of politicians and their lapdogs are wrongly called Nazis and bitches, but Hermann Goering becomes no less a real Nazi for it, and Millie no less a total bitch. Likewise, it's not speaking ill of the dead to call Hamer a quack, fraud or charlatan. It merely means his entire article is about him doing the things described in quackery, fraud and charlatan. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's "one of the most widely respected newspapers in the world" calling him the perfect illustration of a charlatan, quack and pseudotherapist. Maybe that last one sounds a bit nicer? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Joan Lee

The death listing of "Joan Lee" on July 6, 2017, links to the WRONG "Joan Lee" Wikipedia entry/article.

THIS "Joan Lee" DOES NOT have her own Wikipedia entry/article. (At least not at the time I wrote this.)

The link needs to be removed OR an entry/article written about the CORRECT "Joan Lee" who was wife to Marvel Comics' "Stan Lee." 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done by someone. Ref ^(chew)(do) 03:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You always seem needlessly cranky about these issues you could just simply state like "the link is to the wrong person, it should be changed" as opposed to a page long and BOLDING words for no reason other than to be needlessly pointed. Rusted AutoParts 03:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Whenever I've "just simply state[d]" something, I've been jumped on for not giving details (proof) &/or not suggesting possible corrections. And when I do give the necessary data/info, I still get jumped on.

I'm from the old school where it's better to state more and hope the reader actually reads the whole thing and understands it, than to "just simply state" and have others complain about lack of data/info and misunderstand/misinterpret what they think they've read.

If that comes across as, or seems, "needlessly cranky," then so be it.

And my "Joan Lee" entry was not "a page long." And, I capitalize or italicize words for emphasis to impress a point, to avoid confusion, and to simulate actual speech (this is a basic taught in most writing classes were dialogue is used). Also, there was no "BOLDING [of] words" in this one. I've found that if no emphasis is used, things can be overlooked and misinterpreted. Obviously it worked since you commented on it.

Part of the perceived "cranky" may also be due to the fact that when something says that it is of a particular caliber and inferior quality items appear, it does 'irritate' me. It's kind of like, "Do as I say, not as I do." I find that extremely hypocritical and, yes, that irks me.

And I make no apologies when I feel that I'm trying to make something better or help something better itself. 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Talkpost banter aside, the proper Joan Lee is now Joan Boocock Lee. — Wyliepedia 05:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Any reason why IP does not open an editor account and start changing things for the better himself, or have you visited this subject before without me? Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Babiker Awadalla

Interested editors may like to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Babiker Awadalla on whether the former Sudanese PM is alive or dead. The array of dodgy cites and dead links is problematic. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Looney Tunes vs Merrie Melodies vs Warner Bros. Cartoons

There seems to be some confusion about which is which. Warner Bros. Cartoons is the whole collection, mainly made of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies. To choose one or the other is to ignore the other.

We shouldn't ignore Merrie Melodies because Granny got her start there, went solo there and turned heel there. We shouldn't ignore Looney Tunes because it launched Witch Hazel, continued with Witch Hazel, and ultimately finished Witch Hazel.

Warner Bros. Cartoons covers all this good stuff, and even lesser-watched Warner Bros. Animation like Duck Dodgers, where Foray was Witch Lezah. It's the diplomatic thing to do, dammit. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

If diplomacy is off the table, Merrie Melodies won three Emmys to Looney Tunes' two and has eleven nominations against ten, so it should win the war by prestige. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, Looney Tunes is pretty much the official brand of the Warner Bros. toon characters. There's an [official Looney Tunes site] but not a Merrie Melodies one. It has the most name recognition even if it has less Academy Award nominations/wins (not Emmy). Crboyer (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer to go with Looney Tunes. That's how they're officially addressed as. It makes it hard I agree considering the Looney Tunes article is mainly about the short films themselves. But as they are in reference to the characters I think Loomey Tunes being listed shouldn't be too probmatic as people know what is meant. Rusted AutoParts 05:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The characters are one thing, but we're italicizing the phrase and linking to an article about the series. That strongly suggests to readers we're saying she's famous for Looney Tunes, not Merrie Melodies, Duck Dodgers, Tiny Toons, Daffy Duck's Quackbusters or other WB works. At the very least, we should lose the italics. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

If we're going by character names people recognize, Bugs Bunny is bigger than Jesus, and The Bugs Bunny Show is where most people under sixty watched Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies shorts on Saturday mornings (at least till the Internet happened). That was my original choice, and I still think it works. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Jesus was in Looney Tunes? — Wyliepedia 02:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe? WWGB (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe not, but he was a Warner Bros. character in Jesus, released a month after The Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Movie. One has an impressive 7.3 IMDb rating, the other a mere 7.1. To be fair, Jesus Christ Superstar, despite the lack of Orson Welles, did a little better than Bugs Bunny: Superstar. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Charlie Gard

I fee Charlie should not be listed here on the basis that the article is predominantly about the case than it is about him. It's barely a footnote in one of the article's sections.@Sunnydoo: stated that if a film subject can be notable than so can Charlie. That's a flawed rhetoric. Predominantly film subjects are people of note that have articles predominantly about them without it being tied into the incident that made them notable. Charlie unfortunately did not get to live a full life. But his notability is stemmed to the case about him. He is only notable via that case, and due to his age there isn't anything else to bolster individual notability. Rusted AutoParts 18:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Due to the long and arduous (for the child, I think) campaign which was set up in his name, I think his notability is inescapable on this occasion. And please don't hide stuff. We've already established that isn't the done thing. Delete it outright if you feel that way. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The case is certainly notable. That's why the article is called Charlie Gard case. Charlie himself however is not notable by himself. It's why he redirects to the case. And I'd be violating 3RR by deleting him again. I hid it as I felt it could work as a fair compromise until the result of the discussion is decided. Rusted AutoParts 18:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I also totally disagree. If you look at the definition of notable, it breaks down to worthy of note or remarkable. There are well over 100 news stories at this time from around the World that have chronicled his departure. Several prominent members of society have sent condolences including the US VP Mike Pence using social media. But more to the point, a legal subject is the same as a film subject. Rusty says that it is more about the case than about him and because of his age and his disability. But that isnt correct either. Looking at prominent legal cases in history such as some of the American Civil Rights cases like Oliver Brown. Brown was a welder and an assistant minister, no one of international note. However he launched one of the most famous cases in history. This is along the same lines although a British case involving the Crown Government de facto from a Hospital and the Parental Rights to Medical Care.Sunnydoo (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd first ask you to not call me Rusty. That sounds needlessly condescending.

The thing with Brown is the article is called Oliver Brown (American activist). The article is predominantly about him. Whereas with Charlie Gard case the naming implements the notion it's predominantly about the issue Gard is notable for, and not Gard himself.

And in terms of global coverage that occurred after his passing, I don't feel really equates to much. If you look on the case's article, there are no other Wiki's it exists on. That to me doesn't really tell me they're a globally known person, since the case is not on any other Wiki site. Rusted AutoParts 18:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

His notability, such as it is, does not lie within a detached or disconnected case, with him relegated to the "subject" matter. And for some reason the Charlie Gard case article happens to be laid out EXACTLY like millions of other person biographies contained within our encyclopedia - that makes it way different from just being an "event" article straight away. I'm afraid that sometimes notability does not merely hinge on meritorious achievements or outstanding acts during a life. Sometimes it exists only through the millions of words written and spoken about the "subject" (I prefer "person", which he was for his limited life span). Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

And along those lines, there is no stipulation that a notable entity has to "do" anything. Sometimes they just have to live and die, like many of the 100s of articles we have on notable botany subjects like Eisenhower Tree.Sunnydoo (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

And RAP says that he doesnt see much interest. The Great Google Machine says otherwise (https://news.google.com/news/story/dUL3hhLp_a25gqMX3Buv2LX9MynVM?hl=en&ned=us). Let me see, BBC, Telegraph, Guardian Mail, NY Times, CBS News, NBC News, CBC, Glasgow Times, Sydney Morning Herald...how many countries on how many continents do you need RAP?Sunnydoo (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

First off, the link 404'd. Secondly, I'm not disputing that the case isn't notable. I'm disputing whether or not Charlie as an individual meets the critieria to be listed in this section. Perhaps it's because the article itself is only a month old, but that's for the case. I'm really not appreciating the attitude about it being about me "needing" anything. I'm seeing where people stand. If it results in people feeling he does meet criteria to be listed fine. But for me, base doff the article going towards the case as opposed to the person, I just don't feel he meets notability by himself to be listed here. Rusted AutoParts 19:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it's roughly the same as Shooting of Justine Damond. That article is under a month old, mostly isn't about things she did and has her name in the title. Seems to belong, per the Spadaro Act of 2017. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was just going to pipe in with my own comments, similar to yours, before I noticed your posting. Also, I did not realize that my compromise/suggestion (which was eventually accepted into "law") was officially known as the "Spadaro Act"! Cool! Thanks. But, yes, Charlie Gard does belong on this list of deaths, as does Justine Damond. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with InedibleHulk. Once I see Case listed here, I clicked on it expecting to be redirected to a "Death of..." or similarly titled page. That happened. Ergo, it warrants listing here, as well as from the growing list of web/news coverage. I knew the situation, but not the name. It's our "job" to do that for the non-news junkie, er, hound like me. — Wyliepedia 02:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Well it seems fairly unanimous Charlie should be here. Fair enough. I'm just still a bit fuzzy on what constitutes inclusion, given there are many people solely tied to being notable for something that happened to them as opposed to being notable by themselves. Rusted AutoParts 05:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

For some UK context then, this "case" was absolutely massive within the country. If one did not know the actual name of the "subject" here, one must have been hiding under a rock. For some (for me), it had reached "oh no, not again" proportions in terms of media reporting saturation and fervent social network campaigning, but that's just for those of us with our cynical natures. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

RAP, just to reiterate, this article is about notable deaths, not just the deaths of notable people. Gard's death has become notable as a consequence of media attention, even though the baby himself was not notable. WWGB (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Sam Shepard

Hopefully, unlike the current flurry of disagreements being shown during the editing of the Sam Shepard article, we can trust the New York Times report which says he died on 27th ("Thursday") and not the 30th or 31st? Sam Shepard, Pulitzer-Winning Playwright and Actor, Is Dead at 73 Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

That's the beauty of page protection. — Wyliepedia 16:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish I didn't "adopt" pages to watch short-term. That was an unholy war earlier at Sam Shepard. I had to do some hard edit summary hammering of the NYT source mentioning the death day, the maximum of allowable reverts, and some regrettable VAN warnings to the most persistent IPs to help to get things to settle down there. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they confused me with you this afternoon. — Wyliepedia 01:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, the affliction of confusion. As if one article should be festooned with wrong information merely because several others are. Ref ^(chew)(do) 05:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Patti Deutsch entry

The entry states: Patti Deutsch, 73, American comedian and voice actress (The Smurfs, Match Game, Tattletales), cancer. Can someone reword this? It makes it sound as if she was an actress and/or a voice actress on those TV game shows. She was a panelist on the game shows. And an actress/voice actress in other projects. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. Really, links to things she was hardly notable for (e.g. as game show panellist?) should be removed. (So, Match Game would be taken out.) Otherwise, her nicely concise description above would become either convoluted or extremely complicated to word. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, she is most known for her being a "regular" on The Match Game. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Before cable and the Internet carried their acts, talk and game shows were a comedian's best shot at reaching the general public. Reads weird if you imagine the parentheticals attached to "voice actress" alone, though. I've given the two jobs their own examples; a bit longer now, but a bit clearer. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Deaths in July 2017. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170723113058/http://www.ktva.com/stubbs-talkeetnas-honorary-cat-mayor-dies-987/ to http://www.ktva.com/stubbs-talkeetnas-honorary-cat-mayor-dies-987/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170728215404/http://dcist.com/2017/07/disco_dan_has_died.php to http://dcist.com/2017/07/disco_dan_has_died.php

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) 12:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)