Talk:Deaths in June 2012

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

Query about Ray Bradbury[edit]

This article gives the date of the death of Ray Bradbury as June 6 - indeed, I first heard it announced on BBC Radio Four today, which is June 6. However, the article on Ray Bradbury gives his death date as June 5. Obviously, one of the two dates needs to be changed. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every source I've seen gives the date of his death as June 5. Late in the day, apparently, so maybe it was June 6 for whoever added the entry. 204.60.84.2 (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this website:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-57448127-10391698/ray-bradbury-dead-at-91/

gives the date as being "Tuesday night", which would have been June 5. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Medina[edit]

This person died on the 28th of June. B-Machine (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She died on the 28th of April. --Racklever (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joze Humer[edit]

Can anyone read Slovenian to figure out this guy's cause of death? I have some small amount of ability to figure out Croatian, Serbian (Latin alphabet) and Macedonian, but Slovenian is so different that it just beats me to death. (Something analogous is true for people with some skill at reading French; they can halfway figure out Spanish but trying to figure out Italian is useless). Anyway, can anyone read Slovenian? Guyovski (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer was the Cause of Death. I do a lot of the Cause of Death updates, but some slip by. The best tool for translation is Google. Google Chrome has a natural translator embedded and will ask you any time you open a non-native language page if you would like a translation. Sometimes that service isnt available (especially with the smaller languages like Slovenian or Faro Islands we had a few weeks ago). You can then go to Google.Com and look for the translation section. Copy and put the text in on the left and it will translate on the right for you. Sunnydoo (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Dolgushin 10 June 2012[edit]

This decedent has no article and I don't foresee anyone writing an article on him, so the issue I'm raising is probably not important. All the same, what's the purpose of calling him a "danseur?" In its current version, the word links to Ballet dancer, and it's just a French language word that translates as simply "dancer." Is there some cultural Russian or old Soviet significance to the term "danseur?" If there isn't, I propose that it be replaced with "dancer" or "ballet dancer," depending on which he was. Guyovski (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, it translates specifically as "male ballet dancer". I think it's a useful distinction, since to an English speaker, Nikita isn't necessarily a masculine name. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Admin matter[edit]

User:Walter Breitzke keeps reverting the Tom Maynard entry, contrary to what has been discussed in the above section. Tom Maynard's cause of death should read, by above consensus, as "train impact". User:Walter Breitzke keeps changing it back to "struck by train" (contrary to the above consensus). I have reverted him 2 or 3 times, with the notation "Please see Talk Page". He continues to revert, in contravention of the above consensus. Can some administrator please intervene and take appropriate action to restore the article to its consensus state? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that User:Walter Breitzke has not participated in the above discussion, nor has he offered any input or opinion on this issue. He simply keeps unilaterally reverting to the wording that he individually prefers (despite consensus). And – if I remember correctly – he offers no reasons, explanations, or rationales in his "edit summary" boxes. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's being watched, and there are enough eyes on the page to properly report him if the need arises. --Stephen 23:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But, my concern is not so much that User:Walter Breitzke be watched or be reported. My primary request was to restore the article back to its consensus state by reverting that user's inappropriate edits. I would revert it myself, but I don't want to violate the three-revert rule. Can someone assist in this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The section immediately below suggests that the consensus has changed. Additionally, this doesn't require an administrative action. --Stephen 06:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The material below was added after I posted the help request for an administrator above. How does this request not require administrative action? If I had reverted the edit myself, I am certain that someone somewhere would have pounced on me for violation of the 3RR rule. So, how exactly was I supposed to request the edit to be reverted, if not via administrative action? Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Tom Maynard[edit]

As Ghmyrtle pointed out, Maynard's c.o.d. is becoming more unclear. There is some speculation that he may have been electrocuted by the third rail before the train hit him. That casts a doubt over the train being the cause of death. With all the uncertainty, I'm leaning towards a very vague c.o.d. like "railway incident" or similar until the coroner determines the cause of death and whether an accident or not. WWGB (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Clearly he was struck by a train, but he may have already been dead at that point, and we won't know for sure until the coroner's report (if then). Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are enough unknowns that we need to wait for the report. I suspect the verdict will be accident / misadventure but whether or not there'll be any clearer details of what happened, who knows. "Railway incident" is fine for now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gitta Sereny 14 June 2012[edit]

Since her article says she was a CBE, I changed "Austrian-born English writer" to "Austrian-born English writer and peer." Before reverting please discuss your intended edit here. Guyovski (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that a CBE is not a peerage. WWGB (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Should I re-edit or do you want to? Guyovski (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Regards, WWGB (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further to the above: No, a CBE is not a peerage. Even a KBE/DBE (Knight/Dame of the Order of the British Emnpire) is not a peerage. Peerages start at Baron(ess). For life peerages, that's also where they end. Hereditary peerages can go up into the stratospheric heights of viscounts, earls, marquesses and dukes.
  • Honorary CBEs are sometimes given out to non-UK citizens, and there was nothing in the article that explicitly said she'd become a British citizen. On the other hand, the CBE info didn't say it was honorary, either. So we have a bit of a grey area here. It's possible that she remained British by residence only, not by citizenship, and we'd need some citation to tell us which was the case. But whether by residence or citizenship, she was British and not English. Only native-born people get to be English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish (if they choose to self-identify down to the home country level, which not all do); newcomers have to be content with British. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 01:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So do we include "CBE" anywhere in the entry? What's the generally accepted practice? Guyovski (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, indeed CBE stays. It makes no difference to the postnominal, in any event. If it were indeed honorary, the category would have to be changed to Category:Honorary Commanders of the Order of the British Empire, and we'd need to say something about the honorary status of the award in the text as well. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 01:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Jesse Powell[edit]

Please review article Jesse Powell (American football) and decide whether entry "Jesse Powell" should be edited to add cause of death as "cardiac arrest." Guyovski (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His c.o.d. is unconfirmed. [1] WWGB (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Chappuis[edit]

Is it fair to edit entry "Bob Chappuis" to list cause of death as "complications from a fall?" The source and article don't explicitly state that but it's strongly implied. Guyovski (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think that that would be a fair edit. The direct quote from the source currently listed states: "Chappuis had been hospitalized at the University of Michigan Hospital after falling earlier this week". So, the cause of death has not yet been confirmed. I also do not think that that statement "strongly implies" what you say it implies. I don't think that it implies anything. I think it is merely offering up some information (i.e., he fell last week, he was hospitalized due to that fall, and then God knows what killed him while he was hospitalized). That's my read on it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you explain it, that makes sense. Thank you very much. Guyovski (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Thanks, also, for your vigilance in checking for errors on – and suggesting improvements to – this page. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it back to "Complications from a fall" from the NY Times article [2]. Chappuis had Parkinson’s disease and died of complications from a fall, his wife said. Sunnydoo (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Tubbs, June 15, 2012[edit]

The reference for this entry appears to be improperly formatted, from the way it looks in the reference list. Kindly fix. Guyovski (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and fixed about 5 others. Someone isn't adapting to the "new" system and adding the old way...still. — WylieCoyote 01:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
There isn't one "new" system. The closing admin noted "there may not be strong enough consensus to mandate change". Individual editors may use the footnote reference style, others are not compelled (whether through ignorance of the method or stubbornness). The likelihood of "mixed" citations was raised in the debate, and was always going to be an issue, at least initially. WWGB (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the discussion on this issue was too much like War and Peace, I didn't read the whole thing carefully, so thanks for the clarification. But I can't see how people find the status quo satisfactory when it looks like anyone can format references any way they feel like doing so. If there's a precedent for that, fine. It just strikes me as odd because it's like someone being found both guilty and not guilty at a criminal trial and expected both to go to prison and to stay free. Guyovski (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "footnoters" have passionately implemented that style now that the way is clear. If the odd bare URL is added, it is soon converted by others. That is likely to continue for some time. WWGB (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, as a newcomer who reviews the main Deaths page quite often, should I pay no attention to endnote inconsistency, or bring up bare URLs on the talk page when I find them, or even bring up the "footnoter" style when I find it so that it can be changed back, or does it not matter at all? Please advise. Guyovski (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the footnote style is better and consistent, you can change a bare url to that style. It is certainly not necessary to bring each occurrence to the talk page. WWGB (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that Guyovski isn't yet auto-confirmed, so s/he can't edit the page. Guyovski, I'd advise you not to worry about it for now. There's plenty of editors watching this article, and any inconsistencies are fixed fairly quickly. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Garaudy[edit]

The original notability for this decedent was "French philosopher." Later it was changed to "French philosopher and Holocaust denier." Now it's been changed to "French philosopher and author." I've read the sources in both English and French and it looks a lot like the decedent was notable primarily for being a Holocaust denier rather than a marginal Marxist thinker and author of obscure, little-read books. I propose that the notability in the entry go back to "French philosopher and Holocaust denier." Guyovski (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made this change. He is a philosopher. What specific type of philosophy he espouses is not particularly relevant. And, if it is, it is available in his article. When I made the change, I put in the edit summary box something to this effect: it's like listing someone as a baseball player ... and then further listing that he plays the position of third base. Yes, the professional baseball player notation is important. But the specifics beyond that (i.e., that he plays third base as a position) is not germane ... and is best left to reading the article (link). Same case here. He is a philosopher ... what his particular philosophy (sub-topic) is, is best left to the article and not germane to his summary listing. That's my position. (I also added "author" since his article seems to indicate that that was a significant – albeit former – occupation of his.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He received nearly all of his notability from denying that the Holocaust occurred, and some slight attention for his philosophical writings. In fact, since he stopped being a Marxist decades ago, nearly all of his books have focused on Holocaust denial. I don't see how he can be listed as a philosopher unless you assert that Holocaust denial is a type of philosophy. All the same, I don't mind including "philosopher" in reasons for notability as long as the real reason, which is that he was a Holocaust denier, is also included. Even the Wikipedia article on him makes what I'm saying pretty obvious, let alone the external sources. Guyovski (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I (personally) did not come up with "philosopher" and/or "author" ... that is what the lead of his article states. Personally, I never heard of the guy. I guess what I am saying is that "Holocaust denier" is not a job or profession, as is listed on all other entries. "Philosopher" and "author" are indeed jobs, careers, professions ... "Holocaust denier" is not. Perhaps his philosophy entailed Holocaust denial ... perhaps he authored books on the topic of Holocaust denial. Apparently, he did. So be it. I certainly do not object to including it (Holocaust denial) in his article/bio, which is easily accessible via the wiki-link. But, I don't think it's appropriate for his one-sentence epitaph / summary. Again, I go back to my baseball player analogy. I care that he is a baseball player. I do not care that his position is at third base. The "sub-topic" (third base) can easily be found by examining his article/bio via wiki-link. Same with Garaudy. The specifics of his philosophy and the specific topics that he authored can easily be found in his article/bio via wiki-link. Still, he falls under the general description of "philosopher and author", regardless of which specific philosophy he espoused or topics he wrote about. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm just briefly going to explain why I'm bowing out of this discussion. If you have an objection to it take it up with the administrators. I don't want to argue with anyone or insult anyone. In fact, in my brief time here, I've developed significant respect for you as an editor. But the last two Deaths in 2012 article edit summaries involving both you and Roger Garaudy make it apparent that history is repeating itself (and anyone can confirm that just by looking at the history of your talk page, which won't go away even if you delete the actual content of your talk page). I've said before that I don't like bloodbaths and this is heading straight for one. So have it your way. Call this piece of filth person whatever you choose as his "epitaph." Have a nice evening. Guyovski (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have never in my life even heard of this guy before. So, I am as objective, as neutral, and as unbiased as can be on this topic. But, if you are calling this guy a "piece of filth", I'd question your objectivity and neutrality and – along with it – the level of bias present in your edits about him. As I think anyone here at Wikipedia also would. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, if interested, please see this formal dispute resolution request: [3] Guyovski (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above dispute resolution request was received with hostility and great lack of interest and closed under "it's not my department" without this page being even glanced at. So I've opened another dispute in a more appropriate location under Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#How can I avoid having to respond and escalating things?. FYI. Guyovski (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the volunteer clerk/mediator who closed the WP:DRN entry, I take great exception to the above comment. For someone who constantly complains about other editors with comments such as has complained about another editor, saying "I feel compelled to respond to it in order to prevent defamation from standing unchallenged" you are rather free with unjustified defamation of your own. Given the fact that you have had repeated negative interactions with a wide variety of Wikipedians on a number of different pages, I think it is time for you to do a bit of self-examination and realize that the common factor in all of these conflicts is your own behavior. Struck out because it was too harsh and a poor description of the situation (lots of conflict with one editor, not conflict with lots of editors) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want I can retract my assertions about the dispute you closed. I don't mind doing that. I do question the claim that I "constantly" complain about other editors because I have made a complaint about only one other editor. My history shows that the vast majority of my contact with other editors is peaceful and constructive. The statement that I have had "repeated negative interaction with a wide variety of Wikipedians" is only technically, partly true because I have had exactly two of those; which means that "repeated" is only technically true and "wide variety" is not accurate at all. If you wish to disagree with this response I am politely requesting that you provide evidence for your assertions in the form of links. I realize that you have far more power than me in Wikipedia and can permaban me without my having any recourse, but I am hoping that I can appeal to your sense of justice and interest in peaceful, constructive discussion. You and I had a personal interaction over something I posted on an IP address and, after I became aware of all the facts, any disagreements between us were resolved peacefully. Please refer to User talk:Guy Macon#67.71.2.203. Please, I really would like to get along with everyone. Guyovski (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I just struck out [part of what I wrote above. I still strongly disagree with the assertion that your dispute resolution request was received with "hostility and great lack of interest and closed under 'it's not my department' without this page being even glanced at" but I am going to drop it and say no more about it. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my attempt to avoid being forced to respond to Spadaro's latest assertions went absolutely nowhere. Since letting his assertions go unchallenged creates the false impression that I agree with what he is saying, I have no choice but to respond. I hate to do it because there's a strong chance, based on historical precedent, that things will go straight to hell from this point on. Anyway. If the first few edits in this subsection are read carefully, it appears that Spadaro is asserting that Holocaust denial is either a legitimate form of philosophy or can be the outcome of legitimate philosophy. It would be appreciated if that could be either confirmed or denied by any person who knows whether or not that appearance reflects reality. As for the rest, I deny that I am dishonest and biased. My use of the phrase "piece of filth" to refer to Garaudy was retracted despite strong resistance (and I admit that I failed to use the proper retraction method initially out of ignorance of Wikipedia's rules and practices, but adjusted when I was informed of them). I have made further attempts on the talk page of Garaudy's article to seek further education in this matter. I also contradict Spadaro's assertion that "my edits" of Deaths in 2012 can be questioned on the basis of bias because, until a couple of hours ago, I was not autoconfirmed and therefore had made no edits; and since then I have made no edits to the Garaudy entry. Finally, I challenge Spadaro's assertion that "anyone on Wikipedia" is guaranteed to conclude that I am biased and dishonest. I have encountered a serious shortage of willingness among Wikipedia editors to examine the issues carefully and come to comprehensive conclusions, but there's no reason why a given editor would isolate some specific small fragment of what's been said rather than any other, so what other editors might conclude is indeterminate. That covers most of my position. If I've left anything out, I apologize, and if there's reason to add it later, I'll add it. Guyovski (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The deceased are listed not by jobs or professions, but by reason(s) for notability. Garaudy is notable, among other things, for being a Holocaust denier. That is made clear in the lead of his article. WWGB (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At his article, how would editors (there) feel if the very first line of his article stated: "Roger Garaudy (1913–2012) was a French Holocaust denier" ...? I doubt that would fly. In other words, on this page, we summarize the person's life in a brief word or two or so. In his case, the brief word or two would be, in my opinion, philosopher and author (which exactly mirrors the lead in his article). For this list, any specifics beyond that are reserved for his article via wiki-link. That's my opinion. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Rodney King 16 June 2012[edit]

There's a lot of editing of this entry but no one is discussing their edits. The latest edit says: "victim of 1991 police brutality incident" and the cause of death of "drowning" has been removed. To me the wording of the notability part is pretty much right. As for the cause of death, I read the source carefully and it says in so many words that he was found at the bottom of a pool, but there is no official cause of death pending an autopsy. I don't believe that "found at the bottom of a pool" would be an appropriate part of the entry because it's not a cause of death, and we don't know yet whether he drowned. So how about leaving the entry as is? Guyovski (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His COD resembles a lot of others who were "found" at some point after their death. No one really knows how someone in that situation died until the autopsy is performed and their entry on the main page should reflect that, meaning left blank until further news is revealed, in my opinion. — WylieCoyote 23:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Rodney King[edit]

An interesting question has arisen at Rodney King's Talk Page. (See here:Talk:Rodney King#Victim of police brutality.) So, I wanted to bring the issue here, as well, as it is relevant. We will need to come to some consensus. King is currently listed as the "victim of police brutality". However, if I recall correctly, all of the police officers were acquitted of any brutality. (This jury verdict is, in fact, what led to the LA riots.) Some police officers were later convicted of violating his civil rights (which is a different crime than "police brutality"). So, any thoughts on the proper wording for Rodney King's entry at this page? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of anyone "recalling" correctly or otherwise, Joseph. It's what's on the record. The record as per our article says that 5 officers were initially charged and tried but they were acquitted, to the huge surprise of all right-thinking people but to the huge relief of the police officers. This inexplicable outcome is what led to the riots in the first place. Later, though, they were re-tried and 2 of the 5 officers were found guilty of police brutality and went to prison. There is no question that Rodney King was a victim of police brutality, for which at least some of the offenders have been punished. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 23:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jack. (1) I think that you missed my point. (2) Your chronology is inaccurate to the extent that no officer was ever "re-tried". (However, they were later "tried" – for the first time – on completely separate and different charges.) First of all, by "recalling" ... I mean that this incident happened many years ago, I certainly do not recall all the specific details, and I only very cursorily scanned the articles today. So, I am relying on my recollection plus a very quick scan (i.e., not a thorough read) of the articles. That being said ... this was the chronology: the officers were tried for police brutality, they were acquitted of all such charges, this acquittal led to the riots, and they were later tried (not re-tried) for civil rights violations (which is a completely different crime than "police brutality"). So, no, there were never any convictions of "police brutality"; in fact, quite the contrary, there were only acquittals. There were, however, convictions for federal "civil rights violations". Semantics? Yes. But that is exactly what I am asking. Namely, what would be the correct semantics for his entry on this page? In other words ... nobody was ever found guilty of police brutality. Some were found guilty of federal civil rights violations. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. But that does not mean that police brutality did not occur. Scenario: A person is found dead, and it is evident they were killed by someone else. Someone is charged with murder, tried, but acquitted. No other reasonable suspects are ever identified. Does the absence of any murder conviction mean the person was not murdered? Of course not. Saying that King was a victim of police brutality is not a denial that nobody was ever convicted of brutality per se. If the 2 officers concerned think that describing King's experience this way is a blight on their characters, that's a matter for them, but it does not breach our BLP rules. Describing him as "a victim of civil rights violation" would not cut it, imo. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 00:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly see your point. However, here is the counterpoint (and, perhaps, some devil's advocacy). If the jury (which was shown all of the evidence) did not see fit to conclude that there was police brutality committed ... then who are we at Wikipedia to make that conclusion? Again, I do not recall all of the specifics ... but perhaps the jury concluded that, given the circumstances, the police employed proper use of force (i.e., not police brutality) in that situation. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of your discussion, someone placed "kickstarter" of the LA Riots into his bio this morning. He didnt start the riots (he actually tried to stop them with his infamous plea of "Cant we all just get along?" Since the person correctly put the LA Riots into context, I changed the tag line to "figure involved" in the LA Riots. Probably need more input from the community on this one. The CoD will either be heart related or drowning related and we need to find out from the LA County Coroner before we can input that. The difference is whether there is water in the lungs or not. There is also a chance he might have had an accident such as bumping his head and losing consciousness on the side of the pool. Sunnydoo (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as I speak WWGB has come in and erased all of that from the discussion. Looking back it was Rusty who put the line in. So we will see how this plays out. And yes WWGB as I see your comment as I stated earlier he was involved in trying to stop the riots. Sunnydoo (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in King's article about having any direct role in the LA riots. WWGB (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had it as kickstarter in the terms of "his attackers acquital kickstarted the 1992 LA Riots. I couldn't think of any other word to describe it and i felt adding American police brutality victim whose attackers were found not guilty kickstarted the 1992 LA Riots. Rusted AutoParts 12:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I changed the wording again after thinking about WWGB's objection on "involved" to "entangled." If that doesnt work, we could try "embroiled" also. Sunnydoo (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I think those terms better apply to a piece of knitting or a lobster! I have never seen them used on these pages. Anyway, I'm happy to see what others think. WWGB (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is "intertwined" as another possibility. Trying to stay away from "enmeshed" "ensnared" and "ensnarled" as they have active connotations to their meaning.Sunnydoo (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am ambivalent about whether or not we should even include mention of the 1992 Los Angeles riots. I can see arguments both for and against the inclusion. If we were to include it, I object to all these verbs I have seen proposed so far (enmeshed, entagled, embroiled, intertwined, ensnared, ensnarled, kickstarted, instigated, spawned, etc.). None are truly accurate and none "sound right". Anyway, for now, I have changed the wording to: "American police brutality victim whose case sparked the 1992 Los Angeles riots". How is that? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the police brutality, there really does have to be an "alleged" in there somewhere. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess he beat the hell out of himself, then. Rusted AutoParts 14:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Technically speaking (and semantically speaking), he was the victim of a civil rights violation, not the victim of police brutality. In fact, the police brutality argument was outright rejected by the (first) jury. So, semantically, where does that leave us? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously police officers attacked him with batons. That much we know to be true. The question is whether they used excessive force. That's what police brutality means. If a jury has decided that the use of force was not excessive, we can't claim otherwise. Simple as that. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not so simple. The first jury said that the officers did not use excessive force (i.e., no police brutality). The second jury said that the force used amounted to a violation of King's federal civil rights. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd favour "victim of alleged police brutality" over "victim of a civil rights violation". Either way, "police brutality victim" is definitely wrong. DoctorKubla (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a new direction[edit]

In response to DoctorKubla's comment above. I think that both "victim of alleged police brutality" and "victim of a civil rights violation" are inelegant, cumbersome, and clunky (though factually accurate). How about we take a new direction for King's description? Something along the lines of this: "subject of a controversial video that sparked the 1992 LA riots". Or some such. Any thoughts? That moves us away from the whole "victim" thing and the specifics of the exact crime for which there was a conviction, etc. King really is noted for being in that particular video ... regardless of what the final legal conclusions of the conduct in that video were determined to be. No? Any thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking. I'd be happy with that. DoctorKubla (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was looking at another death and noticed "The Independent's" headline for him as, "Victim of police whose beating provoked riots in LA." [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnydoo (talk • contribs) 06:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except the beating (and the video) did not provoke the riots, the police acquittal did. WWGB (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good point. But, the beating did provoke the riots, at least indirectly ... to the extent that the beating went unpunished (i.e., the acquittals). On second thought, my proposal (subject of a controversial video that sparked the 1992 LA riots) may be too "sanitized", as it does not mention the police and/or the beating at all ... and, thereby, it misses the whole crux. I was trying to avoid the words "police brutality" since that was only an allegation and one unproven at that. Thinking out loud here ... what about something like: American victim of a videotaped beating by police that sparked the 1992 LA riots. How is that? It leaves in the word "victim", which I think is necessary. It avoids the words "police brutality", which I think is preferable. It is undisputed that he was "beat" by police. Whether that beating was justified or considered to be excessive force (i.e., whether there was brutality or not) is entirely avoided (which is good). And it links to the riots in a succinct and factually correct way. Because it was the beating (that went unpunished, in the view of some) that led to the riots. Also, it offers some sense of what the videotape contained (i.e., a police beating), which my original proposal neglected entirely. Thoughts on this new wording? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Maynard[edit]

I see there's been some back and forth over this, but I don't think "train strike" makes much sense as a cause of death. "Hit by a train" seems clearer and more straightforward. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "cause of death" is just that ... a "cause". As such, it is a noun, not a verb. So, a cause of death might be "shooting" (as opposed to "shot") ... or "drowning" (as opposed to "drowned") ... or "stabbing" (as opposed to "stabbed"). And so on. I do not think that a verb is appropriate as a cause (unless you use an entire phrase or clause, such as "he was shot", "he was hit by a train", etc.). Granted, in some cases, the correct wording is less elegant and somewhat awkward ... but, nonetheless, we are still recording a cause (not an action). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I consider that reasoning pedantic, convoluted and inappropriate to Wikipedia. We are not an organization dedicated to English language scholarship or enforcing rules about the "proper" use of English. Our criteria should be different. The first thing we should consider is whether the source says "train strike," and then adjointly whether "train strike" is generally recognized as a formal term for a cause of death. If both of those things are not true (and I believe both are required) then we should use the more generally accepted wording to indicate a cause of death. In this case "train strike" could confuse people because it could also suggest that workers operating a train were on a union strike and somehow caused the deceased's death. "Hit by train" strikes me as more appropriate because it's clear what the phrase means, plus it is the phrase used in the source. 67.71.2.203 (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pedantic or not, a verb is not a "cause". "Hit by a train" is not a "cause" of death. It is merely an action (i.e., a verb) suffered by the decedent. Similar to all the other examples I cited (stabbing, shooting, drowning, etc.). If a guy was in a car crash, would we list "car crash" or "crashed by a car"? I'd posit, the former and not the latter. Same thing with the train. We can find a rewording, as long as it lists a cause (not an action). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And, actually, we are an encyclopedia (not a blog or some such). So, yes, indeed ... we are an organization dedicated to English language scholarship and enforcing rules about the "proper" use of English. That's exactly what an encyclopedia is and does. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "hit by train", because "train strike" sounded like industrial action by railroad employees to me. It was ambiguous enough for me to be momentarily confused. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You said that you changed it. It does not appear changed. It still says "train strike". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I ask other editors not to challenge the latest edit by simply repeating what they've already said in an attempt to beat others over the head with verbiage and make them yield, so that an editor gets their own way by bullying. If material is posted in this discussion that commits that kind of error I am going to edit the offending material with strikethrough. Guyovski (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if you want to be pedantic, "train strike" isn't a cause of death. The (pedantically accurate) cause of death would relate to the specific trauma sustained, not the event causing the trauma. I think common sense can be applied in situations like this. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to communicate knowledge and facts - English language scholarship is secondary, if it is an objective at all. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not inflexible. I am simply making the position that a noun is needed, not a verb. If that is particularly untenable, I am flexible. Truth be told, I am not exactly thrilled with "train strike" (for a number of reasons). I wish that we could find a better noun. If we can't, so be it. This is not the end of the world, and we all have bigger fish to fry. However, when there are better nouns as alternatives to verbs (e.g., "drowning" versus "drowned", "stabbing" versus "stabbed", etc.), I will edit to the noun alternative. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree with the last sentence, but we're getting way off topic. The discussion of the role English language scholarship in Wikipedia editing needs to be moved to the appropriate venue for it--and I am anxious to participate in such a discussion in such a venue. Guyovski (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Train strike" is utterly inappropriate. A train strike is what happens when railway workers decide they're not being paid enough. Nobody, and I stress, nobody would use that phrase to describe what happened to this guy. Right now, it's akin to a slightly macabre and tasteless joke. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit to "railway accident" is perfect! Thanks for the change. I think that wording should satisfy all. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! It just seemed like a good compromise. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Accident" is not mentioned in any of the news reports. I don't want to speculate, but do we know that it was an accident? From what I have read, all we know is that he was hit by a train. I, also, don't want to make this a bigger issue than it needs to be. I tried to find a noun for this type of incident - for example when a pedestrian is killed after being struck by a vehicle, but there doesn't seem to be one. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Car (or auto or motor vehicle) accident, car crash, or car collision ... are all appropriate nouns for your second example ... no? For the current matter of Tom Maynard, someone changed it to "train impact", which I think is OK. Perhaps subsequent reports will indicate (or disprove) that it was in fact an "accident" (or a suicide or whatever) ... and we can go from there. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with "train impact" temporarily though it's a poor solution for this purpose, and it's a phrase that's never used anywhere. The chances of it not being an accident are, I would guess, extremely slim, so when a reliable source becomes available for it being an accident it should be changed back. If it turns out to be a suicide, then it should just say "suicide". Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is used in Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here I come to mess things up again. "Train impact" could be taken to mean that he was aboard a train when it hit something and he died as a result. That has also been known to happen (although I'd hate to be obliged to dig out a reference). So "train impact" is ambiguous. I still think "hit by train" or even "hit by subway" would be better. Guyovski (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where Maynard came from, a subway is a pedestrian underpass. I agree that "train impact" is ambiguous though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only report I read said there were no suspicious circumstances, which is usually code for suicide. If that's indeed the case, leaving it as "train impact", "hit by train" or whatever else would tend to mislead people, in the same that saying that the cause of death of a person who blew his own brains out was "gunshot to the head". It would have to be at least "self-inflicted gunshot". We couldn't say "self-inflicted train impact", but there has to be some suitable formulation. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 01:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Jack ... but we'd still need to wait for a source to indicate suicide. Then, we can tend to proper wording. As of now, we can't just go by the unspoken code that indicates suicide by a wink and a nod ... correct? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every mention of it that I have heard today (and there have been a few) describe it as an accident. There's nothing yet to suggest a suicide. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Any sources that actually state "accident"? That was one of the hold-ups in the conversation above. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like most of the top sources are avoiding making any judgement about it, calling it a "mishap" or an "incident". More minor sources like [5], [6], [7] etc call it an accident. There'll be a coroner's report fairly soon, so that will clear it up once and for all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some reports like this are stating that he was first electrocuted, then hit by a train. So, "struck by train" may not be accurate as a cause of death either (though I know it's what other sources say). Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joze Humer[edit]

Can anyone read Slovenian to figure out this guy's cause of death? I have some small amount of ability to figure out Croatian, Serbian (Latin alphabet) and Macedonian, but Slovenian is so different that it just beats me to death. (Something analogous is true for people with some skill at reading French; they can halfway figure out Spanish but trying to figure out Italian is useless). Anyway, can anyone read Slovenian? Guyovski (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer was the Cause of Death. I do a lot of the Cause of Death updates, but some slip by. The best tool for translation is Google. Google Chrome has a natural translator embedded and will ask you any time you open a non-native language page if you would like a translation. Sometimes that service isnt available (especially with the smaller languages like Slovenian or Faro Islands we had a few weeks ago). You can then go to Google.Com and look for the translation section. Copy and put the text in on the left and it will translate on the right for you. Sunnydoo (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Dolgushin 10 June 2012[edit]

This decedent has no article and I don't foresee anyone writing an article on him, so the issue I'm raising is probably not important. All the same, what's the purpose of calling him a "danseur?" In its current version, the word links to Ballet dancer, and it's just a French language word that translates as simply "dancer." Is there some cultural Russian or old Soviet significance to the term "danseur?" If there isn't, I propose that it be replaced with "dancer" or "ballet dancer," depending on which he was. Guyovski (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, it translates specifically as "male ballet dancer". I think it's a useful distinction, since to an English speaker, Nikita isn't necessarily a masculine name. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

gen. Petelicki's death[edit]

It is suggested that gen. Slawomir Petelicki committed suicide when there is no coroner's report and issue is still under investigation.Panurg123 (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)panurg123[reply]

The article that is linked clearly states that he was shot in the head in his garage and that no third parties are believed to have been involved. It further says that he was going through work issues. The title of the article is "Police believe its suicide." If the coroner's inquest comes back with something other than suicide, it can be changed. But if we waited for Cause of Death from every coroner before adding to the list, it would make the job impossibly difficult. I will change it to "suspected" pending the result however. Sunnydoo (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Selznick[edit]

This person died on June 11. B-Machine (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the news reports say he "died Sunday", which was the 10th. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lynch[edit]

The Wikipedia article on Richard Lynch shows him as 72 years old when he died, whereas here the age given is 76. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.205.209.53 (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently says he was born February 12, 1936 and died June 19, 2012 (aged 76).--Racklever (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lonesome George[edit]

Lonesome George was a Galapagos Tortoise not a Galapogos Turtle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.67.63 (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from list as deceased animals are required to have own article. WWGB (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where does that "requirement" come from? All notable decedents are listed in this article (people, animals, etc.). And it is a long-standing practice that – if an article does not yet exist – there is a 30-day "grace period" to create one. This is no different than any other "red link" decedent. And, in fact, Lonesome George virtually does have his own article. He is notable and has been all over the news today. He is the last surviving of his species. Therefore, his death makes his species officially extinct. How is this not notable? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of deceased animals on Recent deaths has always been contentious. Some believe that including animals demeans the humans listed around them. Others think that animals are just as entitled to be listed as the human species. As a compromise, it was seemingly agreed that only animals with an existing Wikipedia article would be listed. This avoided the list becoming clogged for 30 days with non-notable animals like Chance the police dog (just a random example). While it is hard to pin down a specific agreement (like many decisions here) this condition is alluded to in talk pages like Talk:Deaths in 2008#Animals? and Talk:Deaths in 2007#Animals. Given that Lonesome George is an endling, I'm happy to cut him some slack to see if an article emerges in the next month. WWGB (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Animals are either included or they're not. And, consensus has decided that they are. Therefore, in this article, an entry is an entry is an entry ... regardless of whether that entry is human or animal. It seems silly to have a quasi-policy that says red links are OK for humans for 30 days, but not for animals. The 30-day grace period stands for all entrants and all decedents, human or animal. I don't see the distinction, and I don't see the need for any such distinction. The same rationale of a 30-day grace period for a human entry should apply to a non-human entry. In other words, for this article, an entry must be notable (whether human or animal). And, without a Wikipedia article, an entry has 30 days to "prove" notability and being worthy of inclusion (by having an article submitted within that time frame). As such, the relevant consideration is "notability", and not "whether an article pre-exists the death". The notability requirement is exactly why we have that 30-day grace period for notable decedents who do not yet have a Wikipedia article. Whether said notable decedent is human or animal is entirely irrelevant. Provided that they are notable, they merit inclusion in this article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the Pinta Island tortoise says he was the last of his SUBspecies, where as his listing on the deaths page says he was the last of his species. Is that important? 212.139.246.76 (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I am not that familiar with the language and jargon used in that discipline (biology). But, Lonesome George was the last Pinta Island tortoise. And the Pinta Island tortoise is a subspecies of the Galápagos tortoise. This article entry states: "Ecuadorian Pinta Island tortoise, last known of the species". I think that what this entry is stating is that George was the last known of the species (of Pinta Island tortoise) ... which happens to be a subspecies of another species (namely, of Galápagos tortoise). But, again, I don't know how strict or how loose the jargon is used in that field of study (biology). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Chelonoidis nigra (or, Galápagos tortoise, in English) is the species name and Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni (often called the Ecuadorian Pinta Island tortoise or Abingdon Island tortoise, in English) is the subspecies name. The Wikipedia article on the Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni says it is a subspecies of the Galápagos tortoise, but if you are interested in another source, have a look at [[8]] about the subspecies "Chelonoidis nigra ssp. abingdoni" where the "ssp." stands for "subspecies". The Wikipedia article on Galápagos tortoise says the "total number of the species exceeded 19,000 at the start of the 21st century", further leading one to conclude that George was not the the last of his species. Which article says the Ecuadorian Pinta Island tortoise was the "last known of the species"? What source does it reference? Could it be wrong? 212.139.246.76 (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article here states: Lonesome George, c. 100, Ecuadorian Pinta Island tortoise, last known of the species. That is how the entry is listed for Lonesome George in this article. That was what I was referring to in my post above. I think that this entry (in this article) means that he was the last of the "species" of Ecuadorian Pinta Island tortoises. What would you suggest as better wording? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I never think of the Recent Deaths page as an article; that's what threw me. Since the Ecuadorian Pinta Island tortoise is (or was) a subspecies of the Galápagos tortoise instead of a species of its own, the better wording I'd suggest would be to simply change the word 'species' to 'subspecies'. In fact, as I've just noticed, the source of the story (this BBC News page [[9]]) begins with this sentence, "Staff at the Galapagos National Park in Ecuador say Lonesome George, a giant tortoise believed to be the last of its subspecies, has died." I wonder why it was written up as 'species' to being with? 212.139.246.76 (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed wording is fine by me. Do you want to go in and make the change? Or shall I? As far as your question – how the wording came to be presently (stating "species" when it should say "subspecies") – I think that to most laypersons, the two words are interchangeable. Most non-science laypersons don't know or care about the subtle distinction between the two words. Thus, laypersons (and the media) probably interchange these words, even when inaccurate to do so. That's my guess. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not signed in at the moment, so could you make the change? Thanks. 212.139.246.76 (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please change the text "last of his species" to "last of his subspecies" per the cited source and the discussion above. 212.139.246.76 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. WWGB (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I re-listed his death and linked to the section about him in the article. While he doesn't have a stand-alone article, his death is the end of a sub-species and warrants inclusion. The section in the article is extensive and could stand as an article on its own, but that would diminish the article on the tortoise. Let's err on the side of inclusion, please.—D'Ranged 1 talk 02:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The agreed consensus, reported at the top of the edit page, is "Deaths of notable animals (that is, those with their own Wikipedia articles) are also reported here." Lonesome George does not have his own article, hence is not eligible for listing here. While editors can debate the application of the consensus, another way forward is to write an article about the dead animal. In the mean time, he is not eligible for inclusion. WWGB (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're splitting hairs. Please see Pinta Island tortoise#Lonesome George. This is an article-length section of an article on the subspecies. While my feeling is that he was notable enough to have his own article, it makes sense to include the information where it is. I'll start a new section with a survey if I can figure out the process. Sheesh.—D'Ranged 1 talk 03:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should Lonesome George be included in the list[edit]

Should Lonesome George be included in the list? —D'Ranged 1 talk 03:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes As I said above, while he doesn't have a stand-alone article, his death is the end of a sub-species and warrants inclusion. The section in the article is extensive and could stand as an article on its own, but that would diminish the article on the tortoise. Given the discussion above, it appears that only one editor is being a stickler for the "own article" criteria. Let's err on the side of inclusion, please.—D'Ranged 1 talk 03:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. See Lonesome George and Deaths in June 2012#24. WWGB (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!—D'Ranged 1 talk 04:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Deaths in June 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:

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

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Deaths in June 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 15:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Deaths in June 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) 12:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Deaths in June 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) 04:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_June_2012&oldid=1206298806"