Talk:Deaths in 2005/Archive 1

Discussion

Wim Duisenberg, former president of the European Bank, iniator of the Euro? Worth mentioning.

Yes, but is he actually dead? Sam Vimes 11:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 1 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)>

I don't think there's much point in having the ==January== as a separate header if it's just going to have a single link under it. Couldn't we have a header that just said ==Q1== or == Previous months == that had a list of all the month's links? Or better yet, couldn't we somehow prioritize a list of 10 or 20 of the most prominent deaths (determined by what means I'm not sure) with a link at the top of each month to a longer list? We could keep the most recent month or two at their full form, and do a little pruning for each month's list once it was a couple months old (one criterion for pruning could be that the person have an article on the Wikipedia--not including disambiguation pages, of course). What think you?

</Jun-Dai>

Er...

"and oldest person ever born in New York" I know what is meant but... Rich Farmbrough 15:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Dumbledore

---

Albus Dumbledore died 16 July 2005

Now while the inclusion of the death of Dumbledore from the Harry Potter Saga is humourous, I have the nagging suspicion that he was not a real person...

Albus Dumbledore, Headmaster of Hogwarts, Order of Merlin, First Class and Grand Sorcerer; , Supreme Mugwump of the International Confederation of Wizards, Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot.

--lars 09:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Ilnesses vs. Life works

I think it's better to mention occupation of, rather than illness that caused the death of a person. As one is remembered of his/her works rather than his/her sickness (or may be that way also, if the sickness greatly characterized that person and his/her life).

• The standard format is:

Name, age, notable occupation, cause of death (if known)

Ideally, we include both. Xoloz 04:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Badly, erm, "moved"

This was a major change carried out with little discussion to a long-standing page, which is often a Bad Thing, and copy-and-paste-moved, which is, always, a very Bad Thing. See Talk:Recent deaths#Is_this_better_to_be_a_redirected_page.3F.

James F. (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The birth year of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia

The year of birth of the late Saudi leader is uncertain. According to Al-Jazeera Arabic article English translation and other sources, it was 1921, making the age of death 84. Others show the year as 1923, making the age 82. LudwigVan 17:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

THIS PAGE'S LOGIN

This page and the article page never login to the most recent postings, and we all have to go to the "history" tab in order to get to the page that should be on top.

How do you report a bug?

WB2 02:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Page combination

Shouldn't the page be in reverse chronological order? I'm tempted just to revert the whole thing and let work continue on the combination page elsewhere, perhaps under a different, temporary title. --zenohockey 19:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree: the most recent entries should be at the top. Michael Hardy 21:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

What are you doing !!!!! ?????

WB2 21:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No discussion of the "page combination" exists here, but the reformatting was rather cumbersome, and I truly thought it was at first vandalism. The work should continue somewhere else. If it is to be continued here, notice of that should be clearly posted here. Xoloz 22:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

And, by the way, I formally object to the work continue here, so please let's discuss it before major changes happen. Xoloz 22:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Family Members of Celebrities

Why is Hunter Kelly listed here? It's sad when any 8-year old dies, but that's not the point of this page. Unless the son (or wife, father, brother, cousin etc) of a celebrity was already well known in their own right, they really have no business being here. The fact that Kelly's son died at such a young age, might rate a mention on Kelly's own page, if it's of encyclopedic value.

Do you actually know why Kelly (and his son's death) is even worth mentioning? It's not because of his quarterback past or his "celebrity" status (who cares about American football, anyway?). I suggest you visit and check the article on him to be illuminated on the issue. dalegrett 14:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I have a related issue when the media breathlessly reports that, eg. "Son of politician arrested for drink driving". The fact that the offender's father happens to be well known is incredibly irrelevant to the drink driving arrest. We know this sort of crap sells papers, because the wicked actions of the child are supposed to somehow (someone please explain it to me) reflect on the celebrity themself. This is OK for trashy gossip rags, but surely Wikipedia can do better. 203.37.77.9 01:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Friend, Hunter Kelly is famous for his disease, and that disease has made him notable. Unlike misbehaving celebrity children, young Kelly suffered, and his suffering brought attention to others with the disease. As a disabled person myself, I have some problems with the phenomenon of "poster children" generally, but there is no question that Hunter was both admirable and notable. Xoloz 03:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Katie Johnson

She presently links to the Star Wars Galactic Empire, suggesting she's a hoax, perhaps related to the above complaint re: Hunter Kelly, which was unfounded. I'll remove her. If reinstated, please provide source. Xoloz 18:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No hoax: [1]. Utterly sad as it is, it does not merit being quoted here. Ejrrjs | What? 19:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I left it there and beefed up the attribution because the original was highly cryptic. Its not inconceivable that someone will create a wiki on her father, or her. If we get other random people on here like Don Geromino's wife, or a random lithuanian poet with no linkable wiki either, I don't see why she should be excluded. I suggest reverting it to replace her. --Syrthiss 20:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, no hoax, adorable child, very sad. However, I concur with Ejrrjs that this is probably not more notable than any child's tragic death, and so, I wouldn't think she belongs. That said, it is a close case, and I wouldn't belabor the point, if you wish to add her. Do not revert, though; just put her back. If an article is written on her, expect that someone will probably VfD it. And someone else might remove her, of course.

I'd assume the Latvian poet is well-known in Latvia -- Wikipedia is not Anglo-America centric; and Mr. Geranimo's wife, whatever she was, was known to the hundreds of thousands of people who listen to Stern -- playing "compare-a-death" isn't very constructive anyway. Xoloz 03:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I don't have any stake in this other than fleshing out the attribution and trying to be an impartial arbiter. I wasn't easily able to find who had added her from the list of edits. So if the original person puts her back, fine...just make it more clear who she was. If nobody puts her back, fine. --Syrthiss 13:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The guide line I use is that if a death of a specific person gets mentioned in (their) national media, it probably deserves to get mentioned here. And when in doubt, I include here, as listing a (relatively) unknown person hardly hurts Wikipedia, at worst, it'll occupy a handful of bytes on a disk that noone will ever read, and I've wasted some minutes of my time. But omitting information someone is interested in is worse, as it will make Wikipedia appear to have missing information. 193.172.135.148 11:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Rekha

I dont think Rekha is really dead...there would be something about it in the Indian papers....there's nothing...just one site links to the story...--165.123.99.217 20:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ashley Burns

Why is Ashley Burns, a "14-year old cheerleader", listed on this page? Surely we have some criteria for who is listed, eg. celebrity, fame, achievement. This person does not have her own Wiki page. How's that for fame? Cheers JackofOz 06:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

to the person that wrote this: i was on ash's cheering squad for 5 years. she damn well deserves the best. and this is by far the rudest thing i've ever read considering a 14 year old girl died. FOURTEEN she is just a child. ashley would have been famous for many things, but now she cant be because of a freak accident. no ones fault, a freak accident in which she landed wrong. she was gorgeous and seeing her lie in that casket would have brought even the most evil person in the world to tears. she was just a baby, she didnt have to go so soon...Ashley Burns <3 blue ribbon forever. 5/16/91-8/9/05 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.49.97 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 16 August 2005 UTC

There is an IMPOSTER in our midst. I, JackofOz, did NOT write the above paragraph to which my name has been appended in such a cavalier fashion. I am grievously, perhaps even mortally, offended. Oh, it's not that someone thinks my name is worthy of misappropriating is so bad. I actually take that as a kind of perverse compliment. What has awoken the sleeping giant (more like the hibernating bear, actually) within me, is the attribution to my name of such repulsive grammar and punctuation. The real JackofOz would NEVER have been guilty of such crimes against our beloved language as "the person THAT wrote this", using lower-case "I", and "cant" for "can't". By their works shall ye know them. I now return to the task of running my nation and liberating my people. Cheers JackofOz 23:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• I take no position on Ashley Burns, but her death did receive national news coverage. [2]. About half the folks on the recent deaths page don't have Wiki's when first listed, by the way, so that is not much of an indication. Often, dying gets one a deserved Wiki, ironic as that may be. I do think Burns will definitely be notable if a lawsuit arises from her death; or, if the cheerleading mothers across the US become paranoid as a result, two very real possibilities. Xoloz 08:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

All right, then. That makes sense now that I'm up to speed. On the Recent Deaths page, the normal format is date, name, age, and occupation etc. That works most of of the time because it's normally what the person achieved in their lifetime that makes them famous. In this case, that format doesn't work because being a cheerleader is not the thing for which Ashley will be remembered. What has set her apart from the millions of other cheerleaders was the circumstances of her death, but there was no mention of that. No wonder I was confused. Cheers JackofOz 00:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Jack of Oz's name was appended to the second paragraph because of an inadvertant editing error by an anon user, who presumably as he/she states knew Ashley Burns was distressed by the statement made by someone more distanced who was looking for encyclopaedic criteria for inclusion. Every person is special, regardless of their notability or method of dying Whether they are recorded in wikipedia is a different matter but needs to be treated sensitively.--AYArktos 01:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Actually, I suspect that the person was just flaming for flames sake. The previous "edits" by their ip included such editorial masterpieces as "***GAY!!!!***", etc. --Syrthiss 01:38, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Previous edits from the IP were all in April -this edit was the only one for August 2005. You may be right about the flaming but perhaps we should assume good faith. Moreover, the comment generally applies about being sensitive to people's feelings when considering inclusion or otherwise in wikipedia--AYArktos 01:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course everybody is special. They're special while they're alive, and they're special after they're dead. Nobody is questioning that. But that doesn't mean that everybody who has ever lived should be listed on these pages, does it? This debate about sensitivity to people's feelings, that I've inadvertently sparked, is in danger of becoming utterly tangential to what we're on about in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is in its very nature BRUTAL, not even remotely sensitive to people's feelings. Some patch of purple prose that you've spent days perfecting and now finally inserted into an article, can be unceremoniously removed or altered the very next minute, without apology from the editor. Then it's up to you to make a case for retaining it in its pure form, or accepting some compromise. That's just the way it works. I guess the Recent Deaths page is a slightly special case given the obvious sensitivities of recently deceased persons. But not so special as to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Are we supposed to check if anybody's feelings would be offended before daring to remove or change a recent entry on this page? Hardly. I made no edits whatsoever to Ashley Burns' entry, although I note that somebody else has now entirely removed it, which pretty much vindicates my original question. All I did was ask who she was, and for some justification of why she should remain on this page, given the information I had at the time, viz. "14 year old cheerleader". Cheers JackofOz 03:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I doubt whether it was the removal of the entry that caused offence but I would suggest that the comment: "This person does not have her own Wiki page. How's that for fame?" is not in the best of taste. Any experienced editor should have been able to easily detect that no one was appending a user's name intentionally in the paragraph that followed the initial comment, and thus the rant that follows is perhaps at best rather overblown. One does not need to check if anyone's feelings would be offended before removing someone's name, but each editor should attempt to effect removal with comments in a way as not to cause offence but still be clear as to the reasons for the edit. The obvious sensitivities have already been noted - observing them shouldn't be too hard! A simple google search shows today 464 hits which would have answered your original question although Xoloz posted a reply. It isn't actually asking the question that is at issue, it is the way it was asked. --AYArktos 09:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

So, given the foregoing, including Jack's reply to me, is there now consensus that Burns should be here? As before, I remain at equipose. Xoloz 17:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I think she is sufficiently notable to be included and I think a description of cheerleader is appropriate given the circumstances of her death. --AYArktos 22:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I have no objection to her being added again. For future reference, remember to alphabetize new entries. :) Xoloz 00:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Moog

Plenty of people on Recent Deaths have PhD.'s or MD.'s, such as John Norris Bahcall, as a recent example. The standard practice is not to include such common titles, either in article titles or entries here. Rarer nobility (kings and princes) are the only exception that springs to mind. Xoloz 16:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hallo Grabert bitte melde Dich auf der Diskussionsseite von 2005 (in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia!) falls du das liest.

Bitte melde dich,Grabert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!