Talk:Death

Picture of Pope John Paul II

I don't believe the picture of Pope John Paul II lying in state illustrates anything about causes of death. I would suggest graphic illustrations or tables of causes of death by age, etc. Or simply remove the picture. It seems like an innapropriate place for the picture since it is not referenced in the section in any specific way. MikeR —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC).

I think discussing the mummification of people is a important cultural aspect of death. It is not just a thing of the past. The image is significant just not maybe in this section. Maybe some autopsy images... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Y Done--Oneiros (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar

Created template:death sidebar. Based on template:suicide and needs editing to differentiate it. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 05:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.114.27.135, 13 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Holding medicine in the mouth for more then 10 seconds kills children under the age of 10 98.114.27.135 (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll be nice and just say that's extremely dubious and would require a source. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Complex Wording

There's no way that people who don't know what death is (e.g. children or non-native speakers) will understand a thing of the first paragraph, and those that do know what it is will already know everything written in it anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernovic (talk • contribs) 08:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that what Simple English Wikipedia is for...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.207.44 (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of deceased individuals

I have removed the photo of a deceased confederate soldier under the 'Legal' heading of this page. My reason for doing so is that I do not see visuals of any dead organism, human or otherwise, being necessary to have a knowledge of what death is and indeed images of such organisms, human or otherwise, are more likely to evoke negative emotions rather than academic insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.243.29 (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Use more direct image (and video if we can't find some)

We should use real and more direct image of death poeple/animals instead of painting and symbolism. In west society death is totally ignored, we should try to be more direct and cold (without play on world) her. I also don't like than we use an image from a war in a special context, it's to emotive and it will be better to use an anonymous body in a "normal" context (hospital's bed is the more common now).

It would be "nice" also to have a video of someone or/and animal old age. Peoples have the peaceful image from movies but I can tell you when old peoples die is habitually not pretty, painful, slow and violent. --Gagarine (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Skull

Do you guys have to have a picture of a skull? -James Pandora Adams

I have to admit, the lead picture is a bit... overkill... ThemFromSpace 01:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the problem with it?--Taylornate (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

I recently nominated this article for assessment. You can leave any comments about the article below. The last nomination was in 2007, and it seems many of the original issues were sorted out. But a reviewer recently said its still not good enough. Pass a Method talk 12:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised someone nominated it for Good Article review, as there are many places, even entire sections, that need references and in-line citations. Hence the many C-class assessments from the involved wikiprojects. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

lead reversion

All known organisms, including humans, inevitably experience death or the degradation of their original forms.

I reverted the following additions for these reasons:

• Known: On second thought this is probably fine.
• Including humans: This is redundant. I don't see the need to emphasize that humans are organisms which die like other organisms.
• or the degradation of their original forms: I don't understand what this means. Is it an alternative definition of death? An alternative to death itself? The latter would be incorrect and the former would be out of place.--Taylornate (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel the same way about the 2nd item. The last item was made only as a suggestion, as there are technically "immortal" organisms out there. But because those types of immortality are usually the result of budding or clonal colonies, it might not be what some readers think of as "immortality". Hence, the wording. I've also stated that I'm amenable with removal of the whole sentence. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the sentence (or a vaiation) is essential because otherwise it would sound as if death is like cancer or someting, that some organisms go through but some do not. I have addressed the humans part. Pass a Method talk 21:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think your change of degradation to termination did much to clarify that part of the sentence. At this point I favor removing that part.

I do think the fact that all organisms experience death is worthy of mention in the lead.--Taylornate (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I modified that last paragraph, as per consensus. Also modified the sentence pertaining to disposal of the corpse. Check it out, and try it on for size. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I modofied the last paragraph too. I hope it was fine. Pass a Method talk 08:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's why I linked the one article to "mortuary customs", but to answer your questions, there's "burial by exposure" (related or utilizing the process of excarnation), Tibetan sky burials, disposal by feeding to animals, burial at sea, endocannibalism, ritual osteophagy, interment within a tree, donation for medical/educational usage.... I think I've run the extent of methods that I can recall off the top of my head... Boneyard90 (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I wrote "typical" method of disposal, because the "typed" or ideal method, according to culture, includes burial or cremation with funeral customs. The usual circumstances, talking strictly in terms of numbers and percentages of deaths, may be much more random, due to natural disasters, people who are lost, homicides, etc. Think of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake or the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. I doubt there's been a study of number of bodies lost and never recovered versus people who die and get funerals. It would be an estimate anyway, so "usual" is an assumption of majority. Boneyard90 (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Boneyard90, I think you are answering my previous deleted post. Pass a Method talk 12:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted when I posted my reply. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

oh, but the lead looks ok now. Pass a Method talk 14:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Buried vs. Interred

I see no reason to use interred over buried which is more common in everyday language. This is supported by the name of the linked article, burial.--Taylornate (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You were faster than me. But here's why I switched "buried" back to "interred":

A "burial" means that a hole/grave is dug, the body is placed in the hole and the hole is filled in. "Interment" is more inclusive. To "inter" a body includes burial, but also placing a whole body in a room cut or constructed in the earth or in rock (a tomb or sepulchre), a body placed in a fully-constructed, permanent edifice (a mausoleum), a body placed in an "above-ground grave" (really just a sarcophagus sitting on the surface), bones placed in an ossuary or catacombs, and cremated remains placed in the niche of a columbarium.... among probably other places. The point is, "burial" is restrictive and specific; "interment" is inclusive and more general. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you guys thin we can take this to good article status? Pass a Method talk 17:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The main thing holding it back is in-line citations to reliable sources. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The two words seem to be exact synonyms.--Taylornate (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they seem to be. They are synonyms, but not exact. And a dictionary isn't usually the best place for nuance of meaning. A burial is an inhumation, and it is a type of interment. Burial specifies in the ground. While people might use "bury" as a common catch-all, it lacks accuracy, and we should not encourage that. This site references a work on funerals. This Funeral planning site also uses them seperately. After looking closer, I'm beginning to think I shouldn't have linked "interment" to the article on "Burial". It's terrible, and in need of an overhaul. However, look at Burial#Alternatives to burial. Those practices listed are not burials, but are rather forms of interment (even the term "burial at sea" is often put in quotation marks, because it is understood that the corpse is not being interred in the ground, but rather "buried" in water. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, a dictionary is the highest authority on the meaning of words. Honestly, I've never heard anyone suggest otherwise. If you truly disagree, then I would suggest we ask for a third opinion. Would you be comfortable with that?--Taylornate (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The "highest" authority? Not even. Dictionaries these days cater to the vernacular and put their definitions in easy-to-understand simple English. Their definitions are aimed to conversational usage, "laymen's terms", rather than specialized meanings. That's why there has to be specialists' dictionaries, like medical dictionaries, architectural dictionaries, etc. But, not sure I feel so strongly about it as to pursue the matter further. Go ahead and change the wording if you still disagree. If I find a reliable source that goes into more detail, we can discuss it then. Boneyard90 (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of policy we should choose layman's terms over specialized meanings. I'll wait for your response to my policy link before reverting because I'd prefer if we could agree.--Taylornate (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That's just it, I don't really see the difference as that specialized. When I think of "technical jargon", I think of articles like Zobel network. "Technical jargon" includes words unique to that field, or common words with specific and esoteric meanings within a field. These two words (burial and interment) are used as synonyms, but the difference is analogous to the difference between "meat" and "beef" (all beef is meat, but not all meat is beef). What I'm saying is, all burials are interments, but not all interments are burials. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)