Talk:Deaths in 2014

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Death (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Years (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Lists (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: There are many "rules" associated with this page. Why?
A: Recent deaths is one of the most-viewed articles in Wikipedia. The article Deaths in 2013 received more than 21 million views [1]. It is important that such a high-profile article has factual information presented in a consistent format.
Q: Why are there redlinks (deceased subject with no Wikipedia article) listed in the article?
A: Many notable people die before a Wikipedia article is written about them. The regular editors of this page have agreed that a redlink may remain for one month after the death, so that an article may develop. If there is no article after one month, then the death notice is removed from the list.
Q: Why are dead animals sometimes listed in the article?
A: Many animals (like Lonesome George) achieve notability similar to humans during their life. This article reports the death of any notable biological life, not just humans.
Q: I read on Twitter that a notable person has just died. Can I add their death to the list?
A: Material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced is removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (WP:BLP). Blogs and social media sites are generally considered to be unreliable. Every death listed must be supported by a reference from a reliable, independent source.
Q: A new month started five days ago. Why are deaths in the old month still appearing here?
A: It takes some time for deaths to be reported in the media and published here. Editors have agreed to keep the old month listed in the article for seven days after the new month begins. After that time, the "old" deaths are transferred to the article Deaths in <old month name>.
Q: Why is there sometimes a date without entries at the top of the page?
A: A new date is added when a new day starts in the Eastern Hemisphere. A relevant time clock can be found here.

Notable death of a non-notable person[edit]

What is the policy on this page when the death itself is notable but the decedent is not? For example, see Shooting of Michael Brown. Do these types of deaths get listed on this page or not? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Not typically. It is one of the reasons I had a problem with the botched execution listing. As WWGB says, if they arent notable in life why so in death? Just because they are in a plane when it crashes, happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or they do something stupid and get killed because of it, that shouldnt make the notability cut. Is it sad or tragic? Yes, but this is more about people (and other lifeforms) that make notable contributions. There are a couple of side death projects that track weird or otherwise untimely death.Sunnydoo (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Another example I used when this came up last is the 2 Israeli and American teenager that was murdered by Palestinian militants. Look what they started. Their deaths were notable because it started the War, but does anyone remember the victims name- weeks, months or years on? I believe an article was started because of the fray, but they were not listed on this page at the time.Sunnydoo (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
It's an interesting topic that we have never fully resolved in discussion. The article heading refers to "notable deaths" rather than "deaths of notable people". In that sense, we could be justified in listing [[Shooting of Michael Brown|Michael Brown]]. This did happen from time to time in the past. Just recently an editor went back through all the old death lists and removed any of the "Death of ....." entries on the basis that the deceased was not notable. Perhaps if a "Death of X" article survives deletion, and there is no article on "X", then a death listing may be allowed? Interested in the opinion of others. WWGB (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I haven't fully decided one way or the other. There are good arguments on both sides. I would lean toward allowing on this page the listing of notable deaths of non-notable people. There are some counter-arguments to Sunnydoo's post above. First, as stated by WWGB, this is a page about "(Notable) Deaths in 2014"; it is not a page about "Deaths of Notable People in 2014". Second, clearly the purpose and tenor of the page is about deaths, and it seems a bit nit-picky (and semantic gymnastics) to say that the death was notable but the decedent not. I think most readers would expect to find notable deaths (of non-notable people) on this page. Third, there are some people who are notable only for their death; subsequently, they do become notable (even though it is because of their death). So, correct, nobody will remember the names of the Israeli and American teenagers murdered by Palestinians. But, pretty much everyone remembers the names of people such as: Trayvon Martin, Laci Peterson, Ron Goldman, the Manson Murder victims, Kitty Genovese, the Black Dahlia, etc., etc., etc. These people were not notable before death; they became notable after their death and in fact because of their death. Nonetheless, they are notable, regardless of the timing of the notability. In the list I just posted, none of those names are "forgotten" (like the Palestinian murder victims). In any event, we should have some consensus and some policy. Lord knows this page has a million other "rules" attached to it. This seems like a rather germane subject about which to have a "rule" and consensus. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Some of the Manson murder and intended victims were already known. That is what caused the shock. Sharon Tate had already won a Golden Globe for Valley of the Dolls. The problem I have with your argument regarding people like Martin is that you have to project that it will have notable consequences going forward, which causes us to make an assumption. And you also have to make a value judgement on the Press (4th Estate) that is involved and whether or not there are other circumstances on why they are reporting such things and the angle that they are reporting. Its just not an easy thing to see in the present tense many times.Sunnydoo (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Take the present example, what exactly is the notability of the case? An unarmed teen who robbed a store, got shot by a police officer. It is a tragic event, that led to other events, but really where is the notability going forward at? What possible changes are going to happen because of it? People are still going to rob other people and police officers still have their duty to uphold the law. At what point does the rioting become notable? I would argue that only when civil resistance gets to the point where the National Guard has to go in, is where the notability would come in. Otherwise it is a local event just getting a little national coverage. It goes back to the famous and infamous and notable argument we had. One can be famous and not notable, one can be infamous and not notable and someone cant be famous or infamous and very notable.Sunnydoo (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
As far as the Manson murders, I am speaking of all the other victims (the LaBianca's, etc.). (Clearly, Tate was notable prior.) Who knows how "notable" Trayvon Martin's name will be in 10, 20, 50 years? No one knows. The fact is, though, that he is notable now, today. Kitty Genovese's name is notable today from a murder back in the 1960's. That's 50+ years. Same goes for the Black Dahlia (1947). Even Ronald Goldman and Laci Peterson were – relatively speaking – many years ago, at this point. There is no denying that these are basically common house-hold well-recognized names. I just thought of another: Martha Moxley. Also, the very first line of this article (i.e., the lead) states: "This is a list of notable deaths." Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I just read a bit more about Moxley last night. Weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:33, August 16, 2014 (UTC)
If this article were only about notable deaths in the strictest sense, the page would be relatively blank. Heart attacks, pneumonia, strokes, traffic collisions, etc. are not notable and occur every day.Sunnydoo (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. You are confusing the word "death" with "cause of death". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm still fine with either. I remember Jennifer Strange's name because of the strange way she died. She wasn't a notable person, but had a notable death. Michael Brown was just a regular brown kid, but those three facts made his death all the more notable. Lauren Bacall just had a mundane stroke. There's nothing much to say about that, and her name isn't a pun. But that insignificant stroke capped off a highly notable life, so it too was bigger than itself. It's the whole package that counts, not life or death. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:29, August 16, 2014 (UTC)
The National Guard while we were prattling on has just been called out by Missouri's Governor and curfews have been put in place. And Michael Brown was not a "regular brown kid." The majority of African-American kids out there are not implicated in thefts. It is a stereotypical myth put forward by the nonsense on American television today.Sunnydoo (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't mean that as a regular brown kid. Or brown regular kid. Nothing like a "typical ____" comment. Three separate things gave this story widespread traction: His age, his race and his association with the 99%. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, August 16, 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, it now appears he was implicated in jaywalking, not theft. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:28, August 16, 2014 (UTC)
Huh? Actually, it was robbery, not "theft". And it was all caught on video. What more do we need? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I meant implicated by the officer who killed him. Seems he didn't know about a robbery/theft yet. What more do we need for what? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, August 19, 2014 (UTC)
So, is there an consensus on this issue? That is, whether or not we are to list in this article the notable deaths of non-notable people? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
If we start listing notable deaths, I will retire from this page. 600 listings a month are enough. If anyone wishes to start a "Notable deaths in XXXX" page, more power to 'em. — Wyliepedia 17:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
That's exactly my point. This is the "Notable deaths in XXXX" page. The first sentence in the lead: quote, This is a chronology of notable deaths in 2014, end quote. Which is why I brought this up for consensus at this Talk Page. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, the grist mills again. [2], [3], [4]. — Wyliepedia 18:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. You typed in several links. I did not see any consensus or final decision. Did I miss it? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"For instance, words like complete, and notable are normally excluded from list titles. Instead, the lead makes clear whether the list is complete, or is limited to widely known or notable members (i.e., those that merit articles). " -WP:LIST#List naming If the lead needs changing, then let's discuss that. But currently the page is a list of deaths of notable people. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, at a minimum, the lead needs to be more clear. I'd also suggest that the article needs a new title. But, first, we still need consensus on the issue above. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
YOU still need consensus. Everyone else appears to be fine with how it is now. If you read this and you're not, speak up. 86.112.58.46 (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a consensus above at all. What do you see? "Everyone" is fine with it? Where do you get that? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
When I said I'm fine with either, I meant fine with either sort of notable death being included, not fine with either system. Regular Joes with notable deaths should be listed, provided they're central. We shouldn't list everyone aboard a notable plane crash, but if the stories are about a pilot who crashed on purpose, we should list him. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:50, August 21, 2014 (UTC)

Funny how Joseph A. Spadaro managed to edit the text in the main page article to "This is a chronology of deaths of notable people in 2014." without any consensus at all ! I actually totally agree and prefer this wording. However, given the editor's insistence on some sort of Wiki wide agreement to any changes, I find this unilateral alteration somewhat amusing.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Amusing, how so? This thread was to seek consensus on whether or not the notable deaths of non-notable people should be included in this list. We were not seeking consensus about the wording of the lead. In fact, I thought others in the above discussion agreed that the lead's wording needed to be changed to reflect what the article contains. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
If we are only listing notable people, your lead is much clearer about that. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, August 25, 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Reflinks...[edit]

...is gone again. — Wyliepedia 04:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Igor Decraene[edit]

I've removed suicide as the cause of death (at least for the time being). There are conflicting reports on whether it was an accident or suicide. [5] Topcardi (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Kerrie Biddell - 5 September 2014[edit]

I have to admit this is the first time in my Wiki-career that I have seen a Wikipedian added to the list. I thought I would mention her here, before anyone gets twisted about her entry. If you read her user page, which obviously was started by her, and the link here, you can see she had a storied musical career that wasn't necessarily Aussie-centric. A Google search will also give you her notability. Why am I bringing all this up? If no one creates an actual article about her (even if you use her own words from her user page), I will do so before the seventh-day cutoff time in October, but I will try to make it in my own words and leave her tribute user page. — Wyliepedia 07:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wylie. I boldly linked to her user page to test the reaction as I too had never come across this before. As a fellow Aussie I remember her well from TV and cabaret. No doubt in my mind that she is notable. Regards, WWGB (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
And now her user page has been deleted, since she advertised herself on it. But that doesn't mean she's not still notable to have an article nor an entry here. — Wyliepedia 05:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Kerrie Biddell is certainly notable enough to deserve an article of her own. She reached international audiences with her memorable vocal on the theme tune to the popular Australian soap Sons & Daughters in the 1980s. Bennycat (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, hadn't noticed this was an issue. I deleted her entry initially, then restored as a redlink after reading the source. She definitely seems like someone who deserves an article, just doesn't have it yet. Figured linking a userpage would set a bad precedent, since it's indistinguishable from an article link, in colour. Thought about using the userpage for a source, but no other entry has two, and it's not "reliable".
I definitely didn't want the userpage deleted, and that seems a bit much. An advertisement is only an advertisement if what's advertised is buyable. All the publicity in the world won't get her booked now. It may have been violating policy while she was alive, but as a memorial (as it was tagged), it should be preserved. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, September 7, 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, the userpage deletion was a bit much, but, since it appears it was possibly fan-created five years ago, it was understandable, if for the wrong reason. There were only two edits done by whomever used that username and only for that userpage. I will still create her article as soon as I have a moment to myself (one reason Deaths in August 2014 wasn't filled out by me and poorly done...again). — Wyliepedia 23:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Article done! — Wyliepedia 08:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:00, September 9, 2014 (UTC)
Yes, very nice. I had her on my ever-expanding To Do list forever. Thanks Wylie. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

David Cawthorne Haines[edit]

His article states that he was age 44, and it has a citation. This article says age 43. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The term of the word misleading and it's application to awards[edit]

This is an issue I've noticed, and since I was insulted by User:WWGB rather than actually given an answer, I'll bring it here: I don't find it misleading to put entires like this:

Example: *Tommy Lee Jones, 68, American Oscar-winning actor (The Fugitive, Captain America: The First Avenger, No Country for Old Men).

in. There's no implication that Jones won Oscars for all those roles. It's merely addressing he's won an Oscar. The way entries are submitted, with the insistence of adding accolades, greatly hinders the ability to add their more notable roles. Rosemary Murphy was in way more notable films and shows than Eleanor and Franklin. Rusted AutoParts 12:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I do find it misleading. A parenthetical list refers to the preceding statement. Jones was not "Oscar-winning" for all of those roles. There are better ways of reporting notable roles, including awards, without misrepresentation. WWGB (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
That's you. Not everyone sees things that way. Rusted AutoParts 12:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
No, it is not just WWGB. I also find that your suggested wording is likely to mislead readers. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
How so? The overall statement is that they're an award winning person. Take Robin Williams. He's won awards for acting and comedy. How does it deceive anyone by the films listed afterwards? Obituaries use that type,of sentence all the time. "Robin Williams was an Academy Award winning actor known for his roles in Aladdin, Dead Poets Society and Good Will Hunting". It's stating a fact. It's not stating Williams won for those three films. People are a bit smarter than you give them credit for. Rusted AutoParts 12:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I also agree that it's misleading and/or inappropriate. The parenthetical statement (i.e., the list of three movies) refers back to the previous description of "Academy Award-winning". So, the way that it is listed above directly indicates (it more than merely implies) that he won Oscars in those three films. I assume there can be some better wording to espouse the fact that he is an Oscar winner and to list some of his more notable non-Oscar roles. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps something like this: American film actor (film 1, film 2, film 3) and Oscar winner (film 4). It's not the greatest, but it's better than nothing. It's unambiguous and it gets all of the points across. The only "problem" I see is that is (kinda/sorta) implies that the Oscar was not as an actor, but perhaps in some other category (e.g., director or such). Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Which is similar to what we had before all of this started [6]. WWGB (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Misleading? Inappropriate? It's really sad you guys think people are that dumb, I honestly don't see any deceit here, but whatever. Continue with this unnecessary long and messy way of running things. Rusted AutoParts 06:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Compromise?
That compromise is not bad. I'd prefer to see which work (TV show) she won the Emmy for. But, I can live with the compromise. Aside from the case of Ann B. Davis, we need to be consistent with all other entries as well. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the year can be suitable to address the show in question. The link leads to the winners list, and will offer to readers the appropriate information. Rusted AutoParts 16:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I understand all that. I would prefer the name of the show; but I can live with this version of a compromise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Could we please leave visitors' intelligences and presumptions out of this? As far as "length" of entries, what does it matter, if they are globally known but their awarded work isn't?— Wyliepedia 18:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)