Talk:Sean Hoare

Top

I think that Sean Hoare, at the time of writing this is known enough to have his own page. The death of this man has been widely spread, especially over in the states.

His death doesn't make him worthy of an article, although he might well deserve one based on his journalistic career.

David Kelly

I think the link to Dr David Kelly should be removed. No doubt anyone with a mind to conspiracy theories can see the possible connection, but I don't think merely being two guys who died whilst involved in scandals is strong enough to link between the two. EJBH (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"flurry of online activity - mostly intended to divert and confuse" Bias much? 99.240.36.63 (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The strange circumstances surrounding his death

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7xdEjmIb-M

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.149.252 (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The sentence in the death section: "In the weeks leading up to his death he was said to have become a recluse and had grown paranoid that somebody was going to come and kill him." is not sourced or backed up by the sources listed both before and after it. For that reason, I am removing it.

I have watched this page get written by someone who wants to explain away his death as a drug and alcohol related event. It smells fishy and it is entirely possible that he was murdered for his actions. Please keep this page up.Paradise coyote (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Police say they want two weeks to determine 'cause-of-death' and looking at the calendar from July 17th, they should have answers by Monday, August 1st. Set your iPhone to notify and remind you. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent death tag removed

For dubious reasons - "death is repoted as uncontroversial - noting much is gonna change." [1] As the person recently died, there is no "controversy" requirement for a recent death tag anywhere. This needs to be restored.--Oakshade (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

He has been dead three days, the template is unnecessary and of no benefit to the article or to the reader at all. Everyone coming here knows he is dead, the guy didn't even have an article while he was alive.Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd think the information may change - nonetheless, the template itself says "it should only be used in cases where many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) are editing the article on the same day". So I'll say keep it out and be happy the two of us agree on something for a change. Wnt (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hello everyone. I'm glad to see a polite calm discussion here and would love to put some points. I think the concept is already explained here, but I'm just adding some comments.
  The death tag that is/was in dispute is mostly used for an incident that the actual-incidence of a death is controversial. There's another tag related to speedy-updated topics, informing editors that this will be continually changed. However, I don't see this article needing one either, as the current mentioned details are pretty clear. Let me know if you need further details, and I'll be removing the 3O for now. I'm watching the page for a-couple days, so any concerns or comments are highly welcomed. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 10:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is about a controversial person who died very recently. It has been edited many times by many people during each day of its existence. The cause of death is not yet known. A great deal of editing to this article will take place during the near future. There is no requirement for the article to have been created prior to the subject's death in order for the RDT to be present. This is exactly the kind of article that the RDT was created for. If it is not appropriate here, on which articles is it appropriate? Jim Michael (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

He is not a controversial person at all. His death is not suspicious at all, the police say it will take a few weeks to do the tests to find the exact cause of death. The traffic on the article is far from excessive - we never even had an article about him when he was alive - all the people coming here know he is dead already, neither the reader or the editor or the article benefit at all from the placing of a flashing light on the top announcing loudly his death three days ago. If you want to contribute to improving the article - add some content, improve the current content, don't come along and stick worthless unnecessary flashing lights on the top of it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the existence of the recent death template is controversial - that's why it's best to go by the criterion written in the template itself, so this topic, already at risk to become contentious, doesn't get tied up with some unrelated disagreement. Going back 100 edits takes me back a day and a half, so there aren't "perhaps a hundred" editors. Besides, by the time people finish arguing here the tag will be obsolete anyway. Wnt (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Can everyone stop edit-warring till consensus is found! And the template's talkpage has nothing to do with this article. If disagreements continue, other dispute resolutions can take place. Non-constructive edits should stop immediately. Yes, this article had over 34,700 visitors (yesterday alone), but there is less than 30 editors. Good job guys, I like the article.
• Jim, to answer your question, a simple example of the usage of the tag is Osama bin Laden! The cause-of-death section here only has two sentences, and I haven't seen any changes made to them for awhile. If you consider the article well cited, then the following is already contradicting your reasoning: "...death is not suspicious, and that it could take weeks to establish a cause of death." So, what is the tag for if there haven't been many changes till now, and might not have for some time? ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 21:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Year of birth

Citation needed? - the source is personal knowledge of this writer, as a long-term friend of the subject. I notice no source is given or requested for the (approximate) date of death. Let's not be too defensive, hmm...? I'm actually testing the water with a minor contribution before deciding whether I will work on the article. If you check the other examples of my conts to Wiki you'll see that I am not a fly-by or a vandal. reineke (talk) 09:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"personal knowledge" can be useful for research, but information in articles needs to be verifiable from reliable sources. The death date doesn't have a solid reference but there are at least sources in the article, covering his death, which suggest it is correct. Rd232 ^talk 10:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; thank you. I am also aware of the criteria of 'verifiability' from previous participation. This article, like so much of Wiki, risks being basically a series of links to websites (newspapers, in this case!). Could you make a helpful suggestion as to how a person with direct knowledge can usefully contribute here? I ask you the question. 194.176.105.153 (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The best thing is to use that direct knowledge to find sources. For instance, if you know his birthdate, it may be easier to search for a source online. Or you might know that his birthdate is published in some reliable offline source which most people wouldn't know about. Rd232 ^talk 10:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Good - thanks. 194.176.105.153 (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What sources have we got for his date of birth/year of birth? Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• -"aged 47" - Daily mail - July 20, 2011

I've added a 'crica' to the DoD as given at the text top; the article cited (Daily Mail, 20.07.11) does not give anything for a date of death. Until the inquest is concluded etc. DoD will remain speculative, but as soon as there is an authoritative source I will add. reineke (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)