Talk:Estelle Harris

Year of birth

Please do not change year of birth from 1928 back to 1932 based on Film Reference. This reference is incorrect and clearly inferior to the following sources which confirm Harris' true year of birth:

• Intelius search by name (Estelle Harris, California), giving her age as of today as 81, not 77
• Born in 1928 as per the 1930 United States census, the daughter of Anna and Isaac Nussbaum.

The last time the year of birth was changed back it was done by the now indefinitely-banned vandal (User:SelenaMusic14). Please contact me if you have further questions; the page is on my watchlist. Thanks for your attention. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I Knew Her

Harris was my grandmother's neighbor from the 50s-70s. Harris's mother and father in law died around the same time in 1965 and Harris's father died in 1967 and Harris's mother-in-law died in the late 1970s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SexyShugar (talk • contribs) 04:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Tag

Would it be okay if I remove the verification tag, now that there are more added sources? -- 98.180.174.83 (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Cancer Battle

Daily Mail claimed Estelle Harris successfully fought cancer back in 2013. Should we add it? -- 98.180.168.255 (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP, you will need a reliable source for that claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Birthday

What day was Estelle Harris actually born? Some sources, like Deadline, say April 22. Others, like New York Times, say April 4. There are more question marks than exclamation marks regarding her birth…

https://deadline.com/2022/04/estelle-harris-dead-seinfelds-estelle-costanza-was-93-1234993091/amp/

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/03/obituaries/estelle-harris-dead.html 78.79.242.107 (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Both of those sources say April 22. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The Associated Press also says April 22. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

So it's settled then CreecregofLife (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Forbes said her birthday was April 4, 1928 that she died "two days before her birthday" https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcberman1/2022/04/02/seinfeld-star-and-toy-story-voice-actress-estelle-harris-dies-at-93/?sh=23b18333a7f6 CountingStars500 (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

There was a discrepancy among sources at first, but soon there was a preponderance of sources saying April 22. That the New York Times originally said April 4 but then changed it to April 22 is fairly strong evidence that the latter is correct. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Was her birthday on April 4 or April 22, these sources seem to say one or the other — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.216.158 (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s been found to be the 22nd CreecregofLife (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it is the 4th. -- 68.110.98.55 (talk) 09:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed CreecregofLife (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Reliably reported content connecting the subject's death with that of her costar

User:CreecregofLife has bizzarely reverted as "trivia" the following reliably sourced content from multiple high-level news outlets noting that Harris died within two weeks of the death of Liz Sheridan, the two being the last two actors to portray the parents in Seinfeld. The fact that multiple media outlets reported this specific connection in the context of the subject's entertainment career lifts it out of the realm of mere trivia, and I am befuddled by the failure to see this. There is no argument that this is a WP:BLP violation, since the assertion is not potentially defamatory towards the subject, so the burden of showing that reliably sourced content should not be in the article falls on the remover. BD2412 T 01:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Media sources reported the coincidence of her death coming a few weeks before the death of Liz Sheridan, who also played the mother of a Seinfeld character.

But what does one have to do with another? It doesn't matter if multiple people say it, it doesn't make it automatically notable for Wikipedia. Also TMZ is a low quality source CreecregofLife (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I have removed TMZ; that leaves Entertainment Weekly and the NBC News. I can provide more fairly easily, as many other sources are noting the connection. I dare you to say that NBC News is a poor quality source, and would be happy to take that up at WP:RS. As for what is "automatically notable" for Wikipedia, we report what reliable sources deem notable. The entire point of WP:RS is that we rely on the sources, and that cuts both ways. We exclude things that no reliable source reports, and where multiple reliable sources report something, we accept that they are still reliable sources even where we can't see why they are reporting it. We don't try to impose our wish that sources had ignored it. BD2412 T 01:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Note: also reported in the LA Times, Today, CBS News, and the Washington Post. It seems that most outlets reporting the death consider this significant. BD2412 T 01:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

But what makes it significant to Harris?--CreecregofLife (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you ask NBC News and the Washington Post and CBS News and the LA Times why they all included this in their reporting of Sheridan's death? Perhaps it is the fact that both deaths in close proximity is a generational moment in the history of their shared involvement in a cultural touchstone. BD2412 T 01:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question CreecregofLife (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

What makes it significant to Harris is that NBC News and the Washington Post and CBS News and the LA Times and numerous other sources all included mention of the proximity between the deaths of Harris and Sheridan in their reporting of Sheridan's death. They were costars with similar roles in the same highly noted series who died within a few weeks of each other. BD2412 T 02:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

And? CreecregofLife (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the "And?" comes from, but it sounds suspiciously like an "WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT". We determine whether things are noteworthy within an article by whether they are reported in reliable sources. This fact has been reported in multiple reliable sources. You don't seem to be arguing, at this point, that sources do not report that these connected actors died in close proximity, or that the cited sources are not reliable, so you seem to be down to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. BD2412 T 03:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Since when does Wikipedia put coincidences that have no correlation or causation in articles? CreecregofLife (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably since the articles on Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both noted that they died on the same day, which is one of the oldest and longest standing points included in the encyclopedia, having been in the John Adams article continuously since November 2001. If you can develop a consensus to remove that point of information from both of those articles, then you'll have a case for not including the comparable and reasonably well-reported correlation in this article. Failing that, if you can convince the various media outlets reporting these as connected events to withdraw that reporting, then you will be able to argue that it is not reliably sourced. Either way, I'd say you have your work cut out for you. In the interim, I respectfully request that you voluntarily revert your removal of the content, and add the additional sources that I have provided in response to your request, pending a development of consensus on this point. BD2412 T 03:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

That's an exception, not the rule CreecregofLife (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You're shifting the goalposts to an unseemly degree. If your claim is that the cited instance is an exception, then prove it by demonstrating the absence of other such instances in the encyclopedia. You asked whether this is allowable, and I have shown you that it is. BD2412 T 04:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to prove that it's the rule. In addition, what makes Jefferson and Adams's connection equal to the connection between Harris and Sheridan? CreecregofLife (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

More goalpost-shifting. Jefferson and Adams, like Harris and Sheridan, were in the same line of work and held the same position (President of the United States in the first instance, actress playing the mother of a Seinfeld main character in the second), they died at nearly the same age, and in sufficient proximity that reliable sources commented on this connection. As for this being the rule, it is applied in 100% of cases identified. What would be an example of a case where the rule could be applied and is not? BD2412 T 05:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

100% of cases identified. So 1? One case? Then what makes it a rule? CreecregofLife (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:RS makes it the rule that information reported in reliable sources can be included in Wikipedia articles, full stop. That is the end of the discussion unless you can cite some rule that prohibits inclusion of this content. Your original objection was based on this being cited to TMZ. It now has at least five high-level reliable sources, and could as easily have a dozen. Why don't you provide a source for the proposition that the timing of the respective deaths at issue was unremarkable? BD2412 T 06:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This isn’t information being reported. It’s a coincidence being mentioned that you are giving undue weight of importance. CreecregofLife (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, well I'll be generous here and give you a day to come up with a source in support of your claim. Or, alternately, to convince all the sources that I have provided that they should withdraw their reporting of it, so you will be telling the truth when you say that this "isn't information being reported". Cheers! BD2412 T 06:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I see now that you’re not willing to address my points, instead cherry-picking my words to avoid doing so. You couldn’t even cite the rule that coincidences without correlation or causation have to be included in articles. This is no different than all the people who tried to put in about it being X amount of time before her 94th birthday. CreecregofLife (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@CreecregofLife: You have asked for evidence that it is appropriate for Wikipedia articles to include media-reported incidences of celebrity deaths happening in proximity to one another. In addition to the previously noted incidence of the articles on Thomas Jefferson and John Adams each indicating the relative timing of the death of the other person, I have found the following instances:

• The article on Jim Morrison states, "His death came two years to the day after the death of Rolling Stones guitarist Brian Jones and approximately nine months after the deaths of Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin – all of whom died at the age of 27".
• The article on Brian Jones similarly states, "Coincidentally, Hendrix and Morrison both died within the following two years at the same age as Jones".
• The article on June Carter Cash states "Johnny Cash died four months after Carter's death, and Carter's daughter, Rosie Nix Adams, a month after that".
• The article on Carrie Fisher states, "the day after Fisher's death, her mother, Debbie Reynolds, suffered a stroke" and that "she died later that afternoon".
• The article on Cinderella (band) states, "On July 14, 2021, it was announced that Jeff LaBar had died at the age of 58. The following day, it was announced that former long-term touring keyboardist Gary Corbett also died on the same day". Note that we do not have individual articles on Corbett and LaBar.
• The article on Melville Fuller also notes that Fuller's death was in the course of a year in which another Justice died and a third was incapacitated.
• The article on Stanley Forman Reed notes that "Although he retired eighteen years before William O. Douglas, Reed outlived him by two months".

In each case, the content is longstanding and has been worked on by multiple editors. While every instance will inevitably have unique elements, the overall pattern here amply demonstrates that Wikipedia articles do reflect media reporting of the proximity of deaths of celebrities, and that it is therefore appropriate to include the similar brief sentence that I have provided for this article, now accompanied by numerous citations to reliable sources. BD2412 T 17:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

But why is it necessary? What makes it important for Wikipedia? CreecregofLife (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I suppose that the reason these sorts of things are so widely reported in Wikipedia articles is that it is of general interest to readers to know what things were generally reported in the media about the subject. BD2412 T 17:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

CreecregofLife, thank you for that research. I acknowledge there are conflicting points of view in what follows. I agree such information is of interest to many (there's a 'but' coming). Who wrote, "What's trivial to one is another's life pursuit"? OK, perhaps no one. I also agree that if reported by multiple news outlets commonly used on Wikipedia as sufficient, solitary, and truthful sources (including well-established entertainment news sites), it is not for me to subjectively alter text because I think it's too dishy (or whatever). My issue is this: in those many cases you cited, is it the last piece of information on the person about whom the page was written? I'm not sure if there's anything close to precedent in format (my ignorance), but beyond that it seems fundamentally appropriate for a person page to conclude with information about them (singular), not coincidences about their passing having nothing to do with their lives as they lived them. If Estelle and Liz had some pact to die in proximity to each other, that fact would be about their relationship to one another in life (and therefore meaningful to note death dates). My other argument is that this sort of information belongs on the Seinfeld TV show page. I'm not sure if it belongs only there. The matter of an appropriate conclusion in a personal life section is of most importance to me. Lastly, is there typically a separate section for such trivia such as appears on IMDb? PaulThePony (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@PaulThePony: The last paragraph of Jim Morrison#July 3, 1971: Death is entirely about the proximity of other people's deaths to that of Morrison. In Brian Jones#Death, the note about Hendrix and Morrison dying in proximity to Jones is followed by information about tributes and responses. I would expect that in this article, the last line in the section on Harris's death will be about her interment, details of which I have not yet seen. This is similarly the case with the June Carter Cash#Death section. BD2412 T 00:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

But this case is nowhere near as close knit as any of your other examples, so what makes it important? CreecregofLife (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be mistaken. How is this less "close knit" than Brian Jones (of the Rolling Stones) and Jim Morrison (of the Doors)? BD2412 T 02:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

So I misidentified one. You still didn't answer the question CreecregofLife (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

As I have already explained, what makes this important is firstly that numerous reliable sources have reported this—in fact, at this point it can be said with fair confidence that most reports on the death of Sheridan have noted the connection with Harris, to the point that it now seems odd to exclude it—and secondly that the death of the two actresses in this proximity represents the end of that generation of Seinfeld performers. The second factor is significant enough that this could be included in the article even if it was not the case that news reports were generally mentioning the comparison. Speaking of those, here is yet another citation: Andrew, Scottie (April 15, 2022). "Liz Sheridan, 'Seinfeld' actress, dead at 93". CNN. Sheridan's death comes within two weeks of the death of fellow "Seinfeld" cast member Estelle Harris, who played George Costanza's mother on the series. I have also found even more additional instances of Wikipedia articles noting the deaths in close proximity of people who were previously colleagues in their field: the article on Melville Fuller notes that Fuller's death was in the course of a year in which a fellow Justice died and a third was incapacitated, and the article on Stanley Forman Reed notes that "Although he retired eighteen years before William O. Douglas, Reed outlived him by two months". BD2412 T 03:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

News articles are able to include such trivia. Wikipedia articles aren’t. CreecregofLife (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Since I have already pointed to more than a half dozen Wikipedia articles that describe exactly the same kind of information, this is clearly incorrect. I'm not sure what point there is in continuing to provide precedents and evidence that apparently are not being read. BD2412 T 04:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Is it incorrect, or are you equating a more trivial example to ones of more significance? CreecregofLife (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Your statement is incorrect. The relationship described here is equally significant to those described between, inter alia, Jim Morrison, Brian Jones, and Jimi Hendrix, or Stanley Forman Reed and William O. Douglas. BD2412 T 05:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I can’t believe you’re pushing for such irrelevant information CreecregofLife (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

If the information was irrelevant, it would not be so widely reported in reliable sources. I'm sure you could easily find readers who think that the fact that the subject "graduated from Tarentum High School", or that her parents "owned a candy store" to be equally irrelevant. Reliance on reporting in reliable sources insures that relevant information is not excluded due to the biases of a given editor. BD2412 T 05:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

What’s relevant for them isn’t necessarily relevant for Wikipedia. CreecregofLife (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

We are at the point of circular argument, since what is "relevant for Wikipedia" has already been demonstrated by the half dozen high profile examples of Wikipedia reporting on similar proximate deaths—which are similarly reported in reliable sources, which closes that loop of discussion. Based on the foregoing discussion, however, I can see how the wording could have more clearly stated the significance of this proximity, and therefore propose the following as compromise language:

Within two weeks of her death, actress Liz Sheridan, who also played the mother of a Seinfeld main character, also died, leading many media sources to note the proximity of these deaths, and that this meant that all of the actors who played the parents of Seinfeld main characters were now deceased.

Cheers! BD2412 T 06:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You need 7 sources in order to justify your trivia? Not everything a reliable source publishes is necessary for a Wikipedia article. CreecregofLife (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

This has gone on long enough. You've had your fun playing contrarian, and are clearly not engaging in good faith. Having 7 sources is useful to make it clear that removal of this well-sourced content from the article will constitute actionable vandalism. BD2412 T 17:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Being well sourced doesn’t make it relevant. Like walking into a meeting about current action figure production and saying “THIS PLAYSET MADE BY X COMPANY WAS MANUFACTURED FROM 1882 TO 1891!” with 300 pages of documentation that say the same thing when nobody was talking about play sets let alone what was produced 130-140 years ago. CreecregofLife (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You have willfully ignored the evidence that I have provided that these sorts of relationships are routinely covered in Wikipedia. That is not a good faith discussion of the topic. This is an encyclopedia, not "a meeting".

Since Wikipedia does not allow the heckler's veto, is there anyone else other than User:CreecregofLife who has an objection to the language specifically proposed? BD2412 T 18:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You have not proven it is anything more than trivia, and you are getting increasingly aggressive that anyone dare object. Piling on sources to say “It’s been reported!” doesn’t do anything to lessen the fact that it hasn’t stopped being trivia. CreecregofLife (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Is there anyone else other than User:CreecregofLife who has an objection to the language specifically proposed? Going twice. BD2412 T 19:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You are literally Editor B in the example provided by Heckler’s veto. You will not win CreecregofLife (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The "winner" in this case will be the reader, who will have access to an additional piece of information about the significance of the death of the article subject. No one "wins" when relevant information is suppressed. Your personal opinion about the relevance of this information is debunked by practices throughout the encyclopedia of conveying information of this type. BD2412 T 19:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

But it's not her death. It's someone else's. You haven't debunked anything CreecregofLife (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You have asked me for evidence that this is covered in reliable sources. I have provided that. You have asked me for evidence that this kind of incidence is covered in other Wikipedia articles. I have provided that as well. What else is needed in order to demonstrate to you that the inclusion of this information is supported by evidence and precedent? BD2412 T 21:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You're demonstrating things that I didn't ask you to demonstrate. You demonstrated things that are irrelevant to what I asked, and yet in all that you never proved the information was relevant CreecregofLife (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You specifically asked, "Since when does Wikipedia put coincidences that have no correlation or causation in articles?"; I provided a half-dozen or more examples. If you were not asking the question with a serious intent of considering the evidence provided in response, then the question was an exercise in time-wasting. I ask you again, what would demonstrate to you that this sort of information is considered relevant to include? BD2412 T 21:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You provided four examples, including at least one where an elderly mother had a stroke within days after the death of her daughter. Your justification was "Yes they're unique but they're the same". You made all sorts of claims irrelevant to what I was asking in order to justify the inclusion of an irrelevant piece of information. And yet because you can't stand that you're continuing to be opposed, you decided to escalate and call me a vandal. Painting garbage gold doesn't make it considered any less garbage. CreecregofLife (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I have provided nine examples, eight of which do not involve a mother-daughter relationship. Most of them—Jefferson and Adams, Reed and Douglas, LaBar and Corbett, Fuller and Brewer—were connected by their shared activites, as is exactly the case here. I have not called you "a vandal"; I have merely noted that removal of well-sourced content consistent with the content generally included in comparable Wikipedia articles constitutes vandalism. That is not something that has happened in this case, as of this time. BD2412 T 22:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

But you're expecting it to be valid to call me one, that such consideration would be valid. Which means you already have it in mind. In your head, you've already called me a vandal. CreecregofLife (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

If an editor decided that the date of a subject's birth was trivial information (there are reasonable arguments that it is, birth dates being basically random), and should be removed from the article, and could not be persuaded by any amount of evidence that their birth date was reliably sourced, or that dates of birth are commonly included in other articles, how would you characterize their insistence that they intend to remove the information? BD2412 T 22:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

But this isn't about the subject's death date, it's about someone else's CreecregofLife (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Based on the relationship between this subjects, this is something that is commonly included in articles of this type. This is also comparable to articles like Lawrence Sher saying that Sher "was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Cinematography for his work on the movie Joker, but lost to Roger Deakins for 1917"; of course, Deakins winning meant that it wasn't Sher's award, but Deakins is mentioned because it provides context of potential interest to the reader. BD2412 T 22:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, that's a mighty fine orange you've brought to an apple contest CreecregofLife (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

This is not a contest, this is a discussion. If you can provide evidence that this sort of information is prohibited from inclusion in Wikipedia articles, please do. I am very intersted in seeing such evidence, and it would be very helpful to the discussion. BD2412 T 23:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You're asking me to prove a claim I did not make while also not understanding metaphor CreecregofLife (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I am asking you to prove the claim you did make through your actions, which is that it is impermissible to include this specific content in the article, despite its extensive reliable sourcing. BD2412 T 00:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

You just proved it for me. My original claim was that it was irrelevant, but the reason you're trying to push it through was "extensive reliable sourcing", which has nothing to do with its relevance to the subject CreecregofLife (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The sourced content is relevant to the subject because it provides information about the subject. For example: the NBC news source says, "Her death comes the week after the passing of fellow "Seinfeld" alum Estelle Harris, who played Estelle Costanza, mother of Jerry's sidekick George Costanza. ... All four actors who played Jerry and George’s parents have now passed away", and the EW source says, "Sheridan died less than two weeks after Estelle Harris, who played the shrill mother of George Costanza (Jason Alexander). Sheridan and Harris were the last surviving Seinfeld parent actors". Would you agree that the "Estelle Harris" discussed in the bolded portions of these sources is the same Estelle Harris that is the subject of this article? BD2412 T 00:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Your questions have become extremely disingenuous and it has become infuriating to entertain this. You have not proven how Sheridan's death is relevant to Harris's other than them being co-stars, when Jerry Stiller certainly didn't have Harris's death added to his despite it happening less than a year ago CreecregofLife (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Since you have raised Jerry Stiller, can you point to reporting in reliable sources noting the proximity of Stiller's death with Harris's? BD2412 T 00:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Baptx, BagInACampfire, and Luokehao: As editors with experience in this type of content in other fields, do you have any insights into this? BD2412 T 04:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Leave it out. This type of trivial coincidence doesn't belong in this article, or any other article for that matter. The deaths are independent and unrelated to each other in all ways. Media hunts for this trivia as they and their readers find it entertaining. One outlet highlights it and others follow. It is just fluff reporting, nothing more. It has nothing to do with the subject of this article though. Belongs in some list article were all the people who died within x days, weeks or months of the subject are also listed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Geraldo. You put it very well. CreecregofLife (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Geraldo on this one. It's just fluff. Just because reliable sources report it doesn't mean it should be included here. Are we going to add in when X person got a puppy or x person bought a house in New York City? No. Same principal applies here. It has nothing to do with the article and adds on nothing. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 14:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Noting that I disagree: if something like this is being used in the media to contextualize a person's death and their significance in life, then that is what happened, it's the manner in which their death is being perceived. So, whether it seems trivial or not, it is a popular media response, and we note those on articles, yes, even if they seem inconsequential. Kingsif (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Obviously (from the discussion above) I agree with you, but I doubt at this point that consensus will develop on this point. I am wondering whether there might be more support for a note that the subject was reported to be one of the last two living Seinfeld parents, without naming the other actress, which seems to be the biggest bone of contention. BD2412 T 22:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why I was mentioned but as long as it is sourced content and it does not harm anything, information could be added, no need to do deletionism. Adding details could be useful or interesting for people reading the article. Baptx (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Baptx: I thought you might have some insight based on the line on the 27 Club that you added to Jimi Hendrix. BD2412 T 23:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@BD2412 Ok, if it is not accepted on Wikipedia, you can add your contribution that was removed on EverybodyWiki like I did when my contribution was not accepted to List of online payment service providers.

This way, people who want to know more about the subject can see what is missing / censored from Wikipedia. Baptx (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

There's a million reliable sources. It's clearly relevant. So ... what's the problem / issue? In fact, the same exact statement is in the Liz Sheridan article, concerning her death and its relation to Estelle Harris's death. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The content should be included. It is significant per its mentions in reliable sources. @BD2412: you need to learn when to walk away from unproductive conversations, in this case repeated provocation by CreecregofLife, who should know better. — Bilorv (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

What should I know better? What is the “repeated provocation” you speak of? You can’t throw accusations like that without elaboration.

And again, just because someone else mentions it doesn’t make it important for our purposes CreecregofLife (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

That is a matter of opinion, and it now seems that consensus is coming around towards inclusion of this content. BD2412 T 22:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

No, you do not have consensus, because nobody has addressed what makes it significant. A million sources can say “The moon has no shoes on Tuesdays”, but guess what, the moon has no shoes any day! CreecregofLife (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Now you are engaging in vandalism. BD2412 T 23:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

That’s not vandalism. You do not have consensus, and you have not addressed what actually makes it suitable for Wikipedia. “Everyone else is talking about it” doesn’t make it notable for Wikipedia. CreecregofLife (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Based on the opinions expressed by User:Kingsif, User:Baptx, User:Joseph A. Spadaro, and User:Bilorv, as well as the volume of evidence that I have provided, consensus is clear. Please revert your vandalism of this consensus-based content. If you still object to its inclusion, you can open an RfC and seek a statement of policy specifically controverting the inclusion of such content. Until then, the content stays. BD2412 T 23:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

NO IT DOESN’T STAY. You haven’t provided ANY evidence of what you asked, and you do not have consensus. I am not the only person against this. You jumped the gun at a point where, including yourself, it is a tie, meaning consensus has not been reached. You have no right to restore the content CreecregofLife (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we should at least add something like, "She was the last surviving actor to play parents on Seinfeld." This was a very well-known TV show and by far her most notable role, and enough sources have remarked on it. Daß Wölf 15:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Daß Wölf: Actually Liz Sheridan was the last surviving parent, but only by two weeks. I agree that some note to this effect should be included, however. BD2412 T 19:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Betty White hasn’t been noted as having been the last surviving Mary Tyler Moore cast member on her death page, or that she was the fourth cast member to have died in 2021. I don’t understand why Seinfeld is getting the special treatment. CreecregofLife (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Confusion about edits disappearing

Before I do any more damage (haha), I wanted to find out what happened here. I mentioning on Liz Sheridan's Talk page that it made sense to end the page with information about Sheridan, not the (admittedly curious) fact of her dying near someone else from the show (at the same age). To see how other related pages conclude the respective personal life sections, I went over to Jerry Seinfeld's as a point of comparison. (It ends with a quote of Jerry's, so not exactly apples to apples.) I then visited Estelle Harris's page, noting the last paragraph and its similar format. Rather than make significant changes (prior to feedback on the other Talk page), I corrected a typo: a "W" instead of "w" in who, where it was not starting a sentence nor part of a quote. I also sought to streamline what appeared to me to be a somewhat clunky last sentence. But when going to identify and save the changes, both the original text (with the W and other wording) and my editorial choices disappeared. Just prior, I got a message stating I should compare the two versions before saving and that if not it would revert to the former. Which would have been fine. I'd have just proceeded one edit at a time. But in this instance those two versions did not present themselves in a way visible to me. And when I got back to the page without my changes, the original text had also disappeared! I thought, maybe someone has taken that out while I've been working on this. But I can't see that in the edit history. So, I'm wanting to state here that I had no intention to change things improperly or without rational reasoning and that I am perplexed by what occurred later. Importantly, I'd like to know how to prevent it in the future. Thank you. :) PaulThePony (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)