Talk:Ursula Appolloni

	Biography portal 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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Canada: Ontario / Toronto / Politics Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.

Smoker[edit]

In editing and researching this article, I found two newspaper articles written about Ursula's death. Both mentioned the fact that she died from lung cancer and that she was a heavy smoker. Here is the quote from the Toronto Star:

Mrs. Appolloni, 65, died Wednesday at her home in Ottawa after a seven-month struggle with lung cancer. A heavy smoker, she ignored the pleas of family members to quit.

This quote is from the Ottawa Citizen:

She started working as an editor of ministerial correspondence at Health and Welfare, a job she kept until she was diagnosed with lung cancer in June, a few months short of retirement. A heavy smoker, she had ignored pleas of her family to quit, says Lucio.

All I did was summarize what was written. To me it seems pertinent to mention that she smoked and that she died from lung cancer. While Ursula's smoking habit and her cause of death are not conclusively linked, I would think it is strongly suggestive. If this were my mother (as Prof2012 (talk) has stated on his talk page), I might want to put her biography in the best light which is why I think he wants to remove this. I'd appreciate other comments. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EncyclopediaUpdatucis. My issue is not with the referencing; I believe that the newspaper indeed stated this. My question is its relevance. Looking at other MPs' write-ups I see mention of career and that's it. What does the fact that Ursula Appolloni died of cancer - putatively from smoking - or from sky jumping off the CN tower have to do with her career as an MP? Remember, this page stems solely from the fact that she was an MP. Had she not been an MP, she would not have a page here. Yes, I am her son, but I am also an academic writer and know what should and should not count as relevance to someone's career. Her career as an MP ended long before she contracted cancer. The other issue is one of tone. She did good work as an MP and worked hard for her constituents. As such a write-up showing her accomplishments is good. However, in ending the whole entry with a tacky comment puts the preceding write-up in a less-than fair light, suggesting that she was some fanatic. Please, I ask you to re-consider and keep the comment out.

Prof2012 (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree here. We wouldn't have an article about Tycho Brahe if he hadn't been an important astronomer, and that had very little to do with the cause of his death, yet you will find the article on Brahe mention it. Without looking at the article I dare predict it tells what Benjamin Franklin died of, no matter whether he was still active at that time or retired - I'm certain that's the case for Ronald Reagan. Well-sourced information on the cause and circumstances of someone's death would generally be considered encyclopedic even if it's not directly relevant to what the person is notable for. Huon (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I performed a google search on Wikipedia as follows:

smoker "deaths from lung cancer" site:en.wikipedia.org

It found about 500 pages of people who died of lung cancer and also were smokers. The list includes people from a diverse array of backgrounds and professions. So to say that her smoking habit was unrelated to her notability and therefore not worth mentioning seems to me to be a superfluous argument. The key for me is that this information is a matter of public record, is mentioned in reliable sources, and is relevant to her cause of death. That is sufficient for me for opting to retain the information. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking further about the quote and the sentence: "A heavy smoker, she ignored the pleas of family members to quit." This contains four ideas: 1. She was a smoker; 2. She smoked alot; 3. Her family wanted her to quit; 4. She ignored her family on this issue. The only thing that is really worth knowing is that she smoked. It is not even necessary to say she was a heavy smoker since that is a rather subjective term. So here is a possible revision: "After leaving politics she worked as an editor for Health and Welfare Canada. A long-time smoker, she was diagnosed with lung cancer in June 1994 and died seven months later." Comments? EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EncyclopediaUpdaticus, I think that is a well-worded (and more importantly, neutral) way to put it. Primefac (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't heard from Prof2012 but decided to go ahead and make the change. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Been away from this for a bit. Thank you for your consideration of the re-word. This suits me. Prof2012 (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC) EncyclopediaUpdaticus[reply]