Talk:Deaths in April 2017

Linda Hopkins

Hello. As said (but now erased) by other user, old Hopkins source was a copy of French Wikipedia page, but new source is a copy of English one. I'm afraid it isn't a better one. Regards, Xavier 90.39.247.149 (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely copied. New source vs. her page. However, the new source has "Thanks to Gary Van den Bussche of DSG" in fine print at the bottom. Just bad and lazy form on their part. — Wyliepedia 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hem... ok, so wait and see, as we say in French. Regards, Xavier 90.39.247.149 (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

"Soultracks" has been used countless times as an acceptable source and one that does not lie. To discount it because of a perceived issue with a relevant Wikipedia article begins to enter the realms of original research ("the info is the same, therefore A must have copied B - or had B copied A?"). The "Soultracks" reference should be allowed for now. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is a source which doesn't just say "Linda Hopkins is dead" without any other information. Regards, Xavier 90.39.247.149 (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. Done. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

All sources read about the same as her WP article, which proves the site's worth. — Wyliepedia 23:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

John Clarke (satirist)

I have to admit to being bemused and bewildered by all the "arguing" about satirist John Clarke and whether or not he should be listed as an Australian satirist. I was the first person to remove the 'Australian' reference on Monday (NZ time) owing to the fact that although Clarke was based in Australia, he began his career in his native New Zealand. Calling him an Australian satirist makes it sound like that was the one and only country that he did his satire work in. It's a bit like saying that we should call Julie Andrews a British-born American actress because she has been making movies in the USA since the 1960's. David French (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You will always get "claimants", who themselves originate from the country they are "claiming" the deceased belongs to. Often with little or no research into citizenship changes. And the vast majority of coveters seem to come from the US and claim foreign-born notables are "American" as of some kind of natural right. This will never change, and we do our duty in turning back that tide. Ref ^(chew)(do) 05:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

We have different laws than you do Ref, just saying. When a foreign-born person marries a citizen of this country, they usually are given citizenship immediately unless an investigation is launched by the INS. It is probably a lot different than the process that you guys have down under. That is the basis of a number of the changes as it is pretty evident looking at the "Personal Life" section.

The one that is going to start an EPIC flame war will be Olivia de Haviland, who has British (birth), American (naturalized), French (by marriage and where she lives) and Japanese (where she was born and given honorary) citizenship. Cant imagine the number of people that are going to lose their minds over that one.Sunnydoo (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Point accepted. Thanks for pointing that out. Ref ^(chew)(do) 03:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Robert Godwin

This page has so many "rules", that it's hard to keep up with them. Do we list people like Robert Godwin? (See: Shooting of Robert Godwin.) Or is there some "rule" against that? I mean, he doesn't have a Wikipedia article about him. But he does have an article about his death. And this is a page about deaths. Such a conundrum. What is the "rule" about this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This one (personally) seems quite simple. Mr Godwin needed to be eminently notable in life for specific living contributions, I think. A notable death (which often and in this case focuses more on a third party infamy, i.e. Stephens' part in his death) isn't a good basis for inclusion here. If the incident was included as a pipe to Godwin in the Deaths article at any point, it would no doubt cessate as if it were a red link in 30 days time anyway, as non-person piped bluelinks aren't allowed in the archives. It comes down to bold editing in the end - are you committed enough to include it where others (such as myself) wouldn't, and are you prepared for any reversions from those with the opposite opinion? Ref ^(chew)(do) 05:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It's rather ironic, is my point. If there is an article about a person, he gets included in this list. If there is an actual article about the person's death, he does not (even though this is an article/list that focuses on death). And, often the distinction is arbitrary. Do we have an article about "Nicole Simpson" or about "the death of Nicole Simpson"? What about the Black Dahlia? What about Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold? Is the article entitled "Kitty Genovese" or "Death of Kitty Genovese"? It's often all very arbitrary as to whether an article is entitled "Name of Person" or "Death of Person". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This seems a bit too overthought. The list is a collection of individuals who died in a given moth of a given year. Quite simply a death cannot die. Some are not notable as a person unless their death is. At that point the event of their death is the only claim to notability and so the article is titled to reflect that. Nicole Brown Simpson was notable enough individually to get a bio page. Robert Godwin was an individual without a major claim of notability until his unfortunate death, so the Wiki article is about the shooting/death more than the victim. Rusted AutoParts 06:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

(You've linked to Robert Godwin, the notable British author, born 1958 and still very much alive.) Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: Everything that you stated, I already know. In other words, you have only stated information that is quite obvious. However, you missed my point. Which, again, is: And, often the distinction is arbitrary. Do we have an article about "Nicole Simpson" or about "the death of Nicole Simpson"? What about the Black Dahlia? What about Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold? Is the article entitled "Kitty Genovese" or "Death of Kitty Genovese"? It's often all very arbitrary as to whether an article is entitled "Name of Person" or "Death of Person". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Case in point: Was the Black Dahlia known for anything other than her murder? No, of course not. That article should probably be entitled "the death of Elizabeth Short". An (arbitrary) argument can be made, either way: name the article "Elizabeth Short/Black Dahlia" versus "the death of Elizabeth Short/Black Dahlia". And, for whatever arbitrary and random reason, the former "won" and the latter "lost". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The case of the Black Dahlia has been one of infamy and has been regarded as "Black Dahlia" since it happened. At this point the investigation is just as famous as the murder, so the article is named to reflect that. In the case of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, there was enough information on both individuals that they could secure their own biography Wiki's separate from the Columbine High School Massacre article. It all depends on if there's substantial information on the individual to pass basic WP:GNG guidelines. And I don't feel I "missed your point" considering you started your very first sentence with "Do we list people like Robert Godwin? (See: Shooting of Robert Godwin.) Or is there some "rule" against that?" Is there a legitimate discussion to be had here, or are you venting your disagreement about the practices the article employs? Rusted AutoParts 14:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Once again, you miss my point. After this post, I shan't repeat it again. I gave some examples off the top of my head: the Columbine teens, Kitty Genovese, Nicole Simpson, the Black Dahlia, etc. I understand how/why people get their own articles (i.e., notability). I understand how/why some articles are entitled "the death of XYZ" (i.e., the death is notable, not the individual). Yes, I get all that. Once again, yes, I get all that. And, once again, my point: often the distinction is arbitrary. Wikipedia could just as easily have a page entitled "Kitty Genovese" as it could "the death of Kitty Genovese". It's all rather arbitrary and random, is my point. About the Black Dahlia, you stated: The case of the Black Dahlia has been one of infamy and has been regarded as "Black Dahlia" since it happened. At this point the investigation is just as famous as the murder, so the article is named to reflect that. OK, agreed. And the article is named "Black Dahlia". Now, can't we say the same exact thing about Kitty Genovese? Namely, The case of Kitty Genovese has been one of infamy and has been regarded as "Kitty Genovese" since it happened. At this point the investigation is just as famous as the murder, so the article is named to reflect that. Why is that case named "the death of ..." instead of simply "Kitty Genovese"? I am not here to argue the merits of any one specific case. As these "gray-area" cases can (and do) have valid arguments on both sides. My point -- again -- is that oftentimes the distinction is random and arbitrary. As to whether we name it "Person" versus "Death of Person". So, yeah, maybe this page needs to account for those vagaries and whims in article names. Maybe Robert Godwin is not notable. But I am quite sure that Kitty Genovese is. Kitty Genovese is no more -- or less -- notable than the Black Dahlia/Elizabeth Short. Do you (still) not see my point? The "official" naming practices are quite random and arbitrary. Especially, obviously, in these gray-area and borderline cases. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The article name is picked to best reflect the content/subject. If there was no moniker given to the Elizabeth Short case, it would've just been labelled "Murder of Elizabeth Short". But the moniker "Black Dahlia" in some instances eclipsed SHort herself so the article is named Black Dahlia as it's been widely referred to as such. Kitty Genovese's murder wasn't referred to as anything but "the murder of Kitty Genovese" or "Death of Kitty Genovese", as Genovese by herself isn't notable and titling the article with her name wouldn't accurately depict the contents of the article as there's a small biography of her killer and a bulk of the article is about the attack and aftermath of her murder, with a paragraph dedicated to just details about her. Those details aren't enough to justify her having the article being just called "Kitty Genovese". "Shooting of Robert Goodwin" best describes the incident in that scenario. SO I don't feel the naming process is "random" as you say it is. So I really don't feel this is a pertinent issue, especially since this is more a remark on Wikipedia as opposed to this article specifically, seeing as we list people who've passed away, and people only notable for their deaths tend to not be. But of course you already know that. Rusted AutoParts 15:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Updated Note: (2 years later – December 27, 2019) ... It was decided that articles named "Death of XYZ" or "Murder of XYZ" or "Shooting of XYZ" (or some such) are valid to be included in these "death lists", provided that the deceased is actually named within the article title. Therefore, a title such as "Shooting of Robert Godwin" makes the named individual, Robert Godwin, eligible for inclusion in this list, just as if he had an article named specifically after him. I will provide a link to that consensus discussion. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is the link: Talk:Deaths in 2017/Archive 1#Should "Death of X" articles be listed here?. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Emma Morano

Re: this [1] - surely calling someone who has expired " last-known surviving person born in the 1800s" is incorrect factually? (She is clearly not "surviving", and so that's a retrospective description with no context here.) Opinions. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Excellent point. That wording does seem quite jarring. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Prefer to chew it over, not revert, so other views would be good. Don't want to stretch this out though! Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking about this. Because it was really "bugging" me. All of these biographical descriptions (on this "Deaths" page) refer to the person when they were living. The descriptions are not meant to describe them after they have died. So, for example, Ronald Reagan is not a President of the United States (anymore), but he was while alive. George Michael is not a singer (anymore), but he was while alive. Aaron Hernandez is not an NFL football player (anymore), but he was while alive. So, I think that's the same idea here, with Morano. She is certainly not a "survivor" now that she has passed away. But the description of "survivor" ("last-known surviving person born in the 1800s") was an accurate description of her, when she was alive. That's the same idea as Reagan being a President (while alive), Michael being a singer (while alive), and Hernandez being an NFL football player (while alive). I think. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it as is - no bees buzzing in my bonnet. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Aaron Hernandez

So, I guess he is not a convicted murderer? According to his article: In the state of Massachusetts, Hernandez died an innocent man due to the legal principle of abatement ab initio, where if a person dies and has not exhausted all legal appeals, the case reverts to its status at the beginning; so the person becomes innocent. Is he still an alleged murderer? Or should we leave that out altogether (from this article)? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

According to the Boston Globe [2], it hasn't happened yet. Until it is officially announced that the conviction has been voided I think we should include "convicted murderer" in the entry. BurienBomber (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

More info from the Aaron Hernandez article: In the state of Massachusetts, it is possible for Hernandez (through his attorneys) to request to have his murder conviction vacated due to his death. If that request were to be granted, Hernandez technically will have died an innocent man, due to the legal principle of abatement ab initio. This principle asserts that when a criminal defendant dies but has not exhausted all legal appeals, the case reverts to its status "at the beginning" (ab initio); technically, the conviction is vacated and the defendant is rendered "innocent". Hernandez was in the process of filing an appeal for his 2015 conviction in the murder of Odin Lloyd. Lawyers for Hernandez plan to file a motion (i.e., request) to vacate his murder conviction once they obtain a copy of his death certificate. State prosecutors, however, reserve the right to object to Hernandez's request to vacate the conviction. The family of murder victim Odin Lloyd may also petition the court not to vacate the Hernandez murder conviction and to keep the appeal alive. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

To put in a description of "accused of" (event) is neither untruthful nor inaccurate, and that's what I would have entered if I was at all interested in the minutae. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but ... "accused of" also implies that he was "accused, but found not guilty". Not exactly the case here. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Perceptions. When I use "accused of", I think in historical terms, without any qualification or implication. Your personal perception adds the riders, if at all. It remains the 'fact', regardless of any other possible outcomes (or non-outcomes), that the person was "accused of" a crime - without reference to the outcome at all in my mind. And therein lies the truth of a simple two-word description, if all other descriptions prove too contentious. I wouldn't expect anyone to over-egg the prose, to be honest with you. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the actual words are factual and true. Accurate and correct. But, nonetheless misleading. It's like saying "Ronald Reagan ran for President in 1980". It implies that he ran, but that he didn't win. Otherwise, if he had indeed won, we wouldn't be saying that "Ronald Reagan ran for President in 1980". We would be saying that "Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980". That's a pretty similar analogy to the Hernandez "accused of" murder scenario. The wording implies that he was accused, yet not convicted. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

But you say yourself above, "the conviction is vacated". So the conviction does not stand. And, in the absence of the ability to describe a conviction as a conviction, please then tell me a better way to describe than the one I have outlined? Ref ^(chew)(do) 05:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably correct. But ... to be honest, I think this discussion is premature. We have to wait and see what the Massachusetts courts will do. Apparently, the Hernandez team of lawyers is trying to get the murder conviction vacated. And, apparently, some other parties (the murder victim's family) are objecting to that. So, let's wait and see what Hernandez's actual status is, after the court gives an official ruling. At that point, we can worry about the semantics. As of now, he is a "convicted murderer". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Nikolay Andrushchenko

It may be an interesting aside to the nature of the subject's demise to find that certain "editors" in Russian Wikipedia have decided, after a whole 9 years, that the subject article in their language version (started in 2008) should suddenly be offered up for deletion. Nothing to do with the subject's known dissidence of a regime - of course. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The edit history suggests his stub may have just escaped scrutiny by obscurity until he died. I'm half-tempted to nominate 2008's Kristine Jepson and 2006's Onuora Nzekwu for entirely non-political reasons.

As another aside, his Russian article says he renounced his Russian citizenship. Should we call him a Russian in English? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

And you could probably achieve those two deletions without much controversy, if any. It's the political standing of the deceased subject which would make the Andrushchenko deletion a whole lot more contentious. And as for citizenship description, his protest/declaration letter to various bodies, including Vladimir Putin, appears to render him stateless, and not even Kazakhstani, his former birthplace and now independent. However, as I understand it, although you can easily renounce citizenship by mere notification it is much more difficult to disentangle yourself from being a "subject" of the country - with all the obligations, responsibilities and potential legal penalties which go with that commitment. Anyway, this is probably a discussion for another talk page, probably in another language Wiki!. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan Demme list of films

What films should be listed in his bio? It has Silence of the Lambs and Philadelphia, which are obviously his heavy-hitters. Some one keeps adding Rachel Getting Married. Which I never heard of, nor have most people. I don't think that is in the "same league" of the other masterpieces in his body of work. We don't need to add a third film, just for the sake of having three films. So, should that third film (Rachel Getting Married) stay or go? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll remember to ask which films you heard of next time we list films for someone who passed away. Wasn't aware the criteria was whether or not you heard of it. Rusted AutoParts 01:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you're a sarcastic comedian, also? It's a film that pretty much no one has heard of. You are adding it to the list because you like it or have some bias for it. It is nowhere near the likes of Silence of the Lambs and Philadelphia. You think that it is. So, that -- in and of itself -- speaks volumes. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The Academy Awards heard of it, considering Anne Hathaway was nominated for Best Actress. Rusted AutoParts 01:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The Academy is filled with, um, film professionals. Who are all "in the business". No one in the general public has ever heard of it. Is my point. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

That's, um, your opinion, which counts for zilch when you make the sweeping remark no one's heard of it. I've heard of it, 42, 275 people heard of it in order to vote on an IMDB rating for it. So when you say "no ones heard of it", you may be in a minority. Rusted AutoParts 01:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

And despite hearing of it, I have not seen it, so I can't remark on if I like it or not. Rusted AutoParts 01:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I have both heard of it and seen it. It was alright.Nukualofa (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan Demme Oscar award

He was named "Best Director of 1991" for Silence of the Lambs. The award was physically presented to him in 1992, because they (the Academy) have to wait for the full year of 1991 to end on December 31 (for administrative reasons like counting the votes, etc.). Regardless, he is the "Best Director of 1991". I think the entry should read "1991" Oscar winner. Someone keeps changing it to "1992". Which should we keep? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

First off, its JONATHAN Demme. Secondly, we cannot list him winning the Oscar as being in 1991 because he did not win the award in 1991. Kevin Costner did. It's misleading to put the year as 1991 due to that. Rusted AutoParts 01:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

He is the Best Director for 1991. The film was the Best Film for 1991. And it's misleading to say that they won the 1991 Oscars? You can't make this stuff up. Seriously. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

See my below point. Rusted AutoParts 01:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

We "can" list whatever we want. It's all semantics. He was "Best Director of 1991" and the award was physically given to him in 1992. Given that scenario, I think that the "1991" is the significant date, not the "1992". So, we will see what others say. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

He won "Best Director of 1991" in 1992. It's also a link to the awards ceremony, which took place in March 1992. We "can't list" whatever we want if it's misleading or wrong. Rusted AutoParts 01:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No shit he won the 1991 award in 1992. They have to tally the votes, etc. Do you think they do that before the stroke of midnight on December 31? Unreal. It's misleading to say that we won the 1991 Oscar when he won the 1991 Oscar? Wow. Can't make this shit up. You just can't. Yeah, it was physically handed to him in 1992, by logistical necessity. And you see that as the critical date? Wow. Really. Wow. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

So, under your, umm, logic, the 1991 film Silence of the Lambs won the 1992 Oscar? LOL. And the very first line of that article states: "these awards are presented for the year 1991 in film". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Language, first off. And let's break this down, shall we? The nominations were not announced until February 1992, so the month of January was spent tallying votes. And yes it's misleading. As I said, 1992 is a hyperlink to the 64th Academy Awards, held March 30, 1992. To put 1991 there is incorrect, because the awards were not held in 1991. That is the critical and correct date, sorry you don't understand that. Rusted AutoParts 01:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

We will see what others think. And I see that you conveniently side-stepped (nay, avoided) my question altogether. You also think that Rachael Getting Married belongs alongside of Philadelphia and Silence of the Lambs. So, I will let your opinion speak for itself. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Must've missed your question reading through your arrogant and condescending remarks. Mind repeating it? Rusted AutoParts 01:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I do mind. No, I am not repeating. Read above. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

K. Rusted AutoParts 01:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll again reiterate the entry is written as so:

• Jonathan Demme, 73, American film director (The Silence of the Lambs, Philadelphia, Rachel Getting Married), Oscar winner (1992), complications from esophageal cancer and heart disease. Note that Oscar and 1992 are linked. Oscar leads to Academy Award for Best Director and 1992 leads to 64th Academy Awards. In the latter article, it details information on the ceremony, including when it was held (I circled it Joseph, in case you didn't see it). Since the 64th Academy Awards were held in 1992, it is incorrect to put the year as 1991 in the linking, since it was not held in 1991. Rusted AutoParts 01:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I will throw in my 2c and then duck for cover! Wikipedia does not appear to have a preference whether the 64th Academy Awards relate to 1991 or 1992. In fact, 1991 Academy Awards and 1992 Academy Awards both link to 64th Academy Awards. So the arguments by RAP and JAS only reflect personal preference, and not Wikipedia precedent. As for Rachel Getting Married, I would include it on the basis of Demme winning Best Director at Toronto. WWGB (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I have spent a lot of time working on Academy Award articles, for the past ten-plus years. In fact, it used to be my "sole" editorial function (and interest) here, actually. What WWGB says is incorrect. (When he says that Wikipedia does not appear to have a preference whether the 64th Academy Awards relate to 1991 or 1992.) The conventional "approach" on all of the Academy Award articles is to refer to the awards by the year of the film, not by the year in which the award was physically delivered. In other words, the Best Picture of 1965 was The Sound of Music. It did not receive the physical trophy until 1966, only by logistics and necessity. Nonetheless, the critical date is the year for which the film was honored as being "the best in that year" (here, 1965). The date on which the trophy was physically handed over to the producer is quite insignificant and inconsequential. And is only a function of the calendar and schedule. The key point is that, of all the films made in 1965, that one was the "best". If you look at the article for 64th Academy Awards, the very first line says "these are awards for the best films of 1991" (or some such wording). If you look at the page for Academy Award for Best Director -- and all of the other Academy Awards pages follow suit -- you will see that the chronology lists Demme as the "Best Director for 1991". And it links to both the year in film (1991) and the ceremony (number 64). So, in summary, all Academy Award articles are "based" upon the year of the film, not the inconsequential date of the ceremony (for lack of better phrasing). WWGB points out disambiguation pages such as 1991 Academy Awards and 1992 Academy Awards. They are exactly that, to clear up ambiguity. Most readers do not "know" how the Academy Award articles are structured (what year, what ceremony, etc.). And the ambiguity created is why we have those disambiguation pages. But, the heart of the matter is that a person is the Best Actor / Best Director / Best Cinematographer or whatever, for a given year. By necessity only (and logistics), he receives his award in the next calendar year. So, we all agree: this guy (Demme) won his award for 1991 and it was presented to him in 1992. I posit that the 1991 is the important year, and that the 1992 is insignificant and perfunctory. And that is how all of the Academy Awards articles treat this "issue". All that being said, here is my proposed resolution/compromise. Right now, we say "Oscar winner 1992" and we link to the 64th ceremony (which occurred in 1992). We can also link to the "Academy Award for Best Director" page, in which it clearly states that he is the "Best Director" for 1991. In other words, the entry would state "Oscar winner 1991" and the link would be to the "Best Director" article. In other words, rather than linking to the 64th ceremony, we can link to the "Best Director Award" page (where the 1991 is more explicit). Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd get behind that, but there is already a link to the general Best Director article within the Oscar link in the entry. Rusted AutoParts 01:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Won the award ("Oscar winner") in '92, which is documented most everywhere, including his source here. Seems cut-and-dried. — Wyliepedia 18:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not think it is as "cut and dried". Please see my reply above to WWGB. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry (TL;DR)  — Wyliepedia 04:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Erin Moran cause of death

First, the citation linked to Moran's entry only mentions "complications due to stage four cancer." The article itself has NOTHING in it about "throat cancer"! As such, that part of Moran's entry needs to be removed.

Second, of all the stories I've checked online at this time, the specific COD of "throat cancer" has only come from family and friends - - - NOT from a reliable source like a coroner or other official. Another reason the "throat cancer" COD should be removed from Moran's entry.

Third, the toxicology results have not come back. Since they haven't, a SPECIFIC cause of death, like "throat cancer," cannot AND should not be listed.

The cause of death may very well turn out to be "throat cancer," but until the official test results come back and are released by a verified official/authority, anything 'said' or mentioned should be treated as hearsay and should not be promulgated. 2600:8800:783:6500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 05:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

We accept reliable independent sources. We do not wait for coroner reports for an uncontroversial COD. If NBC reports throat cancer ([3]), that is good enough for us. We can always revise it in the future if necessary WWGB (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

That's tonsil cancer, if we're being picky. Oropharyngeal cancer, if we're being nerdy. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Still, the article linked at the entry DOES NOT MENTION, STATE, NOR REFER TO the "throat cancer" stated in the entry. In short, it's the wrong article/citation to be linked to the entry.

My 'argument' about the source for "throat cancer" is that it is NOT reliable because it does not come from a professional. Family & friends are NOT medical nor cancer professionals; and, as such, are not reliable nor knowledgeable enough to make and report a medical diagnosis.

On the other hand, if a reliable news source, like NBC reported it, I probably would not have a problem - - - unless their only sources happens to be the self-same family and friends.

That the "husband reveals" in a written statement/post is, in my mind, NOT a reliable independent source. By the very nature of being her husband eliminates him from being an independent source. Why would Wikipedia accept something written by an extremely close and involved relative and not something from, say, IMDb that verifies info? Somehow, that seems to be a conflict regarding sources. 2600:8800:783:6500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you are so passionate about this one case. If there was a controversial claim, like drug overdose or suicide, I could understand your reluctance. In the unlikely event that cancer is incorrect, then no real harm has been done anyway. I am not moved by your argument. If we waited for an autopsy for every listing, we would be waiting weeks to complete each entry. WWGB (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to be a doctor to relay the diagnosis a doctor made on your wife. And doctors often don't tell the news anything about anything, for Hippocratic reasons. Medical examiners are relative blabbermouths, but even then, most of our entries never have autopsies. Setting the bar as high as you'd like would exclude way too many causes. I'm changing it to tonsil cancer, anyway, just for specificity's sake. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

With the advent of the new Wikipedia news outlet, and the average Joe's opinion of the levels of truth already contained, or not contained, within the pages of "regular" Wikipedia, be prepared for more naysaying posts of this kind. Your sources completely back up throat cancer, and the IP is nit-picking. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a little naysaying and nitpicking. Plenty of stuff in here is untrue or misleading, and stays that way till someone speaks up. Then others say nay to and pick nits in the complaint, till (hopefully) everything is clearer. It's why Talk Pages exist. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC).

Once again, the inline citation for COD -- tonsil cancer -- does NOT match the stated COD -- throat cancer -- in the actual course article.

Yes, this may be nitpicky, but the two cancers ARE NOT the same.

If something is reported for the general public to read and reference, it should be detailed and accurate.

And what is wrong in waiting for autopsy/toxicology results? Do you want facts or unsubstantiated guesses and fake news? It all ties into the "detailed and accurate" facts aspect which I thought Wikipedia prided itself on. 68.231.71.119 (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)