Talk:Deaths in May 2017

Prince, in the context of Iran

Hi. There seems to be a little confusion over whether a Persian prince is now an Iranian prince. The strict observance of the religion now expected in the country means that there can be no royal family and therefore no modern-day prince. A deceased former Persian prince listed here would still be referred to as a Persian prince for the purposes of description. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

But Iran is only called "Persia" by the Western world. If you click on the "Persian" term in the prince's article, it leads you to the Qajar dynasty which is considered "Iranian". Further, the prince was from the Pahlavi dynasty, a ruling house of "Imperial State of Iran". — Wyliepedia 07:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Your rationale accepted. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Mary Tsoni COD

Here we go again.

Another inline citation reference that DOES NOT mention, nor support the stated, COD.

The article states, "The cause of her death has not been determined yet."

Since no COD stated nor determined, I think the "suicide" in her entry should be removed. 2600:8800:788:B900:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I changed it solely because the article updated. As you were informed of in the previous discussion about Erin Moran, the source linked to confirm her death does not immediately need the COD included in it. As long as the COD is linked and sourced in the persons article, a source for the COD on the deaths list is not needed. Rusted AutoParts 19:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with the inline citation for a person's death/passing. My problem is when a COD is given and it is NOT mentioned NOR sourced in the cited reference. When there is no inline citation/reference/source for a COD, then a COD should NOT be mentioned. To do so, in my opinion, is irresponsible since there are NO FACTS to back up the claim.

For example, the inline citation for Powers Boothe is a valid reference/source for his passing; HOWEVER, no where in the cited article is the COD of "pneumonia" stated, cited, referenced, nor sourced. The article only states "natural causes.". And "pneumonia" and "natural causes" are NOT the same.

Since Wikipedia seems so concerned about facts and sources -- I've come across numerous entries where there is a 'lead-in' box talking about lack of inline citations/references/sources for 'stated' info/facts -- why should those parameters not apply to this section as well. (Especially when Wikipedia is 'picky' about some of those sources -- like IMDb?)

I've written numerous research papers, and if you could not footnote/reference/cite/source where you got ANY piece of information/data, you did NOT put it in the paper.

It's all about credibility. And if wrong or unverified data/info/facts is included, that is going to effect anything's credibility.

So, how credible does Wikipedia really want to be? ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:788:B900:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This really comes off still as being intensely nit picky. You compare Wikipedia to IMD when the difference between the two is that Wikipedia uses sources to verify info they put and IMDB does not. Anyone can just add anything on IMDB and no source is needed for that, so when someone cites IMDB here, it's disregarded because the statement can't be traced back to a source.

You also confuse editors as a collective. There's some who do not cite their additions and thus when they cannot be verified, they get removed. This happened with Boothe, so I removed pneumonia as there was nothing to support it. But if it was sourced on his Wiki page, it would be able to stay as, I feel like I've repeated this alot, the citation used to confirm the person dying doesn't necessarily really need to include their COD. Of course if it does have it, all the better, but it's not a requirement. If the COD can be cited and appears on the wiki page with a source, the source used on the Deaths list doesn`t necesarily need to reflect that. Rusted AutoParts 21:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I look at how easy "all the better" can be, not how necessary it is. If there's a source for a cause in a bio, and a cause lacking one here, just copy it. Well, paste it, too. After deleting the shoddy one, of course. Unless you want to spend time highlighting over it. Must remember to open an edit window, though. And depress the "Save changes" button, while simultaneously finalizing an irrevocable licensing agreement.

So it isn't technically the easiest fix in the world, but nobody ever said telling the truth is supposed to be easy. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I added the specific cause of death at the time, as the source (Greek Hollywood Reporter) stated this. The GHR later updated its own article (within an hour or so) to what we have now. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Ian Brady

I am wondering if Ian Brady's entry here will survive the 30-day rule? He is famous (or rather infamous) and has been for over 50 years. He won't get his own article as everything about his life is already included in the Moors murders article. I would hope he remains past the 30 day rule as he is more notable than many of the entries here. Is the rule "must have own article" rule set in stone? BurienBomber (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The sole reason Brady doesn't have a stand-alone article is our "general rule" to cover the event as opposed to the individual when it comes to WP:BIO1E. The section "Perpetrators' backgrounds" contains substantially more information than many of our notable biography subject's articles. It is only a (consensus-driven) quirk of our naming system that prevents Ian Brady and Myra Hindley from having individual articles. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Goes along with this discussion, as an "event". I also just anchored his page (a redirect) to the event's background. — Wyliepedia 01:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

IMO, whatever the consensus, make a special case for one redlink and you'll get loads more appied for under the same rationale, and I guarantee not every editor will agree on them. A rule should be a rule on this occasion, and no redlinks after 30 days should mean no redlinks after 30 days. For what it's worth. Ref ^(chew)(do) 03:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

As for an "event" consideration per the previous conversation, that was clearly being discussed on the basis of bluelinks and which should be allowed. It does not (so far) reflect the situation relating to the redlink expiry issue. Ref ^(chew)(do) 03:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Ref that we need discussion and clear decisions about this issue. We have expanded "death of notable person" to include "person who died a notable death" (eg Robert Godwin), while this new discussion suggests "death of perpetrator of notable death". I think that most Australians would expect to see Ivan Milat (serial killer) listed when he dies, but that too could not happen under current guidelines. I would not like to see this article expanded to include, for example, executed killers like Ricky Gray. WWGB (talk) 05:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Although it is not exactly the same thing, Phil Everly is listed on the Deaths in January 2014 even though he does not have his own article. It seems an exception to the "no redlinks after 30 days should mean no redlinks after 30 days" rule was made for him. BurienBomber (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

A similar example is Jerry Leiber. I'm sure there are many examples of deaths listed of people who are certainly notable but who, for various good reasons, do not have standalone articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't we just write in hidden text behind his entry that due to general agreement, Brady's entry stands even after the 30 days?Nukualofa (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll generally agree to that. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a massive assumption of agreement so early in the debate, is it not? Less of the steamroller I think and more of the measured observations over a decent timespan, with as many editors chipping in as possible. After all, we have almost a month before a decision "needs" to be made! For sure, you are not going to get away with just Brady as a one-off exception either, so I would can the hidden text idea to start with (the truth should show whenever possible) and concentrate on a rationale which displays. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the question when considering placing entires such as this is just how much of the wiki page is about the person being listed here. With instances such as Phil Everly, the article is predominantly about him and his brother, so there's a good basis for him that be inserted. Whereas with people like Brady and Robert Godwin, their personal details are more regulated to a small portion of the page. So in that instance they to me wouldn't seem individually notable enough as the article is mostly about the event they were involved in. Rusted AutoParts 03:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, when I saw that Ian Brady had died. Namely, he does not have his own article and, therefore, he is not eligible for inclusion in this list. This certainly seems like a miscarriage of "justice", so to speak. The guy is certainly notable, regardless of Wikipedia article naming rules and conventions. Perhaps the larger issue here is: why doesn't Ian Brady have an article? He is no less notable than other criminals and murderers (such as, for example, Seung-Hui Cho and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and Charles Whitman). Seriously, how is Seung-Hui Cho "notable" other than for the Virginia Tech shootings? How are Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold "notable" other than for the Columbine High School massacre? Ditto for Charles Whitman of the University of Texas tower shooting. Why do those killers and criminals and murderers have their own article, while Ian Brady does not? (Another example: Adam Lanza of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting does not have an article.) That seems like the "bigger issue" to me. Not one that will be resolved here and now, on this Talk Page. But, nonetheless, it's the bigger issue, as I see it. Wikipedia is inconsistent at every turn. And that is manifesting itself in the "rule" that we "cannot" list Ian Brady here. It's an odd and bizarre conclusion/result, even though that result technically comports with all of our rules. So, something is amiss. And the situation will no doubt keep on repeating itself here. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

No real answer to Joe's question "why no article?". But the notes left in the redirect which is currently "Ian Brady" read as follows:

"∟ Moors murders#Ian Brady

From a merge: This is a redirect from a page that was merged into another page. This redirect was kept in order to preserve this page's edit history after its content was merged into the target page's content. Please do not remove the tag that generates this text (unless the need to recreate content on this page has been demonstrated) nor delete this page.

- For redirects with substantive page histories that did not result from page merges use {{R with history}} instead."

So - we can blame a merge from his personal article into the incident article, obviously. That's all I know. I can't find anything which says "Do not re-create this article" though, so what next? Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone could recreate an article, and could argue that he's notable for the trial on top of the crimes, but since the trial is already covered in the crimes article, that could just be two kinds of redundant. Leave him, redirecting, I say. Myra Hindley is still dead and listed likewise at Deaths in 2002. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hindley is only listed because of an oversight, not a deliberate decision. Someone purged all the redlinks from Deaths in 2002, but did not check the bluelinks for redirects. I'm still very uncomfortable with making singular exceptions like "the editors of this article have decided to report the death of Ian Brady despite him not having an article". I would much sooner there be a guideline that covers situations where a non-articled death may be reported. WWGB (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm still very uncomfortable with making singular exceptions like "the editors of this article have decided to report the death of Ian Brady despite him not having an article". I would much sooner there be a guideline that covers situations where a non-articled death may be reported. Yes, agreed. But, what could be proposed? The only "guideline" I can see is something like: "case-by-case basis". Which, in essence, is no guideline at all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Oversight or not, it stuck and it serves its purpose. It could work as well for him, if we just look the other way. I think someone central to the lion's share of a large article about an enduringly famous story should be the sort of person one reasonably expects to see in a decent necrology. The sort of person who meets the general notability guideline, but whose article would too closely resemble the one about their deeds. Only technically nobody important. Is that a precise enough standard? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Case-by-case basis. That's then judged entirely by personal opinions and by one person's assessment against another's. Plenty of room for an edit war in that way of doing things, I'm afraid. And exercising personal opinions never made good rule-following. "Leave as a redirect" still begs the question "what will happen to Brady's redirect after the current and reliable 30 day expiry rule?" Sorry, I don't have any other suggested answer to the dilemma here (it does make me still lean towards "leave the 30 day rule as is and let Brady go". Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Roger Moore

Why isn't his death appearing on the main page? An actor who was in the game for over 60 years, played an iconic role of James Bond recognised all over the world and isn't included?  — Calvin999 20:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#RD:_Roger_Moore. The quality of the article is lacking. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Claudia Hellmann

Please add her to the list! Thanks Piflaser (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This is all I see for that. Doesn't exactly look like a reliable source, but who knows? Maybe it cites an actual paper and I just can't translate it. If it doesn't, I'd wait for a traditional obit or news. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

 Added at some point. — Wyliepedia 21:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Jane Norman : May 13th 2017

Jane Norman IS a television programme? Is it just my perception, or is this a slightly unorthodox, maybe invalid, use of "piping" on the Deaths page? Or is it treated in the same way as piping a musician to point to a notable band? I can't say I've noticed any other "person to show" pipings before. Some guidance would be appreciated (not reverting though). Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's alright if they play the title character. Jane Norman IS Pixanne, though Pixanne wasn't Jane Norman. Just a part of her. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

That's just my gut feeling, mind you. I don't remember something like this happening before, so can't say how it goes. Could be completely unorthodox. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

A "blue" entry due to a piping or a redirection never survives here. Piping to another page gives readers the false impression that Norman already has her own article. It may also dissuade editors from ever writing one. The Pixanne article is poor in that it goes on about Norman's other ventures and her private life, clearly the stuff of a personal article. WWGB (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I think my overall sense here was that "Pixanne" as written was an article about a show, not mainly about a character which could be "attached" to Jane. Even a merge might work for it and her, if her own named article were started as a stub. I see someone has reverted to a redlink for now though. Ref ^(chew)(do) 03:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)