Talk:Deaths in November 2020

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

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

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthony Van Dyke COD

How about being specific on the injury that led to the euthanizing? State "fractured fetlock" since the term(s) "break down," "breakdown," or "breaking down" are not defined anywhere in Wikipedia. In doing a quick research on the term(s), I found that even a fractured/broken hip is considered a "break down." So, how about being more factually accurate. 2600:8800:785:2A00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Working purely on the sources, the cause of death was euthanasia - death by human hand. The horse was in a living state after suffering the break down - the fractured fetlock did not kill but it made the possibility of a comfortable life remote if not non-existent, as is always the case with animals of equine anatomy. The human dispatcher caused the death. No complications from or anything similar. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject of "being more factually accurate", this is how you should spell Anthony Van Dyck. Editrite! (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Rawlings complications

Folengo, can you elaborate on how you figure your idea of a local consensus overrules our verifiability policy. Source says someone dies "due to complications of" something, we don't get to blame something directly. COVID, surgery, neck injury, makes no difference, relay the stated cause. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JazzHands90, you seem to have a simillar problem, removing complications and misinterpreting any mention of COVID or coronavirus as a stated cause of death, please follow the sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'd maybe wanna revisit this, Hulk. Rusted AutoParts 21:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still think Refsworldlee nailed it in two sentences. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be the consensus that overrides WP:V? That's beyond reasoning. Enjoy your mass delusion, I retire. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the aggression? It was discussed and up to this point editors just put COVID by itself. Rusted AutoParts 21:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, contrary to the simplest fucking rule we've ever known. You original researchers also remove heart attacks, twist "with" into "from", jump to conclusions on every positive test result for a potentially fatal virus. Anything at all to shine the spotlight where you decide it belongs. No more trying, someone always just comes back with nonsense arguments and nothing gets settled. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Folengo's edit summary of 21:45. Removes a heart attack and points to a headline, rather than attempt to understand how the body of an article is more important. Translates "coronavirus" to "COVID-19". Projects whatever agenda he thinks I follow. Refuses to explain any of it logically. Grasping at any straw imaginable, over and over and over. No good faith. What's the point? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool the fuck off dude, or we aren’t gonna discuss this. Rusted AutoParts 22:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You already weren't, you just started reverting me, casting me as the aggressor and pointing to a supposed consensus that petered out with a few conflicting opinions. I asked Folengo nicely to elaborate, and still can't tell if you two are referring to the same purported overriding local agreement to ignore the sources if it can make COVID falsely appear deadlier than it is. Your bias is why this discussion never finishes, not my displeasure with repeated insistent policy violations in every single case I bring closer to what the citation really does say in plain English. The Yorkshire Ripper died from obesity, diabetes and a heart attack as verifiably as the source suggests he died of "complications of COVID-19", and any agreement to cherrypick is garbage. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cast you as the aggressor because you called me linking a discussion about this as "mass delusion". If that's not aggression or at the least moderate hostility I don't know what is. Rusted AutoParts 22:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I called three of you seemingly seeing consensus and causes of death that aren't there a mass delusion. Your link just didn't make these any more apparent. I'm sorry for calling it that. Do you (singular) want to explain why you reverted me now, or whether you believe misrelaying sources is a bad idea? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a discussion was had and shortly after every COVID-19 death logged being just "COVID-19" and nothing else unless there was an additional disease, like Philip Voss and cancer. I reverted casue to me there was a consensus or at the least a rule of thumb. Rusted AutoParts 23:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. Does somebody else want to explain why this "Voss rule" doesn't apply to heart attacks? Or whether it's actually a good idea to continue omitting known complications, even when not specified? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you could stop being so uppity, you’d see I wasn’t saying there’s a “Voss rule”. I was saying the only other instances I saw of anything else in the COD aside from COVID was if another cause was noted. I used Voss as an example. That’s all. Rusted AutoParts 23:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been uppity, and I know what you meant, you just explained it. All I'm asking is why the two people with heart attacks and COVID are presumed to have died of COVID alone, while someone with cancer and COVID is held to another standard (whatever you want to call it for short). And why is "complications from COVID-19" OK for Sutcliffe (whose source doesn't say so), but not for Rawlings (whose source does say so)? I'm mainly asking whoever screwed those up, not you in particular. Forget if those reverts were Folengo or JazzHands90's. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pesqara, why do you think it's OK to call Aaron Page's cause of death COVID-19, when the source clearly says it was "not released"? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer after you'll have explained why did you think it was OK to change Reşit Karabacak's CoD from covid to "heart attack" when the sourced article specifically states that he died of covid. Or why did you add 'heart attack' to Peter Sutcliffe's CoD when articles just say that he had a 'suspected' heart attack weeks before being infected by covid (yet you would instantaneously remove covid if the article said anything less than "absolutely certain confirmed verified and certified by the virus and the victim themselves together"). You come off as being in bad faith, besides having rather serious anger management issues. --Pesqara (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sutcliffe's CoD should be COVID-19. For the rest it is useless to argue with you, you won't never change your mind. Still here there is consensus against your edits, so calm down and carry on.--Folengo (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a doctor, but COVID can trigger neurological and cardiac complications, so no astounding at all many of these are reported as heart attacks. I evaluate any single case. Keshubhai Patel tested positive for COVID one month before his death, was asymptomatic, died a month later of respiratory failure. And considering his long lists of ailments, I reported respiratory failure, AND NOT COVID-19, as a cause of death. As I already wrote, every single case should be evaluated. But I find it strange when an otherwise healthy man in his 60s gets COVID and "dies of a heart attack". And the source never doubts he died of COVID! Many others like him. That's not saying COVID is always lethal: a very small percentage of infected people dies, but it can happen and denying it a priori is complete bigotry. --Folengo (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not angry, not uppity, not in denial, not bigoted, not useless to argue with, no anger management issues, no bad faith. I just wanted the cause of death fields to reflect the sources reasonably accurately, maybe rationally argue about what constitutes "reasonable accuracy". I don't want anything to do with these pages anymore, you all see what you will. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jazzhands90 is back to removing the words complications of. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]