Jump to content

Talk:Samuel Wanjiru

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I deleted the marathon pace section. Even if it's an olympic record, I don't really see a point of having it on there. --138.163.160.41 (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death

[edit]

To whomever(s) keep changing the death date to 5/15/11: yes, when he died, to those of us in the U.S., it was 5/15/11, but when he died, in Kenya, it was already 5/16/11. The date of when he died should match the place where he died. The reports state that he died Monday (5/16/11) morning. So please, stop changing it to 5/15/11, unless the reports change the date of death to Sunday, 5/15/11. 96.2.154.208 (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles linked say that he died late on Sunday, so 15th seems to be correct. Give a source for your claim, please. --193.182.52.250 (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Death section of this article is a bit out of date. It appears police initially ruled it a suicide, but there is contention over that: http://www.nation.co.ke/news/Pathologist-Athlete-was-killed/1056-2620032-u5cips/index.html. Googling "Samuel Wanjiru suicide" shows several articles to this effect. 98.26.59.175 (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death template

[edit]

This is a case where the recent death template is inarguably appropriate. The article currently reads that there was a "domestic dispute". That is not completely clear, but even if it were, your run-of-the-mill domestic dispute doesn't lead to someone falling to their death. There are questions about suicide, accidental death, homicide, etc. Template haters may not like it, but people coming to Wikipedia expect accurate information, and if we don't have it, we need to own up to it. That is what this template does. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just flipped through every edit since this man died (including the two since I placed the RDT on it). We've got some notable editors saying that the RDT is not needed because it's not being "heavily edited". Compared to what? Look at the facts:[1]
  • This article has only had 317 edits in its six years of existence.
  • That comes to an average of 1 edit every 6.5 days.
  • Since his death yesterday, this article has had 74 edits. That's over 23% of this article's total edits have occurred in less than 24 hours. That's not "heavily edited"?
  • Amongst those edits have been changes to the place of death and cause of death, some of which, naturally enough, have been vandalism.
No matther how you slice it, this article is currently getting a higher level of attention than normal. So put your little rule books back in your pocket and use a bit of common sense. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great points. Since the cause of death is murky, and details are still coming out, the template is appropriate for both readers and editors. I've read the documentation for the template and while the number of edits may not meet the huge traffic described there, as you said, let's use some common sense. --CutOffTies (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sick of the template Nazis removing this from articles of late. "Oooh, it's only had 99 edits and not 100, per the guideline". Fuck 'em. Lugnuts (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Recent death/doc says, As such, it should only be used in cases where many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) are editing the article on the same day, and should be removed as soon as the editing dies down to a normal level again. (emphasis mine). Over the past 24 hours, this article has been edited at a rate somewhere between 400 to 500 times its "normal level". There is no hard and fast number here to guide us in the tag's removal, despite what has been implied in some editors' edit summaries. And, given the additional reasons given above, this article is perhaps one of the best examples of where this template is needed. Many readers--such as myself--are going to read that this man is dead and then, for better or worse, come to Wikipedia to learn about it. The article cannot right now satisfactorily answer the questions, which is why the tag which reads, Some information, such as that pertaining to the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events, may change as more facts become known. is perfectly justified here. If not here, then where? (Oh yes, I know the tag haters answer to that. But get the template deleted first.) HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template update

[edit]

By my count, this article was edited 88 times on May 16. There were 11 edits in the first hour and 38 minutes of May 17, which looked to be almost exactly the same pace as yesterday. However now, two hours later, the edit count for May 17 is still just 11. Looks like things are slowing down quite a bit, but I also take note of the fact that Africa is asleep right now, and we're still waiting on more information from the police. But perhaps by this time tomorrow we'll want to consider removing the template. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the template instructions. In the roughly 25 hours since the first edit reporting the subject's death, there have been only 55 editors making changes to this page. That clearly falls below anything close to the threshold articulated in the instructions. The template is not for fast-developing news (see {{current}}), but rather to alert editors to possible edit conflicts. I'm removing it. Please don't re-add unless editing of the article meets the guidelines in the template docs. Bongomatic 03:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the template instructions First of all, there is no hard and fast rule in terms of numbers for when the template belongs, there is merely a suggested guideline. Furthermore, this is an article that never had more than 68 views in any day this month before yesterday day,[2] but yesterday had 88 edits. That is a dramatic change. Additionally, the template speaks of "Some information, such as that pertaining to the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events, may change as more facts become known". That's far, far more important than having 5000 people editing Elizabeth Taylor when the facts are known within the first hour.
I'm sorry, but several of us don't see it the same way as you do. Please try to exercise a little flexibility here. This is neither a BLP nor any other issue on which the rule you are intending to implement is critical. No harm will result if you yield on this matter for a day. Most of us here support the template in this circumstance. Even if you do not, be willing to consider other points of view, including WP:IAR.
Look, your history shows that you are here because of the feelings you have about the template. I am here (I cannot speak for the others) because I believe that in this case, the spirit of the template and the guideline calls for keeping the template in place just a little longer. I'm not fighting you about templates in general, I understand that they've been abused. I'm just saying that, in this case, you need to reconsider. I'm not the one calling you a Nazi, I'm the one who hopes that you will act with good faith in this matter, as a Wikipedian, who values working with others more than he does applying what he believes to be "the law". HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of making the article as informative as possible, not trying to prevent the soiling of the template's sanctity due to its possible ill-use, can we please apply some WP:COMMONSENSE? The point some editors (who are doing their best to inform readers) are trying to make is that the circumstances surrounding the death are very unclear at the moment; and they get rebuked by a technicality in the template's documentation? Really? - Yk3 talk · contrib 04:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yk, unlike the editor whose words appear below mine, I actually read the essay that you referenced, and it was very good--I even changed my user page because of it! HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense would be to us the template appropriate for the circumstances, which is {{current}}. I won't continue to revert, but this isn't a "technicality". The template is for a specific purpose, and this isn't it. Bongomatic 04:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read what the template itself (not the instructions) says - it perfectly fits this death. This article is about a person who has recently died. Some information, such as that pertaining to the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events, may change as more facts become known. It is as appropriate to this article as it is to Osama bin Laden and more so than it has been to anyone else who has died this year. It is far more necessary here than it was on Pete Postlethwaite, Elizabeth Taylor or Seve Ballesteros. The instructions for the template are vague and inaccurate. 188.28.91.82 (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bongomatic, out of curiosity, was there an extensive discussion about proper use of this template that led to the instructions? If so, I'd like to read it.--CutOffTies (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but its removal when inclusion is not in keeping with the instructions is seldom disputed in this bizarre fashion. There was a recent TfD discussion, however, where many opined that it ought to be deprecated in favor of {{current}} (which seems reasonable, although the wording of that template is over-specific (it fails to address situations where the event has completed and hence the underlying information is not changing, but what is known is changing). Bongomatic 11:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template was obvioulsy placed in good faith, with the intentions of improving the article. Arguing over a template? Honestly? Joefromrandb (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Details of death

[edit]

I do not have time right now to read these, but I believe there are new details here from credible sources/links. It's the 2nd one down

Runners World coverage --CutOffTies (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's simple. Nothing is 100% official yet. Nobody disputes that he took a header off the balcony. Whether it was on purpose or accidental is yet to be determined. While RW is a reliable source, so is the NYTimes, BBC etc. We can say that he died and how without declaring suicide/accident yet. This rush to be "first" ignores that we don't have to be fastest. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce proceedings

[edit]

The German article mentions divorce ("Scheidung"). Were there divorce proceedings? If so, it should be stated on this article as well; if not, it shouldn't be on there. Jim Michael (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Samuel Wanjiru. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Samuel Wanjiru. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Samuel Wanjiru. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Samuel Wanjiru. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samuel_Wanjiru&oldid=1256558317"