Talk:Deaths in January 2018

James Earl Jones

A user added James Earl Jones without a source (I imagine as vandalism), and it’s caused a lot of confusion on twitter and Facebook. This Dead People website just publishes whatever is added to Wikipedia and thus since they saw Jones posted a quick write up. This isn’t a reliable source and it’s just sourcing Wikipedia. Rusted AutoParts 01:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

We're coming up on the 15th anniversary of AdPro Specialties almost praising him for killing Martin Luther King on Martin Luther King Day. Next to that, calling him dead seems a relatively harmless and understandable mistake. But yeah, best to not let it happen again. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Marina Ripa Di Meana COD

Am I wrong to have changed the COD on Marina Ripa di Meana from "palliative sedation" to cancer?

Per the entry for palliative sedation: "It is not a form of euthanasia, as the goal of palliative sedation is to control symptoms, rather than to shorten the patient's life." Skudrafan1 (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Cancer killed her and not PS. Per the same article: "Death results from the underlying medical condition." — Wyliepedia 03:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Jim Anderton DOD

There's this back and forth over Anderton dying on the 6th or 7th and the same is occurring at the Simple English Wikipedia based on the events going on in this article. What is the actual certain date of death? I saw the first obit website and it said 7th but on PM Jacinda Ardern's Twitter account it says 6th. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It’s the 6th. Per the PM tweet and the source I’ve swapped in on this The use of overnight threw people off but it’s becoming clear it was indeed Saturday. Rusted AutoParts 17:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Guess it’s the 7th then, per an official death notice/obituary. Rusted AutoParts 19:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Anna Mae Hays notability

Her being the first female general officer in the United States armed forces is a much greater factor in her notability than having headed the Army Nurse Corps,which interests a small fraction of as many people.This is John B. Anderson all over again...fame outside the workplace comes overwhelmingly from something allegedly "trivial".12.144.5.2 (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You need to address these concerns within her article - the Deaths pages usually follow the style set out in personal articles, as anything else here would be introducing an editorial slant contrary to the Wikipedia article on the subject. If you can get the priority changed in the article (good luck), then the priority will naturally change within this list. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the original posit. I put both in originally, as both are extremely notable and important. To go almost 200 years as a country (194 but I digress) and not have a single female general officer until her is certainly worthy of notability. I continue to disagree with several of the other editors who simply want to phone things in b/c of their mobile devices and how it displays.Sunnydoo (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

(It seems to be a case of which notable fact should come first for that IP, not which one to use over the other. The article for the subject guides us, as I said.) Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but both are listed in her article prologue and in the first sentence. Its not a case of one or the other, its a question of both being very notable.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

From the editor who removed it: Firstly, it isn't Anderson "all over again" nor trivial. Don't fire shots across the bow here. Secondly, I didn't remove it because I "phone things in b/c of their mobile devices and how it displays." I couldn't give a toss as to how things look here, except for full references. I am usually the one who adds their notability outside of their copypasted basic info from their articles. Thirdly, in my removal I stated we normally don't list "firsts" here, allowing open and civil discussion...or so I thought. Listing first in anything could lead to most everyone here being first in their respective fields, genders, or nationalities. As a former military man, I applauded Hays, even sharing her death and her gender notability on social media. Put her back in, I won't revert it, because my editing days here are over. Farewell, Punchinellos. — Wyliepedia 05:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawing due to one snotty IP? That's not like you. Hope to see you back at some point, but less touchy to insignificances, as your editing here is valued, believe it or not. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

First off Wylie my comment was not aimed at you. Secondly, if you look outside of Wiki, there are a number of new sites where it is tagged as "First Woman General Officer" in the headline...look at the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/obituaries/anna-mae-hays-97-us-militarys-first-female-general-dies.html?_r=0), AMN (https://americanmilitarynews.com/2018/01/first-female-general-in-us-military-dies-at-97/) or The Buisness Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/). As I stated earlier, both being the first female general and the chief of the Army Nurses are both extremely notable.Sunnydoo (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

There has always been a chief of the Army Nurse Corps,there is and can be only one first female officer in the history of the American military...a much greater claim to notability.12.144.5.2 (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Restored. — Wyliepedia 23:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Soviet ... Russian ... Soviet-era

Sorry. Am I missing something? Surely the most significant part of an ethnicity or nationality is in the here-and-now, when it comes to producing inline descriptions for the page. There appears to be a (sudden?) penchant for introducing the long-retired (1991) Soviet state's descriptor into all things Russian from that era, just because (it seems to me) the sources used are obsessed with including it in their own articles. If there's some past consensus relating to this issue which supports free use of the term in addition to true nationality, point me to it (and it is an issue, because editors who keep sticking the word in might be perceived as political sympathisers of the broken Union and not completely neutral). Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 09:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It is my recollection that we only used Soviet to refer to sporting teams of that era. WWGB (talk) 10:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Is what I thought. Also, removing a reference to an era of that type when a Russian operated would be inline with policy too, as we don't highlight periods of history in which folk were notable to add to their perceived notability? Thanks, will do. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

People have places and times, but there's no need to mix the two. If they do something notable for a timespan, we go "something notable (timespan)". I'd change Vedernikov to "Bolshoi Theatre soloist (1958–1990)". It screams "Soviet-era", but quietly and more informatively. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

If I may say so, you "worked it back in again" brilliantly, IH. Of course we should highlight notability from that period if it's there, but through firm specific linking like you just did, not through a detached statement inline, as seems to be the idea for some. If they're Russian, they're Russian; if they were Soviet Russian, they're Russian - that is my point in its simplest. Thanks for the input. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Darn animals

Well guys. Are we including nationality or country location for Nico or are we not? I recall in conversations about previous animal entries that nationalities and locations would not be applied in the Deaths page to notable animal deaths (irrespective of whether the necessary Wikipedia article specifies same in it's lead sentence). There appears to be some yo-yoing at the moment for Nico. Thoughts? Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I recall it the other way, but might just be remembering what suits me. Animals certainly don't have citizenship, but live on the land and under the laws of certain nations, somewhat like German trains or Egyptian art. An Indian cow is destined for greater things than an American cow, and a western lowland gorilla (without qualification) sounds like someone "that lives in montane, primary and secondary forests and lowland swamps in central Africa". Nico was a zoo animal, and his nationalities make this clear. Silly to forgo clarity just to reaffirm our civic superiority over our cousins. They already know they're marginalized. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I remember it one way, you another. I think the sensible thing to do now is to wait for either a reminder of the past consensus or a new consensus before proceeding further? Other editors with better memories would be very welcome in this thread please. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

We can't help but proceed further, one way or the other. But yeah, we'll do it the pro-human way for now. And probably for a while yet. I know we call Little Mama "African-born" and Harambe "American-bred", presently. Both sound a bit weird to me, but offer some context. That same November as Little Mama, Gary the Goat is straight-up "Australian". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

We have Swedish, British, American and Japanese racehorses in November 2017, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. A few "Irish-trained" amongst the lot, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, that's how they are described outside the Deaths page and in everyday conversation - I am sure that a decision was made somewhere back in time as to whether a geographical clue would be introduced into Deaths descriptions here or not, regardless of any WP Manual of Style recommendations. Remembering that the inclusion of animals was initially a concession, hard-fought for and won despite folk like myself who believed they shouldn't have been introduced at all. I'm accepting of any consensus, of course, so I eagerly await any reminders from others. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

So, between the two of us, and failing any informed input from the last three days, we are still no clearer on this matter. Therefore, stick the nationality/location back in and I won't be reverting. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I think nationality makes perfect sense. Horses especially racing ones are well tracked as far as birth certificates, lineage, etc. There are customs documents for shipping animals from country to country. So saying that they fall under the American protocol for the National Thoroughbred Racing Association for instance would mean that the governing laws were American. I am sure there is a similar process in place for zoos for procuring animals or else we would be hearing about a "black market" out there. But with all of the UN conventions these days concerning animal trafficking and the extremely stiff penalties in place because of such as past practices with ivory, you just dont see it. I dont think anyone is making the claim they are actually "citizens" as in voting members of society, but it is just one of those things we just work in. Similarly with plant life like the Eisenhower Tree, I dont know how you say that that is not American.Sunnydoo (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Though I was one who reverted nationalities for animals based on consensus (which I recall was to NOT include them), I'm perfectly fine with establishing (new?) rules based on consensus. In this specific matter, I even second the idea of nationalities for animals, so not only I will cease and desist from the reverting, but also add my vote to that. Since this looks like one of the rules which most often is debated, I also suggest we set it into stone and amend the guidelines. On second thought, I'm doing it now. REDGOLPE (TALK) 11:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Better a late consensus than none. I'm with whatever is the majority opinion. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Lest we forget

Twice now, Chick Webster's "soldier" descriptor has been removed.

I get that his 14 Rangers games are the hipper thing since Milt Schmidt died last year, but in the big picture, isn't risking your life across Europe to help beat Hitler a little more important? I say it is, as a hockey fan and an anti-war guy. At least an equally big deal as lacing up a few times in the Garden. The man was a Legion member for long after his service ended; it wasn't like World War II was just a blip in the hockey career. He's wearing his medals and a poppy in his local obit pic, not a jersey. You don't always choose your obit pic, but it tells you what people who knew you thought you should be remembered for. The Canadian Press didn't know him as well, but still notes his war contribution.

I won't revert these two guys who didn't know him when they say he was known for hockey alone, but I'll damn (damn damn) sure make a bit of a stink about it. Fallen soldiers are meant to be remembered, no matter when they fall. The rest of the English-speaking world has generally agreed upon that, it's time Wikipedia caught up. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Emotion aside, I think you would first have to approach the regulars at his Wikipedia article to get some of the soldierly input showing in it. (There's not a jot much of a mention at the moment.) As you know, our entries always reflect the info in the article if possible, given the restrictions which accompanying sources place on that. The article would be the horse, the Deaths entry the cart - get those in order and no editor would be able to deny that info in the latter. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know which article you and Nukualofa are looking at, but Chick Webster does mention it. Two sentences is more than a jot. Someone else clumped the topics into arbitrary paragraphs today, though, so maybe it got lost in the shuffle. Check the one about being born in Toronto, nearer the end. Would it help if I put "soldier" in the lead? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You don't get a Wikipedia entry for being a soldier unless you reach a high rank, or win a significant medal. Webster did neither of those. If it wasn't for ice hockey, he would never be known outside his family. His soldiering was not a notable aspect of his life so it doesn't get mentioned here. WWGB (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with WWGB. Must have some notability as a Soldier in order to include. You are looking for the points for which he is known, should be known or made an indelible contribution.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'm blind, but I found he's known to be an old soldier, which should be known by virtue of its publication in The North Bay Nugget. It's clearly not indelible, though, because there's consensus to erase it. I'll admit two out of three is no good. Carry on. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Just want to throw in my agreement with the consensus here to make it stronger. His military career would not have been sufficient for a Wikipedia article, but his hockey career is, based on the community-established standards of the encyclopedia. Since the listing of his death should be based on what is encyclopedic about him, even if other things were important, it should note him primarily as a hockey player. Canadian Paul 18:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Does a Canadian senator count as a politician?

As it's not an office to be chased or held, I say it doesn't. There's no politicking to it. You don't need votes, so don't ask for them in the many ways American senators or Canadian mayors do. It can take a bit of schmoozing with the right people, but so can every job. More of a governor, legislator or committee member. Like what politicians become if they win and retain, but without the political angles.

Tommy Banks' lead sentence defined him as six things in life as it describes him now, and not one of those is a politician. The inline obit used here doesn't verify the claim, either. He's categorized as a 21st-century one at the bottom of his page, but that's about it. Even that's a bit misleading, because he started in 2000.

Rather than remove it a third time, have WWGB restore it a third time (reasoning "fmt") and have us both thrown off of Wikipedia forever, let's discuss it like gentleman in this smoke-filled back room. Shall we remember Banks for something he never did, so soon after agreeing to forget five years of Webster legitimately and reportedly defeating Hitler's army? If this were a political agreement, that rhetorical question alone would clinch it. But this is a senatorial dispute, so that's an actual question. Aye? Nay? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I know very little (nothing?) about the machinations of the Senate of Canada. I see that Banks' article refers to him "sitting as a Liberal", so that seems to satisfy the definition of politician. Our format has always been generic role(s) followed by specific titles, for example, "British royal, Queen (since 1952)". If "politician" is not technically correct, is there another generic term such as "representative" that can be used. Whatever the outcome, I won't interfere further. Regards, WWGB (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

For MPs (in the House of Commons, where the relative legislative "action" happens), party affiliation can mean everything. They need votes, and many voters don't care who they send, so long as its the name on the red/blue/yellow/green/bleu yardsign. Senators "sit as" something because they need a literal seat at work. Sometimes it's deeper than that, sometimes not. Either way, supporting a party doesn't make someone a politician, just aware of the game. For a few years now, they're not even quite "real" Liberals, but Senate Liberals.

It's a proper title when attached to a name, but generic otherwise. So you could write, "Suddenly, Senator Davis lashed out his tongue and swallowed the bee, to a round of applause from senators on both sides of the floor and a wink from the Queen." Likewise, "composer and senator" seems as plain and as "composer and representative" would to me.

As for Mayor Succhielli, I have no idea how Tuscan villages have ever operated, let alone post-war, so no objection to this. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no intention of editing the subject affected by this topic, but I do urge any interested editor to note the specific keyword mentioned in this description from the online version of the Cambridge Dictionary. The topic should not be closed, and the consensus certainly needs to be wider for future altercations of this kind. For the record, I obviously think that a senator IS a politician - how can he/she be anything else, being democratically allowed, and expected, to vote on issues debated by the senate? And before anyone says anything, I do know that the Dictionary only mentions senates in the US, Australia, and France. However, politics is not limited to the retention of the power to pass a law, as most senates clearly are not afforded that pleasure. Politics "is the process of making decisions that apply to members of a group" (as its Wikipedia article establishes immediately). If the senate is not a group elected to serve a group (or groups, making up the people), I don't know what is. (As a learners' dictionary, the Cambridge is heavily involved in teaching both our youth and previously non-English-speaking peoples what to say, when to say it, how to say it and crucially what it means.) P.S. This makes consensus builders politicians, in effect - us! How about that? Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

A legislator is allowed and expected to do those things. As is a parlimentarian. I know a politician" as someone who does those things, too, but through politicking. Senators don't campaign, don't fundraise, don't give favours, don't kiss babies and less often lie. Even the cronies previously active in getting elected (which Banks was not) lose much of the motivation for continuing once they're appointed.

But yeah, if neither senator, legislator or parliamentarian works for anyone else, go with politician. A little misleading isn't going to kill anyone, and Ref did a fine job of explaining how it's only a little misleading. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The Senate of Canada is a component of Parliament, so it’s pretty clear a senator in Canada operates in politics. It’s not incorrect to call Banks a politician. Rusted AutoParts 17:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree that he's a politician. It's not our job to be, um, politically correct, but most people just copy article leads for entries here, rather than read the articles. — Wyliepedia 00:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I read it. It's about sitting on committees, advising ministers and authoring legislation. That's government, not politics, and the reason I decided he wasn't a politician. Had nothing to do with political correctness. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Politics and government - the two are inextricably entwined (and without being at all misleading - the populist image of a "politician" and the dictionary version of same may be quite different, but neither is less valid than the other). As usual, we can enter a thumbnail description to give a basic idea of what our deceased subject was or did, after which the reader then hopefully accesses the linked article or obituary source to see what exact version of the "was or did" truth applies. Omission of a salient point is as much a Wikicrime as the over-egging of the descriptive pudding, to my mind. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Inextricable in America (like politics and news, politics and sports, politics and food...), but only entwined here. Britain seems similarly loosely-woven, at least from afar. Politics is a path to government work, and government work is a means of repaying voters/powerbrokers/cronies, but government work can also be done purely in the dry interest of managing state affairs, similarly to how it's done in absolute monarchies and dictatorships.

The felony/indictable Wikioffense here is synthesis. His article doesn't call him a politician, his death notice doesn't, yet we're taking Claim A (he's a senator) and Claim B (some politicians are senators) to mean Claim C (no parenthetical explanation required). I'm not going to the Wikicops or anything, but I'm also not going down for conspiracy should Officer Wales come knocking. As long as the record shows I'm the innocent Canadian who tried to reason with you foreign influences, I can get probably get off with a two-years-less-a-day block. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

What about "senator" vs "Senator"?

Do Yanks and Brits see anything different from what Canucks do when Googling "capitalize senator" or "capitalise Senator"? Seems the thing to do is lowercase when talking about the job, uppercase when referring to the person or substituting it for their name. We have a lot of capitalized job descriptions here, and have for a while. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm Brit, obviously, and a heck of a lot of Capitalized occupations or academic appointments posted or involving US folk would not be capitalized in the UK, by anyone who valued their English Language education. And "capitalised" is very rarely seen these days - that's a transatlantic 'z' spelling which has certainly "crossed the water". As a rule of thumb, if an editor posts an occupation or suchlike starting with Capitals, I don't change it personally. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Francisco Núñez Olivera

Hello all. I hate to drag anyone into the nightmare that is longevity fancruft on Wikipedia (one which only died down in intensity after ARBCOM got involved), but I think that the title of "world's oldest man" should be removed from Francisco Núñez Olivera's entry, because it is not verifiable by any school of consensus on the project. There are some who think that only those recognized by Guinness World Records should qualify - he has not been recognized by them. There are those who think that anyone "verified" by an organization qualified to do so, like the Gerontology Research Group should qualify - again, he has not be recognized by anyone. Then there's those who claim that any claim should be recognized, but then there are plenty of men who claimed to be older than Olivera, so why pick his claim as the most credible? At the very least, "claimant to the title" should be added as a caveat. I would have just done this myself, but this is a touchy topic on the project and one that can be confusing for anyone dragged into it without knowing the context, so some discussion is valuable. Canadian Paul 15:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, as a deceased person of claimed notability with a valid redirect to an unremoved section in the article List of Spanish supercentenarians, he is quite rightly included in the Deaths in 2018 listing at this time. As editors of a project ourselves, we react to several factors, including a base notability, widespread reporting of death and any valid content in linked articles - as I see it, it is not for us to get involved in the politics you describe. We don't compare one to another when establishing the rights of inclusion in the list, and all editors have the right to remove an entry from the Deaths pages if they believe a basic notability does not exist (though a section to debate the topic, such as the one you started here, is always preferable in order to avoid edit wars). However, in this case, I cannot see that the rationale for removal is supported when all the evidential factors are considered. Other opinions please? Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood me. I don't think he should be removed from the list. I just think his description should not say "world's oldest man", at least not without a caveat that it was only a claim. Canadian Paul 19:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I beg your pardon on that. Having looked closer at the section in that List article, you would appear to be right. I'm being bold on this without affecting his notability, I think. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, although the source used to back up his inclusion seems to believe his claim without question, it suffers a possible bias by reporting one of its own countrymen. The article section is the more neutral, I think. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

To play the pedant's card, once died you are not the oldest living man, someone else is. Verified, or not, in either case. I know... but someone had to point this out - now feel free to shoot me ! - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Nobody's anything once they die. Singers stop singing, players stop playing, livers stop living. So, bang! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point too Derek, and let's leave it at that I think. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Louis Zorich

Currently looking for sources better (much, much better) than Facebook in order to include him in the Deaths list. As far as I know, despite any guidance to the contrary in Wikipedia help pages, we do not use Facebook or Twitter here. Even his Wikipedia article fails to acknowledge his passing. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done now - please ignore the issue for the specific subject above. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)