Talk:List of last words

A word of advice

Alright, I'm going to publish this into mainspace in a short while, and I can already feel the amount of rage from serious business activists and other WikiSnobs calling for deletion. So let me state my case for keep right away:

• It is notable:

• 'Famous last words' googles to 30 000 000
• '"Famous last words"' googles to 430 000
• '"last words of"' googles to 500 000
• Loads and loads of books have been dedicated to the subject of last words of famous people

• It is already on Wikipedia:

• '"last words"' gets 3500+ hits
• Many, many biographies contains the person's last words, especially if doubted or frequently misattributed
• Final statement#Examples is a list big enough to almost warrant its own article.

• It does not belong solely on WikiQuote. Although they already have an article on this subject (which is disturbingly messy and unreferenced), Wikipedia is not by a long shot free from quotations, including stand-alone articles about quotations. Consider Category:Sayings of Jesus, Category:Shakespearean phrases, AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes and all the stand-alone articles linked from there. And don't forget the gigantic content of List of Latin phrases which almost makes us look like a dictionary. But it does not, because I'm sure we can agree that it is a notable topic. As is this.

So please think twice before shouting at me to get back(?) onto WikiQuote. Thank you. Gaioa (t,c,l) 11:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

And by the way, the WikiQuote entry is an absolute mess, and way too big. I intend to make a proper article that can meet good standards: sourcing, imagery, non-arbitraryness, sourcing again, notability-conscious, and sourcing again. That's why I just felt entitled to remove the PROD. Feel free to start an AFD if you feel like diving into it, but I will state my case. Thank you. Gaioa (t,c,l) 17:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion

What will be the standard for inclusion on the list? Trivialist (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Um, didn't really think of that. So far, I just added quotes I could find and knew about. But let's at least make sure the subject has a standalone article. And maybe require a standalone Wikiquote page as well? Plus sources, of course.
Also, that's just for the current section we have, "Last words spoken by famous people". As seen in comments back down, I also considered including "Last words made famous" for gallows humour and other humorous things, plus "Last words of people sentenced to death" as a potential relocation of Final statement#Examples. But let's think about one thing at a time. Only one sublist for now. Thank you. Gaioa (t,c,l) 06:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It should be enough that they have a Wikipedia article to be notable. Wikiquote does not have as many contributers as Wikipedia. As such it tends to be deficient in historical figures, getting worse as you go back in time (at least when compared to bios on Wikipedia).--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey @Epiphyllumlover:, I really appreciate your work to include these protestant martyrs and I wish God's blessing to go with you. But please remember that the criteria I proposed was a rule of thumb to test if a subject is notable enough and that it is sufficiently sourced. Therefore, I would like to remind everyone that notable subjects still requires reliable and significant sources to back them up. I'd happily support altering the criteria, but not if others can use it as an excuse to be lax with sources. Also, consider the list heading reading "famous people", and remember that the existence of a Wiki article asserts notability but not fame. Thank you. Gaioa (T C L) 10:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Captain Smith

I suggest that the Captain Smith words are actually suited here, and that while Binksternet does point out Harold Bride's testimony, we must consider the timing of Edward Brown's account; while Harold Bride's testimony is reliable, we have to remember that his last talk with Captain Smith occurred a few minutes before the ship sank, and Smith was seen by other people after that, carrying out a final tour of the deck, telling crew members to save themselves. Brown's testimony is corroborated by several others who testified to seeing Smith telling them to save themselves, and that it was just before the ship took its final plunge. His testimony is also significant because he says that after Smith walked onto the bridge, the ship took its final plunge, just a "few seconds" later, and the bridge and boat deck was quickly covered with water. This part matches all the survivor accounts (see enquiry testimonies! http://www.titanicinquiry.org/) that are unanimous in saying that the fore end of the boat deck, where the bridge was, was submerged in a very quick and violent manner, like a "tidal wave" had struck it: this makes Brown's sighting of the Captain, almost certainly, the last reliable sighting of Smith, and his last known words, rather then Bride's, especially since Bride's talk with him occurred a few minutes before the plunge (Bride confirmed that he and Phillips did not the leave the wireless room for at least ten more minutes). Brown's sighting, like I said, occurred just immediately before the plunge.

To deal with this issue, I put a footnote detailing some of the more popular myths of Smith's last words, like his supposed "Be British" statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.99.114 (talk) 07:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Vader

The article mentions he's portrayed by David Prowse and voiced by James Earl Jones, but in the scene in question, he was portrayed and voiced by Sebastian Shaw. That's going to be confusing to address in the article though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.186.125 (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of my latest edits

Just now, @Gaioa: reverted my latest edits to the article. While some of the people whose last words I added are arguably less notable (I'm thinking of Inocêncio Francisco da Silva and, to a lesser extent, Miguel Bombarda), it's silly to say any of the others aren't notable (namely, a head of state, a queen consort, a Roman Catholic saint, and one of the greatest figures in Portuguese literature). The inclusion criteria were arbitrarily decided and not at all discussed, if this the above contents of this talk page are any indication (though I do agree that it is reasonable to require the subjects have a stand-alone Wikipedia article, I think it's hardly necessary for them to have a Wikiquote entry to establish notability, for the reasons pointed out already by Epiphyllumlover).

Besides, a quick search reveals there are a couple of other people listed in the article with no Wikiquote entry (English Wikiquote, at least): Franz Ferdinand, Edward Smith, Jack Daniel, Emerson H. Liscum — are we to get rid of those interesting quotes, too? -- RickMorais (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with you on this subsection.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

RFC: Inclusion criteria for this list?

As the original author of this article, I formulated some (kinda out-of-thin-air) inclusion criteria reading that "subjects should have both a standalone WP article and a standalone WQ article". Later, someone objected to that, and I was too busy with non-WP matters to discuss so I let it be. Now it feels like the article is becoming a dump for everyone's favorite historical people and literary works, so therefore I ask for consensus on this matter. We need one criterium for real people and one for fictional works. Gaioa (T C L) 19:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not even sure if it's a good idea to have both real people and fictional characters on the same page. I think the way the page is now does a disservice to both categories and splitting the page would go a long way towards improving both resulting articles. For example, the fictional last words section now included two characters from Shakespeare, but 14 from Across Five Aprils, the sort of thing that would probably not happen if the section wasn't tucked away at the end of a longer page. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Good point, I was afraid that very thing would happen. But I don't feel on a whim like it warrants its own article, perhaps we should just scrap that section. Gaioa (T C L) 13:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging useres who have contributed to the article and might want to share their opinion: @RickMorais: @Epiphyllumlover: @157.52.54.11: @Petrandreev13: Gaioa (T C L) 14:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment Yes, fictional people should to have their own article (although I must admit that since I don't feel like setting up that new article, maybe just a community draft, linked to on this talk page. At least then we would have something to redirect people to when they try to add in fictional people), other than that, any person notable enough to have a wikipedia article should qualify. Over time this page should become quite large, and then can be organized alphabetically, by subject, or chronologically. Wikiquote articles about the people should not be required in my opinion. Doubtful quotes can be included too, but the doubt should be noted in this article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Beg to differ If only a WP article is needed for inclusion, the article might grow exponentially due to the 5,894,320 pages on our Wiki. Not that each and every one can or will be added, but it still feels like a question on article size should the criteria be that loose, and organizability is not the only problem we would face. Perhaps we should require a non-stub article for each subject?
Also... When I first started this article, I intended it as a list of "great words by great people", or "famous last words" if you wish. In other words, I meant to collect the last words which are actually notable for the words themselves and not for the person uttering them (e.g. Julius Caesar, Jesus, Marie Antoinette, Oscar Wilde), plus last words uttered in connection with highly notable historical events (e.g. Julius Caesar, Abe Lincoln, JF Kennedy) - a sort of legend-dispelling reference work. Now I'm not saying this is the article's destiny set in stone, I'm merely clarifying my intentions. Gaioa (T C L) 17:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

If non-fictional and non-stub are the only requirements (beyond it being sourceable), I will quickly back that.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• IMO, this article should contain only real people. The rest can be deleted or moved to a new article. It is rather bizarre to have historical figures in the same place with imaginary ones. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Having a Wikipedia article should be sufficient for inclusion in this article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Jesus

We should use Jesus' last words in the earliest source, rather than later ones. Temerarius (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

What is this "earlier source" of which you speak? Gaioa (T C L) 18:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Mark was written earlier than the other gospels. Temerarius (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

John Lennon

I think I read somewhere that John Lennon's last words were "Of course I do. I am John Lennon." Is there any truth to this? JIP | Talk 10:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

According to contemporary news reports in 1980, a policeman asked "Are you John Lennon?" and he replied "Yeah." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.37.205 (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Vespasian

Suetonius gave the first half of his last words in Latin and the second half in Greek. Here it's all Latin. Temerarius (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Context, NN

• Some of the individuals here are non-notable, so their entries are a waste of space.
• Many of the entries here lack context. Who cares what cryptic dying comments are attributed to them, if readers lack the context to understand why the dying comment is itself notable? Honestly, I doubt whether all these dying comments are notable noteworthy.
• Some of these dying comments, like Che Guevera's, are not, in fact, their dying comments. Guevera's call for his enemies to shoot him may be his last publicly recorded comment. But they didn't shoot him. They took him away, and tortured him. Whatever confessions they choked out of him may not be publicly recorded, but they would have been his last words.
• I think this article should (1) be pruned of the non-notable noteworthy and uninteresting entries; (2) be reformatted into a table, with an explicit field for the cultural significance of the phrase, and another field for its context. Currently the context is explained, or hinted at, in just some of the entries. Geo Swan (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a few comments:

• Almost all the individuals on the list are notable enough to have either Wikipedia articles or redirects (e.g. Charles Carroll Taylor, Thomas F. Mantell, Ian James Campbell and Frederick Valentich).
• In many cases I think what makes the last words interesting and poignant is precisely their banality.
• The point of the article is not to list notable last words, but to list the last words of notable people, no matter how interesting or otherwise. Gildir (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Unnotable last words of notable people do not inherit notability and, more importantly, invite any analysis/notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• The current article is "based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources", consistent with Wikipedia policy. Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists, so i do not see why every quote that is not independently notable has to be removed. As long as most quotes remain sourced to secondary sources, i do not see a problem. Koopinator (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Geo Swan: @Gildir: @Koopinator: WP:CSC is more appropriate here. The third set of criteria covers lists where some entries are notable in their own right and some aren't: "These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K)". (This list is already far larger than that.) "... if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." I stopped counting at 300 less than halfway down the list. The last words should, IMO, be significant enough to noted in the individual's own article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Clarityfiend: The 32K limit applies to third-criterion lists, but i think the second set of criteria is more applicable here. With a few exceptions, every entry in the list fails the notability criteria.
  Also, just wondering: what do you think about the articles List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events and List of school shootings in the United States? Do you think that they should be trimmed to only include the independently notable entries as well? I wouldn't, because that relies on a very strict and IMO unreasonable interpretation of WP:CSC. Koopinator (talk) 08:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Koopinator: No, clearly the second set of criteria does not apply. There are any number of notable last words (and lists thereof), e.g. "Famous last words in history", from Business Insider. In fact, inclusion in such a list would make a standard. Seriously, you would make readers slog through such "memorable" examples as "Oh!" to get to the good stuff? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• The person who said "Oh!" was the only Prime Minister of the United Kingdom ever assassinated in office. Gildir (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• So? That makes him notable, not the quote. You still haven't explained why the content guideline should be ignored. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Clarityfiend: You think that a Business Insider listicle with a few sentences of context for "I'm so bored with it all" makes that quote notable? Well, if we set the bar that low, surely Sam Patch's last words (which you removed), included in a book-length biography of him would be notable as well. I mean, that's hundreds of pages of context, much more than what Business Insider gave for Churchill's last words. I think this might be the first time i have seen an editor reject a history book in favour of a listicle.
  More importantly, "I'm so bored with it all" very likely does not pass the notability criteria. The listicle you linked gives only a few sentences of coverage, which would probably count as "trivial coverage" under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If what you were saying was true, that "There are any number of notable last words", then we would surely see plenty of articles dedicated to specific last words. Notability guidelines do apply to stand-alone articles, after all (WP:GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list). Yet, in Category:Last words, we see only 2 articles dedicated to specific last words: Sayings of Jesus on the cross and Last words of Julius Caesar. So, i continue to insist that this is a criterion 2 type list.
  I also object on your desire to exclude last words that you deem to be not memorable. I do not believe we should romanticize last words to make it seem like all of them are Shakespearean prose. "Boring" last words make this list more balanced IMO. Koopinator (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Now you're just making stuff up. There is no policy or guideline (or justification) for "balancing" lists.

Obviously there are famous last words:

• Mental Floss: "64 People and Their Famous Last Words"
• Utne Reader: Famous Last Words: From Marie Antoinette to Dylan Thomas, death be not eloquent
• The Independent: "Famous last words of 19 famous people"
• HuffPost: "8 Famous People And Their Equally Famous Last Words"
• Reader's Digest: 20 Last Words From History’s Most Famous People

The fact that last words don't generally merit standalone articles does not make them any less notable, so the third set of criteria applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Clarityfiend: "IMO" means "in my opinion" - i did not claim to make a policy-based argument in that regard. I don't think there's policy saying that quotes that you perceive as being not memorable should be removed, either.
  "The fact that last words don't generally merit standalone articles does not make them any less notable"
  Whether or not something merits its own article is exactly what the notability criterion are created for. Wikipedia:General notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list".
  Those listicles do not provide in-depth, significant coverage. A few sentences of context and nothing more. Last words of Julius Caesar provides serious discussion and analysis from in-depth sources, and those last words are thus notable - but most are not. Koopinator (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The multiple reliable sources I have provided show that there are acknowledged notable/famous last words and lists of the same (none of which include counterbalancing examples). In opposition, you have your opinion. Since this doesn't appear to carry weight with you, it's time for a WP:third opinion WP:RfC. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The crux of my argument is that the vast majority of last words aren't notable (since the coverage isn't significant and only a few sentences in every listicle) and that this is thus a criterion 2-type list. The balancing stuff is of secondary importance. Koopinator (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

(ec) My argument below will not refer to CSC, as I see that criteria set 3 refers to complete lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should only notable/famous last words be listed?

Note: The prior discussion is in the previous section.

• Support. The list currently contains 600+ entries, with both well-known and obscure examples. WP:LISTCRITERIA states: "List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper." I contend that the same applies here. For example, Sam Patch's last words are only cited in a biographical book about him, the equivalent of that local newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe we should strive to be as comprehensive as secondary sources will allow us to be. While List of Norwegian musicians shows that there are many Norwegian musicians who merit their own articles, very few last words are independently notable - currently, only Last words of Julius Caesar and Sayings of Jesus on the cross appear to be notable enough to merit their own articles. WP:CSC holds that there some lists which should be created where "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles." Koopinator (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: I read numerous entries and was quite interested. Both the famous people's last words and non-famous (those I've never heard of) were equally interesting. Sure, there were some boring last words, but in all it was pretty interesting reading through a dozen from this century, another dozen from another, etc. As long as they have been covered in a reliable source, I'd keep them. Normal Op (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: For the reasons indicated in my previous comments. User:Gaioa created the article intending it to contain only famous last words, but commented, "Now I'm not saying this is the article's destiny set in stone, I'm merely clarifying my intentions." The article has grown to include, potentially, the last words of anyone with a Wikipedia article or redirect as long as the last words are reliably sourced, and I think that's how it should continue. It's much more interesting that way, IMO. Gildir (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

"I can't breathe"

I have blue-linked the phrase "I can't breathe" in the last words of Eric Garner and George Floyd. This phrase is a third example of famous last words with their own article, besides Last words of Julius Caesar and Sayings of Jesus on the cross. The phrase originated with Eric Garner's last words, but George Floyd's use of it is also mentioned in the lede section of the "I can't breathe" article. I have also added the "I can't breathe" article to Category:Last words. Gildir (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Last words recast as full article

Last words used to redirect to this article, but I just now made it into a full article, about the actual medical phenomena of last words. It's a short article, but could be expanded.

So now the question is where should a search on just the term "last words" now take the reader?

• Here (as before), with a hatnote pointing to the new article "Last words"
• To the new article "Last words", with a hatnote pointing here
• To Last words (disambiguation) on the theory that there's no longer a primary topic

I don't have a strong opinion. There's something to be said for a search on "last words" to take the searcher to Last words, though, after all. And it is an actual scientific phenomena. On the other hand, the "famous last words" given in this article is surely the target of many searchers. And it is an actual historical phenomena. Herostratus (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Herostratus: I'm not sure if a separate article for last words is really in order, especially if there's only a few paragraphs to write. If you look at List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events, you'll see an informative introduction describing apocalyptic predictions, followed by a lengthy list. WP:SALLEAD and MOS:FIRST do allow leeway for informative introductions in lists - so, i'd say that the content in Last words should just replace the less informative lead we have in this article right now. Maybe if a lengthier article on last words could be written, then it could warrant splitting, but currently i don't think that's the case. Koopinator (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Koopinator:I see what you're saying, but I don't think I agree. First of all, this list article is already long, 300 Kb if I'm doing the math right, which is already 3x the recommended limit for article size per WP:TOOBIG (I can see lists getting some exemption, but 3x?)

Second of all, we're talking about two pretty different things. Many of entries on this list are fictional. Or at any rate there's an admixture of likely and fictional. Julius Caeser's actual last words were probably "Uhhh, stercore" or something, and so on. Some of are people's last literary compositions or public testaments often enough. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's last words were probably not ""My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed" but rather "Janie... can I... Marty... uhhhh" or something. These are two really different passages!

I get that "Well who needs to know about 'Janie... can I...'?", and that's true, which is why I'm not suggesting List of actual last words. But the general phenomena is worth writing about (it is an actual scientific/medical thing after all, and apparently there's been enough study to make a decent-sized article).

People coming to this article probably don't want to know a lot about diminished breathing capacity and dementia and so on, they want to see the literary/historical/fictional stuff. And vice versa. In this article we do say "may not be quoted accurately", which is enough (or maybe that point should be expanded on and driven home a bit more, but not the point of a whole section). And if we do meld the articles we're going to be mixing up medical and historical/quasi-historical refs and further reading, which might be nature's way of telling you that your article is too broad.

Yes, the new Last words article is short, but as you see by the "further reading" section it could be made a lot bigger and I expect will be eventually, I was just laying out a beginning. Maybe the material doesn't warrant expansion (and if so you have a better point, but color me dubious), but if it does it won't get it here probably, partly because this article's already so big. Herostratus (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"And vice versa. In this article we do say "may not be quoted accurately", which is enough (or maybe that point should be expanded on and driven home a bit more, but not the point of a whole section)."

Here's the thing though, every single article is supposed to have a lead section. (WP:LEAD) As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate. The current Last words article is currently 4 paragraphs long, so it would perfectly fit the bill to make a lead section here. WP:TOOBIG is going to be an issue regardless of whether we merge the content of Last words here. Of course, if a somewhat longer Last words article of 6-10 paragraphs were to be written, then separation would definitely be justified.

Last words as a medical subject is very likely to be notable, but that doesn't justify a stub article per se. Causes of Murder is also notable on its own, but i knew i wasn't going to be able to write a proper stand-alone article on it, so a few months ago i created a short section, Murder#Contributing factors instead Koopinator (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, I don't think this article works well with a lede that says "Hey, when people die they say things, and let's drill down on that for a few paragraphs" followed by a body that says "Anyway, on a largely unrelated note, here's a list of stuff famous people's executors decided should be written down as their pithy final testament, and some are even true". If we wanted to expand the lede for this article, maybe use sources like MacDonald, Arthur (October 1921). "Death-Psychology of Historical Personages". The American Journal of Psychology. 32 (4): 552–556. doi:10.2307/1413774. to put in stuff like "Engineers are more often attributed to say things about the future, while philosophers speak more commonly of the past" blah blah or whatever he says. "The recording of last words became much more common after the Xth century" and "Last words in western cultures often show fear, while South Asia quotes are more likely to show acceptance", or whatever (I'm making up the examples, but I'm sure the real material exists somewhere).

Also the new Last words article's not a stub. Stubs are sentence or three.

FWIW, Murder is 94.5 Kb, so it's well over the 60 Kb suggested for "probably should be divided" and almost bumping up against the 100 Kb for "almost certainly should be divided" (granted, that is just some people's considered opinion). So maybe Murder#Contributing factors should be mnmhbroken out into a separate article someday, I'm sure there's plenty more to say about it. It's partly a matter of taste -- I prefer more, shorter article than another person might. However, by all means we should be increasing the amount of info in the Wikipedia, the addition of the new material in Last words is handled well enough, there's an extensive reading list, there's plenty of material to double or triple or the size of the article, and its a net benefit to the reader to have it. It's just a question of where. Sound like we agree to disagree, and that's fine, maybe others have other angles.

In any case, assuming that the article Last words is going to remain, another question is where the reader should land when she searches on the string "last words". Herostratus (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd say the status quo works just fine. Koopinator (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions for lede

So what I'm suggesting for this article's lede is something along these lines, rather than medical stuff. (I didn't put the picture in, but it should stay.)

---

---

Last words or final words are a person's final articulated words, stated prior to death or as death approaches. Often they are recorded because of the decedent's fame, but sometimes because of interest in the statement itself. (People dying of illness are frequently inarticulate at the end, and in such cases their actual last utterances may not be recorded or considered very important.) Last words may be recorded accurately, or, for a variety of reasons, may not. Reasons can including simple error or deliberate intent. Even if reported wrongly, putative last words can constitute an important part of the perceived historical records (according to Robin Winks "[H]istory is what people believe to be true") or demonstration of cultural attitudes toward death at the time.

Charles Darwin, for example, was reported to have disavowed his theory of evolution in favor of traditional religious faith at his death. This widely disseminated report served the interests of those who opposed Darwin's theory on religious grounds. However, the putative witness had not been at Darwin deathbed or seen him at any time near the end of his life.

Both Eastern and Western cultural traditions ascribe special significance to words uttered at or near death, but the form and content of reported last words may depend on cultural context. There is a tradition in Hindu and Buddhist cultures of an expectation of a meaningful farewell statement; Zen monks by long custom are expected to compose a poem on the spot and recite it with their last breath. In Western culture particular attention has been paid to last words which deomonstrate deathbed salvation – the repentance of sins and affirmation of faith.

Famously reported last words which have occasioned particular attention and dispute include the sayings of Jesus on the cross, and the last words of Julius Caesar.

---

---

The ironic stuff is fine, but it doesn't belong in the lede; I'd suggest a separate short section right above the executed people, maybe. That leaves a little room for the lede to be expanded, and there's material out there by historians and literary people to do it.

Strongly support turning this into the lead. This is even better than what we have at Last words. Koopinator (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Splitting off "Last words of people sentenced to death" section?

Regarding the issue of this article being extremely long, the "Last words of people sentenced to death" section was formerly a separate article that was transcluded in "List of last words". Now that it has become so long, it should probably be split off entirely. Also, strictly speaking, the sayings of Jesus on the cross should be included in that section rather than the main list. This would be somewhat awkward if the section became a separate article, but less so if the last words of Jesus are mentioned in this article, as would be the case with the proposed new lede. Gildir (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

On a related subject, I will move the suicide notes in this article to Suicide note#Notable people who left suicide notes. Gildir (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I have now moved the suicide note information. Gildir (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It is true that the article is very long, but my personal opinion is that lists work differently and being long (to a point) doesn't hurt them as much and may help. I can't point to any rule or research for this but... I mean of course it makes sense to split up say Eastern Front in WWI into a bunch of articles and leave the main article as a summary. Otherwise you you've got a unwieldy glob of text and pictures. But lists... scrolling up or down them is easy and its actually kind of good to have them all together.

Sure for really huge lists we have to split; like "list of baseball players A-B" and "list of baseball players C-D" and so on. I don't get the the sense that it would necessarily benefit the reader to split this list. If the reader wants to look say at all last words of all generals, or all Frenchmen, or compare ancient to 19th century sayings... its actually better to keep it together? Willing to be persuaded. Herostratus (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't really agree with separating the list of last words by cause of death. We have combat death and disease here, suicide there, and now we're thinking about moving execution somewhere else. Is this really necessary or helpful? I think that if the list is to be divided, it should be by date of death. (such as List of last words: before 1000, List of last words: 1000-1899, List of last words: 1900-present) Koopinator (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I moved the suicide notes to Suicide note#Notable people who left suicide notes because that article/section already existed and included notes not on this list. If List of last words is broken up by date of death, I think that the suicide notes and last words of people sentenced to death should all be integrated into the main list(s). Gildir (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That's what i had in mind. Koopinator (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Primary source for Caligula's last words?

Just saw this quote mentioned in a Kwite video titled This sh*t did not Age Well, and I wanted to see if this was a real quote because of how amazing it sounded.

When I found the link it took me to some type of website called Guillaume & Jennifer Dargaud's website that looks like its straight from the 1990s. There is a hyperlink on Caligula's name that goes to an amazon page for a book called Caligula: The Corruption of Power, which could have the source but I am unsure.

I am going to add a better source tag to this citation, and suggest someone find the primary source for this quote because I need to know if Caligula saying "I am still alive!" before dying is true or not. Randitor (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Western focus on deathbed conversions

The opening ends with the line, "In Western culture particular attention has been paid to last words which demonstrate deathbed salvation – the repentance of sins and affirmation of faith." While I don't deny that that is a large portion of quoted last words in Western culture, I think last words of defiance (with or without repentance) are far more remembered by the average Westerner today. For example, "More Weight," by a Salem Witch Trial victim that refused to plea guilty/not guilty and was being pressed, literally, into choosing. Likewise, the popularity of famous last stands (The Alamo, Little Bighorn, Thermopylae, etc) definitely speaks to the Western, or perhaps American, infatuation with defiance. Such quotes even serve as a foil to the Eastern tradition of making peace and farewells. However, I don't have any immediate sources and understand that this is all anecdotal. 68.60.202.174 (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Ironic last words

How come the "Ironic last words" section is separate from the chronological list? It seems like "ironic" is an arbitrary designation (and there isn't any description in the section to suggest what it is being defined as), and it doesn't make much sense to omit these from the overall list on basis of being ironic. ForeverStamp (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Only Ennius is omitted from the overall list -- the others all appear in the separate articles for the 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st centuries, which are continuations of this list. I will copy Ennius' entry in his proper chronological place. I also think you have a good point about the designation being arbitrary (for example, I find William Donaldson's last words sad rather than ironic). Gildir (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I didn't realize that. Maybe there should be a description below the "Ironic last words" header so that the criteria is defined? --ForeverStamp (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

One approach we could use is by only including last words described as ironic by third-party sources, e.g. [1]. We could also maybe just keep it at editor discretion, although that might very well be borderline WP:OR. Finally, we could simply remove the section. Should we put this to RFC? Koopinator (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense (if option 2 is chosen, it might make sense to include a definition of "ironic last words"). --ForeverStamp (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Caesar

didn't the famous, "et tu brute?" come from Shakespeare? THEREALhistoryandgames (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yep Koopinator (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Then why is it here? THEREALhistoryandgames (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The "et tu brute" quote is mentioned exactly once, in this note:

"It is a common misconception that Caesar's last words were "Et tu, Brute?", meaning "And you, Brutus?". However, this is a misattribution originating from the play Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare."

Historically, Caesar either addressed Brutus with "You too, my child?" in Greek or stayed silent. See Last words of Julius Caesar. Koopinator (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)