Talk:Deaths in February 2018

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 articles Death Mid‑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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. 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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Lists Mid‑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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Radio died after a bar brawl. Another editor has changed the COD to "beaten". To me, someone is beaten to death in an attack without provocation or retaliation. Since Radio participated in the brawl, I think a more accurate COD is "injuries sustained in a brawl" or "injuries sustained in a fight", although the latter sounds more like organised boxing. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 06:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For me, simply enough "fight". Fight means fight, not boxing match. Brawl is a horrible slangese word to introduce into our page though. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know the extent of the fight that happened, whether he perpetrated it or he was attacked. Yell Htwe Aung was attacked and the way I put it was “injuries sustained in an assault”. But I’d think assault would only apply if he was attacked first, which I don’t know if that was the case. Rusted AutoParts 19:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read (including the slangy "brawl" word), it was a faults-both-sides "punch-up", as we Brits often say. Please don't change it to "punch-up". Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Injuries sustained in altercation", as his article's death mentions, also suffices. No vague wordplay there. — Wyliepedia 01:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Fight" doesn't automatically signify a written contract between two pros to settle the score in a squared circle, but to me ("another editor") it does give the impression that two parties (not necessarily of sound mind and body) at least consent to taking it outside through means of mutual eyeballing. Maybe there's money at stake, maybe a woman, maybe just pride. The important thing in legitimizing any "fight" is both competitors' opportunity to size up the situation and make an informed decision on whether to be a hero, get wrecked, walk away or apologize.

In this case, Radio was making the walkout to a recently booked amateur pankration/pugilism bout with the owner of the promotion when he was suddenly scooped from behind by a mysterious figure neither he nor the audience recognized and suplexed/slammed/stunned into oblivion on the exposed concrete floor. That's not just unregulated sport, it's straight-up kabukish.

When a heel does a run-in, introduces a foreign object or spits the dreaded

Asian mist, it goes from death by misadventure to a regular smackdown requiring serious prosecution, no different from when a stranger scoops anyone from behind; there's some provocation and some retaliation, but can't blame the loser for these. Probably why BBC calls it a "beating" and The Uganda Daily Monitor says it happened "following" a fight (a verbal altercation can count as a fight, too, especially if drinks are spilled). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

His COD is currently listed as "suicide". So far it hasn't been made public how he commited suicide and last time I checked only suicide was not acceptable as a cause of death. However, @Nukualofa: says consensus has changed since then. I would really like to be directed to that "longtime consensus". DrKilleMoff (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deaths_in_2015. Consensus was made to continue as normal. Wyliepedia summed it up nicely: "Suicides": yes, regardless of method. "Homicides": no, method required. "Natural causes": no, too broad. Generic "illness": see "Natural causes". Death by vehicle: traffic collision, unless by train/plane crash. Nukualofa (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot about my coherency back then. It should also be acceptable, if officially reported (read: not by journalists) yet not determined, to use "apparent" or "suspected" suicide; or not given at all out of family respect. There's no rush to add a COD, especially in these cases, but, if none are given at all for someone youngish, I immediately investigate. Regarding the post subject, it seemed just a normal day for Cuba. — Wyliepedia 02:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What subject was noted for

Oh, so Fidel Castro here is famous for being a physicist and advisor, is he? If Chick Webster weren't continuing to drive back Hitler beyond his grave, he might roll over in it to read this strange remembrance. "Suicide" alone is fine by me, but I'll raise this much of a stink about the double standard on famous people's famous sons over former Rangers who happened to be soldiers. No more than this, since this name's kind of a big hint about actual notability. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apples: manner of death, notability: oranges. — Wyliepedia 07:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges: things which should not be compared. Fruit salad: a perfectly fine mixture of apples and oranges. If we're all on board about liking them apples, there's no reason a section called "Fidel Castro Diaz-Balart" can't also consider his oranges. But if it's going to upset the whole cart, I'll section it off. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the entry for the subject when it was first posted in Deaths 2018. It initially said he was the "son of former Cuban leader Fidel Castro". I was about to strike it out, but not before I saw that someone had edited it before me in order to post details of his actual notability. There's nothing about his position as a nuclear physicist and scientific adviser which makes me think the entry trades on notability by association with his late father (apart from the obvious name similarities, and that wasn't his fault). Only the source link headline mentions the connection to the senior man, and that's perhaps unfortunate - but it does not stop him being entered on his own past merits outside of familial contacts. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re February 3: Her son's last name is Kanakala, and Indian magazines refer to her as Lakshmi Devi Kanakala. Articles there have headlines like "Rajeev Kanakala: Rajeev Kanakala's mother Lakshmi Devi passes" suggesting that her son is even more famous- the focus of the headline - and give "Lakshmi Devi" the way we might give "Edward" (having already given a surname, not repeating it, but giving full name Lakshmi Devi Kanakala fairly consistently in the -body- of articles e.g. Times of India, India.com, Telangana Today. I think the source (Newsminute) we're currently using misread the headlines. I don't know, this is not something about which I know anything either... but there seems more evidence in favor of Kanakala being her family name than not. Anyone know? Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her family name appears to be correct. However, as an actress her stage name seems to have been Lakshmi Devi, and I know full well there's a school of thought exists in these parts which prefers the naming to be based on the public pseudonym most recognised in support of the subject's notability. So expect this to change (but not by my hand). Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stage names and pseudonyms notwithstanding,

Indian family names are relatively complicated by patronyms, ancestral villages and initials. Maybe the Telugu section can help. Maybe it can't. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. This could probably do with chatting about again, as there seem to be some not conversant with present consensus on how headlines (as I call them) or page titles (not browser tab titles) are dealt with. As I understand it, where possible the most prominent heading - just the heading line, no sub-heading - is usually used, and that's the one in the body of the article not the one shown in the browser tab text. In the absence of a clear "leader" line, initiative would have to be used, but otherwise we have always agreed to stick to the article title verbatim in terms of text used. Then there's the question of how the title is presented itself. And consensus has always been that SHOUTING is to be avoided at all costs, thus resulting in conversion of such into lower case (except for the capitals starting proper names, obviously). Tabloid media reportage devices, such as "breaking news -", "- report", "latest -", etc., have always been cut from the headings as long as context isn't changed by doing so. They're all done in simple cite style - URL then "headline" - for economy of coding, and no extra source credits are ever tacked on, such as the name of the newspaper. That's all as I currently understand it, and I would be grateful if anyone could correct me on any point I'm mistaken on above, as I only ever wish to edit by an understood consensus here. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather convert shouty headlines into traditional headline case ("Man Saves Dog from Himself"), but am open to abandoning that principle. Otherwise, yeah, sounds right to me. I can't even see a whole line in my browser tab; Hugh Wirth's article just says "Melbourne vet and animal...". Very misleading. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's vital no part of Wikipedia "shouts" at the visitor, and that conversion is actually one I believe should be maintained. I use Chrome, and when I hover my cursor over the tab at the top a tooltip reveals the whole tab title - often very different to the page heading and not what someone would see when looking at the text of the page itself. (Apologies if you are using another device which does not reveal the whole line!) Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, hovering works here. Strange I didn't know that yet. Thanks. Go with the actual headline. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another observation: constructing one's own heading for use in the reference is an original action, which could be subject to change by an alternative editor opinion; that's not what we are here for, to become Deaths page headline writers, so where one is prominent and already supplied it should be used verbatim, thus saving any argument. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the original page title should be used as written, including capitalization and any errors. Some newspapers have a house style of capitalizing the surname in an obituary to highlight it. Changing a title may change it's meaning.--Racklever (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to my mind, the capitalization of heading titles is very much just another tabloid media reportage device like "report", "latest" and "breaking", but introduced to emphasize for readers' attention. I don't think we're here to assuage their attention-seeking ways, and I still maintain that it's basically SHOUTING. (Look at the word I just posted in capitals, and tell me it doesn't rankle with you when you see it.) Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone confirm that the recently deceased

I think there are too many similarities to be anything other than the same person. Perhaps start a formal merge request of the two articles and see if anyone objects? Thanks, WWGB (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion began. — Wyliepedia 01:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That merge and redirect has now been achieved. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a footnote to a discussion of the recent past: A lack of an Oxford Comma has cost the Maine Dairy Association $5 million smackaroos in a legal battle with their drivers.[1] Sunnydoo (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And a nit-picker of a suit that was too. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to see a report of this case that mentions what leapt to my eye. The contentious phrase is canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution: is distribution a separate item in this list, or is it part of packing for shipment and distribution? The court ruled that in the absence of a comma before or it's the latter; but then there ought to be another or before packing! —Tamfang (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

Just want to say I was reverted adding on Jim Bridwell on February 16, 2018. According to the NYT he died Friday (today) not the 12 -> [2]. Oh, and according to YOUR source put on his death on the 12 he died... the 16. Thanks. --Danielvis08 (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one the reverted it. From the source article [3], "On February 12, Jim “The Bird” Bridwell, captain of numerous El Cap voyages of physical and psychological expansion, inventor, writer, thinker and fashion setter died of complications from hepatitis C. He was 73." That tells me it was the 12th not the 16th. I will investigate the NYT article.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see the NYT article now. Looks like we have 1 source saying one thing and another saying another...and all of the other sources are pointing to those 2 sources. Probably need to see a funeral home obit to make a declaration one way or the other.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m looking at the rockanddice cite now. It’s been updated to say “On February 16”, not February 12. Rusted AutoParts 03:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote: If there are two or more differing DoDs, I would always go with the one accepted into the subject's article, if any. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I knew by giving an inch on the sepsis issue, someone would take a mile. But this is two miles. At least! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can always take it back to your inch through editing or reverting! I prefer to remain less pedantic over the whole CoD issue. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it's too late for that. I gave it a shot and was reverted someone who agrees with me almost as strongly as I do. What chance could I possibly stand against the other side? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like I said, I agree with you Inedible. We had this discussion last year about cardiac arrest. WWGB, Rusty, et al felt that listing cardiac arrest with the condition was the way to go. I realize that cardiac arrest wont be listed on the Death Certificate. I provided proof of that using both of the major American source materials for Death Certificates as well as documentation from the British agency that does the same for them. It is one of 5 or 6 events that lead to death but not a source of death b/c there is always an underlying reason for it which is the true cause. But that is the way the cookie crumbles. No sense fighting City Hall about everything.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His name isn't Rusty. We should respect his decision on that. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

And here is the relevant archived discussion from October of 2017. As WWGB ruled "Interesting, if not rather WP:ORish. As always, we follow the sources, which is not necessarily the truth. If the majority of reliable sources state "John Doe's cause of death was cardiac arrest" then we are bound to follow that." [4]. Sunnydoo (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the majority...Google estimates 71,500 newshits (news hits) for "mahmoud hawi" and 72,300 for "mahmoud hawi -cardiac". The numbers are meaningless, but ours is higher! We're free to talk like common people! SunnyDoo, you've saved the day. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is a pun or a translation error, but Tonia Carrero "had a cardiac arrest and did not resist". That's a bit funny. Thought I'd share. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "founding communications executive" seems a bit off...despite his death notice representing him as "one of the original founders of Warner Communications" his contribution was that his father Manny Kimmel put Kinney Parking Company in his name, and its evolution through Kinney Services into Kinney National into Warner Communications was a result of mergers the first of which brought Steve Ross into the driver's seat and some later ones of which brought the company into the communications business and adopting the Warner name. He was an executive vice president until 1985 but his expertise wasn't communications.12.144.5.2 (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still makes him a "founding executive" which was how Warner described him upon his retirement. — Wyliepedia 04:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Deaths in 2018 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please add to "Deaths in February 2018" (date of death Feb 17), Donald (Fuzzy) Cohen 65-70 American sports superfan (New York Rangers, New York Yankees) and ubiquitous game attendee (massive heart attack) http://nyp.st/2EADbMr Trvlr40 (talk) 07:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done on the grounds that he is notable only in a purely local sense and merely noted in a few national publications almost as a novelty. Secondly, that (mainly due to the above) any WP article written about him in future is most unlikely to survive a quick deletion, 30-day redlink rule here notwithstanding. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly comes under "S" because the context in her particular case is identical to that which exists naturally for "Sloane-Dudman", had she chosen that particular device to retain her maiden name. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had not seen this before I changed it back to D (I'll move back to S) -- but... her two credits are The Washington Post and PBS. The Post refers to her on second reference as "Mrs. Dudman" [5] while her local PBS station, Maine Public Radio, calls her simply "Helen Dudman". [6] Wouldn't Sloane be considered more like a middle name in a situation like this? Skudrafan1 (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but, regardless of how her employers or anyone else refer to her, she had obviously kept her maiden name not as a middle given name but as a reference point in the sense of her future family name. I have a friend called Jacqui Ferris-Woods - her maiden name was Jacqui Ferris, but her husband remains just Robert Woods. Her personal choice was to retain her maiden name for use not as a hidden sub-text but as a public retention of her self-perception. And Sloane Dudman, being much in the public eye, would seem to be expecting it that way too. The inclusion or exclusion of a hyphen does not matter either in this type of case. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You didn't move it back to "S" though - it's still under "D" somehow? Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back to S when I saw you'd started the discussion here. User:Rusted AutoParts moved it back to D here. I'm not going to take too much more energy worrying about where a red link sits on the list. :) Skudrafan1 (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the instigator of this section on a consensual matter, I have reset the alphabetical position to match the first timestamp above. And I don't count that as an RR either. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, was not aware there was a discussion about this. If Sloane isn’t a last name it should be under Dudman, but if it’s a maiden name combined with her married name shouldn’t there be a - between the two? Rusted AutoParts 18:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last name is Dudman, middle name is Sloane, unless the names are hyphenated. Sloane was her maiden name, but it's not her last name now, and she should be alphabethized under D. That's my two cents, anyhow. Nukualofa (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made my point above, and I said I wouldn't worry about it anymore -- but here I am again. I just want to re-iterate that the decision should be based on what reliable published sources say. WaPo and PBS both say her surname is Dudman. An assumption about what she "would seem to be expecting" shouldn't outweigh that. Skudrafan1 (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So far, despite my rationale, I appear to be a lone voice on one side of the argument, so I will gladly defer unless there are any other contributors who do not accept "Dudman"? Thanks for the conversation. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy.com for the NYTimes has her listed under D for Dudman.[7]Sunnydoo (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the consensus as laid out above, and have moved her entry back to an alphabetical "D" spot. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a slight correction to the spelling of Nigerien football referee above, (should read Nigerian) as per Nigerian footballer (February 18). editrite!123.51.64.122 (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done "Nigerien" is correct, Bouchardeau came from Niger, not Nigeria (Nigerian). 110.145.77.105 (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(User:123.51.64.122 researchrite!) Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia page relating to Eddie Amoo of The Real Thing, he was 67 when he died. Which is correct? editrite! (123.51.64.122 (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

A real paradox. All the internet sources going before his death (including his own article) state his date of birth as May 5th 1950 (making him 67 as you say). However, every source for his death that I've seen so far states his age at death as 74, except the BBC who say he was 73. For the purposes of the Deaths entry, however, the independent reliable sources will win out over information in the article every time, because Wikipedia cannot be a reference point for itself. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian published full obit article on him today listing his bday as May 4, 1944, which will make him 73 at time of death.Sunnydoo (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bud's son, Andy, announced his death today. [8] --67.85.152.179 (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That got added, with an even better source. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been watching the inclusion of James Laxer on this page for two days now, since it was announced on social media and on his son's blog that he has died. Two days later, still no news article or obituary available online. There is an extensive discussion about this on the talk page for his article. He is still listed as living on his page until it's sorted out. With that being said, I've removed him from this list for now as well. Skudrafan1 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's now got a reliable source and has been re-added. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir! Skudrafan1 (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In every page I see such as the Deaths section in 2018 or her proper article Sridevi her date of death is the 24th but here it is listed as the 25th. Which one is it? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We already moved it...early on there were multiple sources pointing to both days, some of which could be explained by the time difference. She apparently died at around 11:40 pm which further muddied things. But it has all been straightened out now. Thats why the top says what it says...usually an ongoing and fluid situation. Eventually the sources get settled and things get set into place. All part of the process.Sunnydoo (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have a couple of "suspected" CODs on the list all of a sudden. Emma Chambers is listed as having died of a "suspected heart attack" and Salang Bunnag is listed as having died of a "suspected suicide by jumping." It appears User:Sunnydoo has added both of these -- and I know they are a longtime contributor so I think they'd have a good idea whether this is acceptable. I just can't remember having seen "suspected" CODs before... seems it would make more sense to wait until an official COD is given. Thoughts? Skudrafan1 (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That’s what I thought, so I took it out but Sunny reverted. It should be something to add when it’s clear that’s what it was. Suspected heart attack suggests they believe at the very least it was cardiac released. Could’ve been an arrhythmia or a previously undiagnosed condition. I think anything suspected should be held off until it’s confirmed. Rusted AutoParts 07:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we have used them quite a bit in the past- usually it is "Suspected Drug Overdose." Why you may ask? It can be 6 to 10 weeks for toxicology reports to come back and for the Coroner/ME to update the finding of the autopsy. Generally the family is given the information at the hospital when someone dies what the doctors believed happened. The case RAP has an issue with this weekend was from a good family friend who went on a BBC radio interview yesterday morning and was talking about how the doctors believed that it was a heart attack. Other papers including the Sun checked with their sources and matched the info with the interview. So that is why we use suspected rather than wait the 6-10 weeks for the actual finding. If we waited for the actual finding from ME/Coroners, we would have very few CoDs at all on the front page.Sunnydoo (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Thai police officer who jumped off the building, they have video footage, a history of depression and a lengthy suicide note. However because of some of the shenanigans he has been involved in, the RTP want to make absolutely sure that it was in fact a suicide, so they are calling it a suspected suicide. And in both cases, I have given source info that state directly that it was a Suspected Heart Attack or a Suspected Suicide by Jumping. So it is not like I am making that stuff up out of thin air.Sunnydoo (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But why post a suspicion or possibility when we can just post the concrete COD when it's known? There's

WP:NORUSH to add this information. Rusted AutoParts 18:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Because we are providing information to the reader in a concise manner for what is known at the time. Everything that is on the page is sourced...including the Suspected things we are talking about. You can go to a real live newspaper or information source somewhere and see it. Eventually the information is cemented. Which is why this page and many others on Wiki have the tag at the top letting people know that this is an ongoing thing. And I can give you a great example from this weekend on how that process works. The Sridevi the Indian actress who died on Saturday. Originally the info came out that she had passed away and there were conflicting date reports. That has now been solved. It took 2 days but we have a firm timeline of when she died. The papers also originally said it was a heart attack brought on by cardiac arrest. Now it has come to light after autopsy that it was in fact a Whitney Houston. So this morning another editor put in that info as an update. I dont think anyone did anything intentional like you are suggesting and I dont think anyone was done a disservice by the process. It is just a working process to get the information dialed in correctly using the sources that are available to us via the press. And just so we are clear...everything is sourced. I think that is the part where we are getting off kilter and as such we are consistent with

wp:blp.Sunnydoo (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

However, great store is always set by the usual editors here about repeating only what is faithful to the reference source being used. So surely if the reference source states "suspected heart attack", or "suspected fatal bowel movement" even, we would be quite justified in repeating that as part of the CoD? It has, after all, been reported that way by a "reliable source". Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly Ref. [9] was the source i provided. "LOVED ones of Vicar of Dibley star Emma Chambers gathered at the family farm yesterday after her death from a suspec­ted heart attack at 53." You can additionally fire up the Great Google Machine and look for the BBC interview with her friend yesterday as well.Sunnydoo (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But again the language of it suggest the COD is still needing to be accurately pinpointed. And in my opinion no COD should be posted until the suspicions, assumptions or the concrete COD are determined. Rusted AutoParts 19:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly though, do you really think that most of the CoDs we post here are backed up by official autopsies before we post them? Hate to break it to ya, but most of them are very educated guesses until the official report comes in. I mean sure traffic collisions, murders and plane crashes are fairly obvious, but all of the medical diagnosis i can assure you for the most part are not. And sometimes if it is an attended death and the physician is willing to sign off on it, there is no autopsy or coroner report.Sunnydoo (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But we don’t post a COD if there’s speculation or uncertainty about it. We list cardiac arrests or strokes or pneumonia when it’s stated without a speculative language to it.

“Emma Chambers died from a heart attack” sounds different than “Emma Chambers is suspected to have died from a heart attack”. As you yourself said it at that point is an educated guess until it’s officially confirmed or disproved. That’s all I’m saying, we aren’t being misleading by leaving the suspected heart attack out until we can list it without the feeling of uncertainty about it. Rusted AutoParts 20:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiac arrests will 100% be autopsies because it is not a cause of death. It is an event that leads to death, which is a completely different animal. There is always a cause under the CA which is the trigger. There are now newspapers on 5 different continents saying that it was a Suspected Heart Attack. At what point are we doing a disservice to the reader by not listing that information? A 53 year old dying leads to questions on why they died. Saying they are suspected of dying from cause A or B, points the reader into the right direction. There are a very small number of deaths (and Srivedi was certainly one of them) where the cause came out of left field. Almost all suspected drug overdoses end up being drug overdoses of various sorts.Sunnydoo (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not like the information about the suspected heart attack can’t be added to her own article but to me we should only list a COD when it’s definitive. A suspicion can change. Rusted AutoParts 21:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This thread/consensus still needs additional input on the "proven CoD" side. One opinion on one side is not enough for consensus (neither is two on the opposite side!). Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with "suspected". Just not fine with not saying as much when the source does. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call this No consensus - editors should therefore feel free to put in "suspected CoD", but still with the likelihood that a revert will happen and the whole CoW (can of worms) will be opened very soon again in the future. Hopefully we'll get more opinions and a firm outcome for further reference. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]