Talk:Deaths in January 2007

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconLists Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHistory Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Khamenei

Removed his death notice as the cited source was a blog, which are usually not considered

reliable sources. I haven't seen anything on AP / CNN / BBC as of yet, and am happy to see it restored pending a source. Syrthiss 20:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree, however good Pajamas Media is, it's not reliable. The only source which has followed up so far is this which concludes with the observation "The reliability of this information is unknown" which speaks for itself. Sam Blacketer 00:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. He's obviously a large enough figure that his death should attract reliable sources aplenty. Canadian Paul 00:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed also. Let's not rush into this until confirmed. This site is also unsure. WWGB 00:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Magnusson

Not sure about the wording of his death. It say Icelandic born British Television presenter or some like that. He was born in Iceland yes, but he never took British citizenship, so is technically still Icelandic.

Jimmmmmmmmm 12:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

But "Icelandic British Television presenter" is slightly confusing, and we can't say "Icelandic television presenter" if he presented in Britain and never Iceland. Syrthiss 12:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He may have been Icelandic by citizenship, but he was British by association, which matters more. JackofOz 00:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jung-eun

Kim Hyung-eun not Kim Jung-eun was the Korean actress who died on January 9th. If you check the resources, they all say Kim Hyung-eun. They're two different people. I tried to edit the page, but somehow i couldn't.~~ 18:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the difference. I was guilty of an earlier reversal, as I wrongly assumed that the difference was just down to alternate Western spellings of the same Korean name. I have corrected the Deaths in 2007 entry, and will work on the entry of Kim Jung-eun to remove premature death mentions! WWGB 05:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easter Bunny

the user who removed the above used the edit summary "revert probable vandalism". just wanted to admire the open-mindedness and optimism, not to mention hilarity, of that "probable". tomasz. 00:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fidel Castro

I'm writing this on the 20th of January - and Fidel Castro is supposed to have died in three days time (listed as the 23rd)??!?!?!??!!!!

I'm deleting it now.

U;Nee

U;Nee ??? Where the heck does that go in alphabetical order? Under "U" I guess ... WWGB 01:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm just ignorant, but wasn't she Korean, not Japanese? 125.128.47.99 08:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Minogue

Can't find anything to back up this report of her death, so removed for now. WillE 09:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbaro

There seems to be a lot of back-and-forth here. Is there a standard or precedent? Chronologically he was 3, but all references state he was a four year-old, following the thoroughbred convention of deeming all horse's 'birthdays' to be January 1st. Any thoughts? Daddylight 23:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the horse's exact date of birth is known from stud records, he has to be recorded as 3 years old. Having a common anniversary is a convenience of the racing industry but does not alter nature. WWGB 01:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So no explination needed for the casual browser who is wondering why the info on this page does not match the citation to which it is linked? Daddylight 12:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are precedents for listing a notable racehorse in Deaths. See, for example, Desert Orchid on 13 November 2006 in Deaths in November 2006. WWGB 12:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, we even listed Harriet when she died. (See Deaths in June 2006.) There's certainly precedent to list a better-known racehorse. Spicy 14:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, we listed Desert Orchid, Harriet, the Thames Whale, etc. etc. And all for good reason: such are the oft-invoked definition of "notable deaths" as opposed to "deaths of notable people" and should be kept as such. tomasz. 15:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A horse should not be listed alongside people. Wikipedians should create a page for notable animal deaths of 2007, 2006, and so forth. The precedent argument is bunk, because I and others find it offensive that hundreds of thousands of people die without a single mention, while a horse somehow deserves recognition. Intolerable and sickening, in my opinion. (Unsigned comment from 216.57.82.133)

The "offensive" argument is even more bunk, because the page is not supposed to be a comprehensive list of deaths, it's a selective list of notable deaths. Deaths of animals can be notable, and when they are, they are listed; when they're not, they're not. The same criterion, in fact, that we apply to humans. So, you seem to be arguing either that there's no such thing as a notable animal, or that even the most significant animal death is somehow less significant than, or on a par with, the death of any given human, regardless of their achievements or lack of. This strikes me as "bunk" much more than listing animals beside humans does.
And who are these "others"? Weasel words. And sign your damn comments. tomasz. 16:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, "hundreds of thousands of people die without a single mention, while a horse somehow deserves recognition". Well, that would be because the horse brought more joy, excitement or interest into people's lives than any one of those "hundreds of thousands of people". (Anyway, why am I responding to a banned editor?) WWGB 22:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly a precedent in

SqueakBox 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]


There seems to be a lot of back-and-forth here. Is there a standard or precedent? Chronologically he was 3, but all references state he was a four year-old, following the thoroughbred convention of deeming all horse's 'birthdays' to be January 1st. Any thoughts? Daddylight 23:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the horse's exact date of birth is known from stud records, he has to be recorded as 3 years old. Having a common anniversary is a convenience of the racing industry but does not alter nature. WWGB 01:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So no explination needed for the casual browser who is wondering why the info on this page does not match the citation to which it is linked? Daddylight 12:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are precedents for listing a notable racehorse in Deaths. See, for example, Desert Orchid on 13 November 2006 in Deaths in November 2006. WWGB 12:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, we even listed Harriet when she died. (See Deaths in June 2006.) There's certainly precedent to list a better-known racehorse. Spicy 14:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, we listed Desert Orchid, Harriet, the Thames Whale, etc. etc. And all for good reason: such are the oft-invoked definition of "notable deaths" as opposed to "deaths of notable people" and should be kept as such. W guice 15:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares, it's a horse. More glue for me Profonikz 21:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

José D'Elía

He is in fact dead today. If you wait some hours, you will can to check that. And Wikipedia will obtain beat Internet to it. You only must to be patient.

And what if he wasn't dead and it was just a hoax? That would be very embarrassing. What is the rush to post the death without a verifiable source? Patience is indeed a virtue ... WWGB 03:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have check he was really dead. I was sure of that. But you are right, sometimes we can be victims of a hoax. We must be careful. I thank you for to take the trouble to look for a reference. I could have add that, but I can´t operate the mechanism for to make that. Excuse me and see you later. Andez.

Vickie Myers

WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE CHECK
28 Jan - Vickie Myers, 39, American winner of Miss West Virginia USA 1992. [49] Seems unverifyable. Unsigned comment by Tfmurphhk

Not hard to find at all: [1][2][3]
WWGB 02:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Joseph Meng Ziwen

The correct surname (last name) is MENG. Ziwen is his Chinese given name (first name) and Joseph is his Western given name. The sequence conforms with established practice i.e. Western Given Name/Surname/Chinese Given Name. Therefore the proper alphabetization is under M... where it currently is. Please leave it there.Tom M. 15:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for Avis M. Dry

I have established a wiki-link to the article on Avis M. Dry, and if one goes to this article, one will see that a reference has been given for her date of death of January 26, 2007 - namely, the magazine "The Psychologist" for 2007. Why, therefore, has some one put "citation needed" beside her name? I would not have thought it required much technical know-how to click on the wiki-link, and to find the citation for her date of death there. ACEOREVIVED 19:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been the standard format here for a long time that every death notice is accompanied by a link to an independent, credible Internet-based reference. This provides for the reader to confirm for themselves that the death occurred and it is not a "hoax" entry. Surely if Dr Dry is notable, at least one Internet source would have acknowledged her death. WWGB 22:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually ACEO has it right. Wikipedia:Reliable sources is our guideline here, and it gives printed sources at least as much credibility as internet sources, and usually more. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AnonEMouse is correct. Assuming ACEOREVIVED makes an effort to properly format the reference, paper will do just as well as web. - Mgm|(talk) 10:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Deaths in January 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Deaths in January 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Deaths in January 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_January_2007&oldid=1207794463"