Talk:Deaths in October 2017

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

Stephen Paddock

The article created following his suspected mass murder crimes is being considered for deletion. As of my timestamp, the article at AfD has one vague delete vote, many redirect votes and a number of keeps. Notability (for the wrong reasons as usual) is strong, yet whoever entered it into our page here did not included a source. I have added a reliable one which points out that he is currently a suspect only, and indeed is asserted by police to have committed suicide, as claimed in the Death entry here. This section can be used to debate pros and cons if any need to be debated. Ref (chew)(do) 23:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His article is now a redirect, following the outcome of his AfD. The "redirect" decision has since been reversed while further consensus is built. Ref (chew)(do) 05:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, survived AfD intact, with a complete bio article. Ref (chew)(do) 05:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hefner died of sepsis/septicemia

Yes, his heart and lungs stopped minutes before he died, but that's true for everyone. Cardiac arrest and respiratory failure are OK to list here when we don't have details on what led to it, but when we do, we shouldn't be intentionally vague. It tells nobody anything useful. Sepsis wasn't a contributing factor, despite what some sources say. That field on his death certificate is blank. It was a cause, is listed as such, and we have no reason to doubt it. So please stop changing it. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't agree, and I am interested in the opinion of others. His death cert (and Newsweek) report cardiac arrest as the principal cause of death. IMO, that is what we should report. (I have removed the COD from the death list until consensus is reached). WWGB (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a primer on how causes of deaths on certificates work, if anybody wants to consider it before believing Newsweek knows what "contributing" means. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of over-simplifying things: at the grand and advanced age of 91, and with the much-increased likelihood that the body and its immune system are not going to be as efficient in battling any life-threatening condition, Hefner's death through any of the causes mentioned was, in my opinion, going to be a natural event, given the limitations of the human body. Google it, and you'll find the words "natural causes" mentioned as Hefner's cause of death - and indeed it was the cause claimed by his family during their official statement on his passing. Not being one who ever gets involved in the fractious field of naming CoD on this page, I leave you with that personal opinion about life and what is natural at a certain age, knowing that I probably haven't helped to clear up this particular mess. Ref (chew)(do) 14:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Hughes

This article says that Sean Hughes died of cirrhosis, but it was announced on the BBC News on BBC Radio 4 tonight that the cause of Hughes' death was not known. Vorbee (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COD amended based on this source. WWGB (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martínez Corbalá (10/15) rule of three

Which three are we going with, folks? Because he has six, right now.

Gonzalo Martínez Corbalá, 89, Mexican politician and diplomat, MP (1964–1967, 1988–1990), Senator (1982–1988), Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies (1990), Governor of San Luis Potosí (1991–1992), and Ambassador to Chile (1972–1974) and Cuba (1980–1982).

— Wyliepedia 08:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I always presumed Ro3 applied to movies, songs, teams etc, and not to positions. WWGB (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They're all notabilities. Which do you think are his three most important political positions? The entry is outrageously overloaded as it is. I haven't a clue, personally, not being a politico in everyday mindset, but I would guess probably the first three - MP, Senator and Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies. Ref (chew)(do) 13:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most positions are bullet points on his Spanish article anyway, exception being as governor. I'm either for stripping it down to "politician and ambassador" (as I would for an athlete from umpteen teams) or leaving it as is and await the 30-day removal (again, since his enwiki might just be bullet points). You'll notice MP and Speaker link to the same article. — Wyliepedia 13:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "as is" will suffice for thirty days. "Rule of Three" is "Rule of Three", regardless of any wish to cherry-pick categories of notability. And I repeat, the subject line is terribly overblown "as is". Let's have some fresh input if we can? Ref (chew)(do) 22:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The ambassadorships don't have articles, so I'd cut those. My Rule of Three applies to examples of work, not jobs. The rule is trickier, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lenzi films

I would not list a few suggested films on Lenzi's death. These films are not mentioned in the source and seem to be chosen at random from his filmography. I would not list films at random, especially ones not balanced out by the source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It’s perfectly fine to include examples of his work if examples are available. Rusted AutoParts 17:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per
WP:UNDUE, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." By placing these three films here, you are suggesting items which are a) unsourced and b) suggesting importance of these titles over others. I would not suggest listing these titles unless they are specifically important to Lenzi's career (they aren't by my research). Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
What’s undue about including three films of his? Sure the ones added may not be his biggest attributes, so in that case they could be swapped out for ones that are. They don’t need to be sourced in the obituary for them to be added as examples of work. It’s just something needing to be evaluated to make sure the ones added are their most significant works. Rusted AutoParts 18:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Generally when listing a director or any creative work, you would place signifigant titles by their name. I don't mind adding ones that are signifigant titles but its hard to suggest which is the most prominent ones by Lenzi. If i had to suggest some, it would not be the ones listed here, I would at least suggest higher grossing films such as
Rome Armed to the Teeth, and perhaps a Cannibal film as his article had sourced additions suggesting that they were what Lenzi was predominantly known for. (i.e: Cannibal Ferox or Eaten Alive!). I do not think people would disagree with that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

@Shadow2700:, please contribute to the discussion here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous, as evidenced by the repeated reverts by several other users. I have never seen an edit, like the one you are suggesting, because the films are not mentioned in an a particular obituary. There is no disputing that the films mentioned are Lenzi's films. Maybe you do not consider them to be his finest, maybe I don't either, but that doesn't mean they are to be removed simply because they are neither mentioned, nor what you may consider his greatest contributions. There is nothing else to discuss - the amount of attention devoted to this topic is baffling. Shadow 2700 (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt it, but including it suggests it belongs to the source (it isn't). I don't think we should really remove them, but if we are going to include them, I made some suggestions above. Do you have any suggestions on that @Shadow2700:? Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb is generally on point with its "Known for" section. Its top three are Cannibal Ferox, Seven Blood-Stained Orchids and Nightmare Beach. Do those seem right? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cannibal Ferox is certain, but Seven Blood-Stained Orchids and Nightmare Beach aren't really his most well-known or successful films. If we're going for different genres, we should choose one of his Giallo films and one horror film. My suggestions are Paranoia and Ghosthouse, as those were reasonably successful and also represent movies from the beginning and the end of his career. His most seen films (according to number of votes on IMDb) are Cannibal Ferox, Nightmare City and Eaten Alive! Nukualofa (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how Ghosthouse is among his greater works. I've been trying to expand Lenzi related articles and there is barely any information published about it. IMDb votes are a bit better but its a bit skewed by home video reach and genre popularity, while his crime films from the 1970s were far higher grossing films, even if they are not nearly as popular in the English speaking countries. I'm far more comfortable with the three you suggested then the current films though. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no further objections, I'll update the list of films on Lenzi in the next few days. Still up for further discussion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a few days without further discussion. I will assume consensus and change the films following Lenzi's name. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't think I'd have to do this but whats the situation. @
WP:CONACHIEVE, consensus "arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached." There has been no objections after asking for it and you have not suggested any other changes. So whats the problem? Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Most of us have no deeper knowledge of Lenzi's films, so I don't really understand how this has become such a problem. As long as Cannibal Ferox is kept, I vote for whichever two other films you find most suitable. Nukualofa (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it would have been simple too, but it was reverted quickly despite
WP:CONACHIEVE. I'll leave it for a few days to see if anyone else has any other statements against it. Still waiting for the editor who removed it to chime in. . . Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
As no one else has come forward (including the original editor who reverted the edit and did not contribute to discussion here), I will change the films listed after Lenzi now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to state this for @
own this page. So again, I agree with the discussion above on why we should include Eaten Alive!. What are the actual objections? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Now this is getting ridiculous. From WP:CONACHIEVE: "Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change. Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." Andrzejbanas has repeatedly asked people to join this discussion, to no avail. He's not the one edit warring here. And while there might be no particular reason to add different films, there's no reason to keep Ghosthouse either. It's not exactly Citizen Kane. Nukualofa (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know its not that big deal of a film, but it would be like listing The Hearts of Age next to an Orson Welles notice on his death. It may be of interest to Welles fan, but its hardly a film he is known for. I appreciate you stepping forward @Nukualofa:, I'm still waiting to hear from other editors. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have reached out to @
WP:CONACHIEVE ("A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached"). The user has not stepped into the talk page, not here, nor on their own talk page. I am noting that the user has not been very active per their contribution history, but I feel if they want to revert it again, they should bring their reasoning to this talk page as no one else has seemed to have stepped forward. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

"No-one else has stepped forward." Perhaps concentrating so exclusively and obsessively about a few credits in a death entry is seen as slightly over-the-top, given the lack of real earth-shattering significance of any one of the entries, and therefore puts other editors off commenting? That's all I have to say, as I couldn't give a ****, and am now lowering my head below the parapet again. You wanted input. Ref (chew)(do) 07:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know its basically trivial, but I mean, edits conflicted and people thought it was serious enough to revert, so somebody cared enough. As he is an obscure director its hard to choose the films, I felt one was not very representative, I swapped it one that I thought that it was. I actually have deeper concerns about how the films are chosen, as its a North American centric point of view of his career, where in Italy, he has far greater success with his crime films. Either way, its better than having Ghosthouse in, a film which barely has enough information to make it a real article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've certainly fought long and hard with regards to this one subject, but I just cannot see a consensus building to carry over any new criteria into other edits. Relevance to the deceased appears to be the watchword for examples of work in this type of entry, not any kind of quality control or choice of work with greater or lesser significance, though you've made your point well here. Ref (chew)(do) 08:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as the date has switched over the film was changed again here. I can't really go through the edits to see when it happened, but as no further discussion was brought up, I've changed it back. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to mention The Secret Path?

I tried listing Gord Downie's Secret Path as a fundraising and awareness campaign, and it was deleted for being an album. I readded it as an album and it was deleted for mysterious reasons. That last one turned him from a singer and songwriter to a "musician", which makes it even stranger, since Downie played guitars on the album and in the film, as well as winning two Junos and a Songwriter of the Year for it.

The next logical step is adding it as a film, and him as its creator, but there's no article for the film. The whole package is in the song article here. I can easily see someone deleting it for this reason, and that's three strikes for me. So I'll ask first. Is this a notable film, novel, album, concert, lesson plan, political movement, spiritual awakening, conceptual art project or something else?

I know the Hip, First Nations and Canadian politics aren't big abroad, so a lot of editors might not see it as anything more than an obscure musician hopping onto another social justice bandwagon. But up here, he's more popular than Trump and the Queen combined, and (for the moment) even bigger than hockey. This...thing is widely covered across Canadian media as a major part of his legacy (ask Google), and it'd be weird to not mention it, in some form or another. But how? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is if Secret Path is really demanding of a mention. I really don’t believe it is. It is inherently a concept album with a lot of added features with it. Kinda like something Pink Floyd would do, but it was only released last year and isn’t really a substantial part of his career, which is why I changed his reading to musician. TTH is what he’s most noted for and I feel is the only needed aspect to mention here as well as his activism. I get that the album was ultimately his final work, but it doesn’t make it a notable one. Rusted AutoParts 09:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only released last year, but used by about 40,000 teachers already. I watched The Wall, but it was in an elective class in high school (twenty-some years later), and that particular teacher just liked it. It wasn't a curriculum thing, it filled the time.
I still don't get the "musician" change. If we're only counting his Hip stuff, he's only known for singing and writing. A bit of harmonica and tambourine, but who can name those tracks? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not we’re only counting his Hip stuff, just more reflecting he did more than singing. In his info box image Downie seems to be playing guitar so it’s fair he did more than just sing.
And in terms of worldwide wikis Secret Path is only on this one, so it doesn’t appear it’s very widely known as of yet. Rusted AutoParts 11:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox picture is from a Gord Downie show, not a Hip show. Lots of things aren't on other Wikis. English is king, and the existence of an article here is good enough for the rest of these people. It's relatively more well known than the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you object to listing it as an example of activism? While not his best work musically or lyrically, it's directly responsible for his inclusion in the Order of Canada. It's no Order of Merit, but it's not chopped liver. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After a few days, the compromise (a musician who was active in reconciliation) seems good enough to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Putesky

Hi. I have noticed the DAOTD tag being inserted/removed/inserted/removed on an almost constant basis over the past 36 hours, with some conjecture over the validity of online news outlet San Antonio Current's reliability being expressed in edit summaries. Main claims are that they are merely repeating a death date reported by Jack Off Jill's Facebook page. Wrong. Jack Off Jill states no date of death at all in their one-line announcement - the announcement by them is MADE on the 22nd only, and consists of fond tribute, as you'd expect. So we should rightfully be in a position to consider the possibility that a) San Antonio Current has made an error in some kind of assumption, or b) that they have received information through some other source, a source they might see fit not to mention in their article. Whatever the ins and outs, as editors we are justified in confirming a DoD to our Deaths page here if we can show a reference to it in print by a reliable source. It's not our place to question how that reliable source obtains its information - Facebook, Twitter, or any other social media outlet. If they print a date of death, we are entitled to use it, unless it is clearly shown to be wrong by some other means available. What we clearly must avoid is an edit war over something that could so easily be a "wait-and-see" exercise, without undue impatience or self-righteousness being show by holders of either opinion. Ref (chew)(do) 18:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we shouldn't directly cite social media though in my opinion in this day and age a majority of sources can pick up news such as this from social media first so essentially so that's when I feel sources that cite social media are good to use, espeically if it's close family or friends. This site uses a post that informs Scott "passed away quietly this morning" (that morning being yesterday), so i used that as reasoning to remove the tag though in my edit summary it appears it didn't paste it in when i copied and pasted the url. So I apologize for that. Rusted AutoParts 18:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:FACEBOOK. I could agree that a bald statement of the DOD in a reliable source might scrape through, but in this case the provenance is clear. WWGB (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, that's clearly incorrect info on the part of San Antonio Current, if you take a look at the actual Facebook post! (I have, it's one short sentence and does NOT mention a DoD at all.) It's not personally an issue for me either way though - I just think the to-ing and fro-ing of the DAOTD tag is pretty meaningless editing, and that there should be some kind of consensual agreement (here, hopefully) about how the subject line should look until there is clear confirmation forthcoming from another reliable source. Leave the tag out or leave the tag in, but stop reverting each other. Ref (chew)(do) 23:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post has now "put that to bed". Ref (chew)(do) 14:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_October_2017&oldid=1209479822"