Talk:Deaths in 2005/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sour Grapes Additions

Please REFRAIN from "sour grapes additions" to obituaries that somebody else has already posted.

If they got there first, you didn't.

If your addition has merit, on the other hand, please feel free; but it's really embarassing to see mature adults adding in so-called "important" or "left out" information, when its obvious to everyone else that you just would have liked to have been the one who broke the news.

WB2 07:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure to what you're referring, but listings here are quite often refined, since many forget to add appropriate commas, capitalizations, periods, brackets, nationalities, ages, causes of death, and occupations, and since alphabetizing seems rarer than I'd like it to be. All of these revisions, however minor, are important to maintaining consistency and a professional appearence on one of Wikipedia's main pages. Xoloz 05:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Then one would anticipate that they all would merit a similar attention; not just Brock Peters.

Please refer to my deleted entries here on the "history" tab.

I debated leaving them in or out; possibly I should have left them in?

Sussinctly: there is often an repugnant aire of "sour grapes"; I can't say it any better than that.

These people, as I've stated above, often couldn't care less about editing articles in general or/and brief entries.

They are just that: jealous that THEY weren't the ones who got there first, but I think that in this case I really should have been the one to break the news anyway.

WB2 06:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith please. People probably feel their additions are warranted. If you feel the additions are unnecessary you are free to remove them. Gamaliel 07:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm also not sure what you specifically are referring to, and its hard to go down the edit list and check diffs on Deaths because most of the editors don't put in edit summaries. I would hope that most of the updates here (including yours WB2) are done in good faith, and not to show how large someone's internet p3n1s is. I know most of my contributions to this page are just like Xoloz', commas, caps, alphebetize, links, disambigs. --Syrthiss 12:54, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Research reveals that WB2 is probably referring to an edit which altered his "Brock Peters, co-star, To Kill a Mockingbird" to read "Brock Peters, American actor..." [1]. In my opinion, this edit was appropriate, since the late Mr. Peters deserves notice of his entire career, including (perhaps especially) his role in Star Trek movies. :) In any event, I assure you that I pay equal attention to all listings, and would love to have a day where no revisions were necessary, because everyone remembered their alphabet. Xoloz 17:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course YOU feel that way; after all, YOU were the guy who put in the extraneous edits.

Sussinct should be succinct...

67.94.18.184 06:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Research also reveals that WB2 is right. This one person has had more attention paid to him than other important people.

67.94.18.184 06:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Correctors of others' spelling mistakes have to cop it on the chin too. Reasearch should be research. Cheers JackofOz 00:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, IP address person, the particular edit in question does not come from me, but from GusF. I'll also note in passing that you, oddly, have WB2's habit of indenting every sentence, which is unusual, and suggests... well... I'll allow people to draw their own inferences. Xoloz 07:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

To 67.94.18.184 : Why is WB2 right? Have a look at the other entries on the page. They follow a similar format - name, age, nationality, profession, main claim to fame, cause of death and in many cases external link to report of the death.

WB2 included the name (correct), age (correct) and "co star To Kill a Mockingbird" (still correct but not uniform with previous entries). User:GusF amended it to show the nationality and slightly reworded the description of his career so that it made clear his profession was "actor". User:Xoloz added the cause of the death and the external link. The additions weren't "extraneous" - they were adapting it to the same format and same level of completeness as every other item on the page. How exactly did that steal WB2's thunder? Why is it important who got there first - the edit history shows WB2 did get there first so what's the big deal? I would suggest you assume good faith that both GusF and Xoloz did no harm to the entry and merely standardized and completed it, which should be seen as a good thing. WB2 said "if the addition has merit... please feel free". I don't understand how the edits could be assumed to not have merit. Rossrs 07:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Or possibly I've adapted the habit fom you???

Other entries are not the same. Just read them and you won't find causes of death etc.

Also, "Xoloz" is the name of a Gang out here in Hollywood. Possibly there is another reason why I offered something here???

Construing the meaning of "good faith" won't get you anywhere as any prosecutor should tell you, but they probably won't because that's they're sore spot. IE, don't ever say "bad faith prosecution" or "demurrer" to a prosecutor.

67.94.18.184 05:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

To Kill a Mockingbird: great movie!

I confess honestly that I unable to make much sense of what 67.94.18.184 has said. However, just for the record, as far as I know, "Xoloz" has no meaning -- I chose the alias while in an altered state some years ago because it was short, and an uncommon combination of letters. If there is a gang by this name, I have no affiliation with them, but I think they have excellent taste in nonsense words, and I always welcome any new friends with excellent taste. :) Xoloz 06:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of any such gang, not that I'm well informed on that subject. I think the name is interesting - phonetically a pallindrome, but not. Unusual.  :-D Rossrs 13:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

67.94.18.184 : I can't imagine what habit you could possibly have adapted from me, and I don't mind not knowing. You didn't answer any of my questions, at least not in any form that I can comprehend, and that's fine. I don't understand most of what you've said, and once again, that's fine. I don't personally know any prosecutors that I can turn to for advice, and that's also fine. I do agree that To Kill a Mockingbird is great. A great story, beautifully filmed and movingly acted. Even if that's the only point we can agree on, and I suspect that it is, it's a pleasant enough point. Rossrs 13:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm back.....

He got you there though, didn't he Rossrs/Xoloz?

My parents personally knew Gregory Peck and several other celebs; that's the only.....

A sign of maturity (no pun intended) is to accept criticism and not view it as some sort of an attack or competition.

As the above "individuals" have stated, assume good faith, and please don't attempt to contrue "good faith" as meaning anything that YOU do alone.

And please, don't login with multiple pseudo user-names in an attempt to give yourself and others the illusion that you have the support of many people.

WB2 05:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

-------------------

What the ....? That doesn't even make sense. You've crossed the line when you accuse me of being a sock puppet, so I don't feel any obligation to be polite to you anymore. I'll just avoid you in future. I've been editing here for about 2 years, and have made about 6000 edits, and you're right - it's all been an elaborate ruse, cleverly anticipating the inevitable death of actor Brock Peters, and your personal attachment to him by virtue of the fact that your parents allegedly knew actor Gregory Peck, thus leading me to this moment of triumph. Bloody hell. All I can say is you and 67.94.18.184 have a highly unique and identical writing style, and I'm not going to be crazy enough to communicate with the two (or one) of you again. Rossrs 10:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think I have also been accused of being a meat-puppet. I must say, I'd be happy if I were, because I'd love to live in Australia, and Rossrs seems to have done fine work here. Alas, I am not -- as might one day be confirmed beyond doubt, if I succeed in having myself declared the ugliest man in Vermont. On the other hand, maybe every user on Wikipedia is the same person, and the entire massive site is the work of world's most variegated multiple personality sufferer? A great mystery, and epistemological conundrum, which I am sure wll never be answered to WB2's satisfaction. Xoloz 13:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course – :) and :-D – are not dissimilar either. Possibly you two should go to work for the FBI where you could put your "My Fair Lady" abilities to better use.

Such as...

Such as when identifying the true source of certain lyrics as opposed to those who claim to be their sources.

Then justice would reign supreme and none of us would have to worry since we would know that our FBI "always gets their man" and America truly is that great nation among nations as, even the lowly can count on justice there as opposed to being indiscriminately banished to some sort of a Tower or something where even his entire existence is effaced by those who promsed him that "one day" we will all rectify the situation.

What you are speaking of is known as ideosyncracies, and I must say, you "bashers" are very transparent to me, indeed.

When you say certain things such as "What the ....? That doesn't even make sense" when it clearly does; and then you end all of your statements with smilely faces, your identities can easily be proven in a court of law.

But that's not what I needed last time when I had you removed from the Internet, is it?

In fact, after you guys bashed Tony Rome – a sports reporter from out here in California – I think that it was actually HE that had your entire page removed from the Internet, wasn't it?

My suggestion is this: don't say nothin' back to me AT ALL!

I think this time the law enforcement is going to be rather angry, especially in light of the fact of all those dead people, "unclean hands doctrine", etc.

Good luck. 65.241.54.153 07:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Holy Cow!! I missed this gem for a whole 10 days before scrolling by. The quality of the above is self-evident. My admitted identity is available on my talk page. If the "secret police" were paying as much attention to me as (I think) you suggest, my rampant anger and frequent cursing of this person must have already sparked their interest. Fearlessly, I leave with a smile, whatever the law enforcement consequences may be. :) Xoloz 05:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• • It's an absolute jewel isn't it? Too cute for words. I don't really have anything to say, 10 days on and I'm no closer to deciphering it. I don't think the smartest man in the world could. But anytime's a good time for a smiley face and if I'm going to court I may as well give the FBI something to work with. So here it is - more unique than my fingerprints, it's my .......... Now, wait just a minute. That's not right. The one that can be legally identified as me is more like.... :-D That's better. Rossrs 10:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Britain's Oldest Person

• Florence Reeves was? Lucy D'Abreu [2] is 2 years older. Ben davison 10:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, Reeves is disputed, however, a BBC story supported her claim, and she is now freshly dead. In the spirit of decency, and since impractical primary source research would be needed to resolve any controversy firmly, I have called her "possibly" the oldest, with "claim in dispute." I suggest that this depicts the situation accurately and respectfully. Xoloz 23:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Primary source research has been done on the individuals in question. Lucy D'Abreu and Judy Ingamells, alive as of 31 Aug, are well documented -- Reeves was not even 2nd oldest in UK. BBC [3] has reported such. Note that Reeves' BBC claim is simply according to local MP. [4] Acctorp 02:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent Deaths is not the place to decide fine questions of source reliability, not in the least because it is somewhat unseemly to argue about the proper honor to be accorded a 111-year-old woman in the one line that constitutes her Recent Listing. There is a claim from an authority known to the public that she was the oldest Englishwoman; however dubious that authority, the claim is itself notable. If there are no objections, I could understand saying the claim was "heavily in dispute" or even "doubtful." Having a series of edits about whether she is the oldest Brit, oldest Engishwoman, second-oldest Brit, or second-oldest Englishwoman in her one-line listing here seems both disrespectful to her, and unresolvable in this inappropriate forum. I believe it is accurate to say: Reeves is notable for having been aged, possibly the oldest in England, although that claim is heavily in dispute. This summary avoids bickering about rankings in the "brief obituary" context. Anyone interested can click her article, where you are welcome to present a fully-sourced case. Does this make sense to you? Xoloz 03:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense to present a fully-sourced case in her article. Also, I agree your recent edit to "heavily in dispute" is accurate and factually correct. Keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidlines concerning disputed information which, if verified, would remain in the article [[5]], I'm keeping this on the talk page. I submit that the current edit factually affords this individual the honour and respect she deserves. Acctorp 21:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I see that someone else edited Mrs. Reeves yet again, and that you, Acctorp, did a very nice job revising to content that should never spark controversy, an edit which I fully support. Let's hope the matter is settled. Xoloz 02:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Geoffrey Donaldson

His own page says he died 31 August. Here it's 1 September. Which is correct? JackofOz 07:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

BBC says Aug. 31, so I have moved him; others corrected his name, which was John. [6] Xoloz 15:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Amaral

Cassio Raposo do Amaral, 62, Brazilian plastic surgeon and medical professor.

Why is this person here? I'm sure that he was well known by those in the field, but can normal people, who make up most of the readers of WP, be expected to know who he is?

• I'd give him the benefit of the doubt until someone submits a real case to remove him, assuming he is prominent in Brazil. He is not prima facie disqualifiable (as would be "Joe Sixpack, 30, town drunk"; or "Jane Doe, 88, my granny") and (although professors are not per se notable), professorships present a clear claim to notability. Certainly, "I haven't heard of him" is not a good case for removal. I haven't heard of about half our recent deaths, and I try to keep up on the news. :) Xoloz 20:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• • From what I understand if his death was national news in Brazil itself, then he deserves a mention here. Who knows what makes people famous in other countries. In the states all you have to do apparently is be a 17 year old girl and sing offkey. Williamb 18:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Death of Clave

Is this person the same as Antoni Clave (also 92) who appears in Deaths in late August? Seems too coincidental to be true. JackofOz 01:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Excellent catch. This google search [7] yields no conclusive evidence for one-name Clave, and many references to Antoni. Working on the principle that the editor with the more complete edit should be trusted regarding date of death, I'll remove him from August. Of course, anyone with knowledge that these are two different people, or that the death day is inappropriate, is welcome to edit as appropriate, with sources. Xoloz 02:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Baby Torres

[8] Clearly sad.

It is arguable whether this belongs here, but the mother's pregnancy was national news, and she has a standing wiki, so I think a report of the baby should be here. I do not think young Torres deserves her OWN wiki -- this many be a rare case where someone not independently notable deserves mention here, so that this page might offer good coverage of a "notable death" event. Xoloz 07:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

A bad week for porn stars

Sadly we lost two porn stars this week, Billy Steel on September 15, and Ghalia Hachem on September 13. Even sadder, I don't think either of these people ever existed (and if they did I apologise to their families).

A Google search turns up zero hits for either of them. Interestingly they managed to combine their porn careers with acting (Steel) and cabaret performances (Hachem), and despite their diverse talents still seem to have entered and left the world unnoticed by Google. Added by an anon otherwise I would have left a message at the contributor's talk page. I'd really like to see some proof of their lives before I'd accept any word of their deaths. Rossrs 07:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

That's why I always try to include a link to a page describing the death of a person - preferably a page on a site of a newsagency, (national) newspaper or television channel. For me, it also acts as a test for worthy inclusion. If no other media bothers reporting the death, Wikipedia probably shouldn't either. And if they do, Wikipedia probably should as well. There are exceptions of course, but it's a good rule of thumb. 193.172.135.148 11:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Russell Harris

I hesitated to add Russell Harris (24 September 2005) to the list. The guy himself isn't noteworthy, but his death - eaten by a crocodile - is. I wondered whether a remarkable death should be reason to include a person in this list, and then I noticed Herman Ashworth, who probably wouldn't have been listed if it wasn't for the way he died (execution). 193.172.135.148 10:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a very fine line sometimes but in this I think it was ok to add him. As you said his death is newsworthy, particularly as he's the second person taken by a crocodile in the region recently. (the other being a fisherman taken near Cooktown, Queensland in late August) Rossrs 13:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

In this American editor's opinion, any death reported by the BBC is most welcome here. The anemic, imbecilic state of my native press is often distressing. If the BBC issued a report of toilet flushing, I'd find it fascinating. :) Xoloz 16:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Sadowski

Greg Sadowski, 46, Inventor of the New York Kielbasa.

Well, I hesitate to remove this anon. contribution, but the nature of the claim to fame makes me want a source. Xoloz 15:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Same. I did a few searches on google and only got a Comic Book artist who was 24 in the 50's, and nothing linking Sadowski and Kielbasa. --Syrthiss 15:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)