Talk:Deaths in 2013/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Deaths in 2013. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

First Request of the Year

Can we request an admin to place protection on the page similar as to what it was last year. This new system is not working out at all. We have 5 or 6 people regularly vandalizing the page and I am getting edit conflicts (and a headache) from trying to work on the page. Thank you in advance. Sunnydoo (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Je suis totalement d'accord! However, I get a little warm & fuzzy when anything of mine gets "accepted". I applied to become a Reviewer for just this reason, as one day I was in a traffic jam. — Wylie pedia 13:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The wheel in the sky...

...keeps on turning. — Wylie pedia 02:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. Must be nice to live in an ivory tower. So we are the #3 destination on Wiki and he wants to blow us up and rebuild us into a shadow of our former self and completely disassemble the archive we have created? 'How wonderful'. Sunnydoo (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Rizana Nafeek

For Rizana Nafeek, to "Sri Lankan domestic helper, execution by beheading", I added "in Saudi Arabia" to clarify who killed her and where. It was reverted with the comment "Unnecessary info". I contend this info is no different than adding "suicide" (specifying the killer as the person themselves) to a death by gunshot. It's certainly an important piece of information in a fairly controversial story – "Saudi Arabia" appears in almost every headline. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say that you are going about it wrong. I would do it like Sri Lankan-born Saudi Arabian domestic helper...if you tag the end it is unnecessary info in terms of cause of death as it doesnt matter where a person dies. However if you wish to make it relevant, I would put it in the Country of Citizenship category as it is relevant to where she carried out her business and the events that occurred.Sunnydoo (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

She was never a Saudi citizen. She was just a visiting guest worker. WWGB (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

While that is probably true, issue of citizenship is rarely that formal in our little soiree. I doubt many of the Roman Catholic clergy, Jewish citizenry and other people famous in one country have citizenship in that country and not in their home country. I have always regarded the "Country of Citizenship" clause we have as where a person was born (for natural citizenship) and what country they were famous in then the why. If thats incorrect then we need to start inspecting Naturalization documents and birth certificates ;p. And then the can of worms gets opened up like the American actress I added today that was famous in Spain and married a Spaniard...Would we have to note both of her countries of citizenship? Well we already do...but what if she married a Frenchman instead...Would it be an American-born, French-citizen, Spanish actress? Dont think it needs to be that precise. I think we are fine with either Famous in whatever country or current country of residence.Sunnydoo (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I see, so by that reasoning Mohamed Atta was American ("country they were famous in"). Interesting ...... WWGB (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No that would not be the case because he was as famous all over the Middle East for that act as he was in the US. You can find an exception and hyperbole for just about every case in the World now. But by in large part in over 95% of the cases what I said is true barring these 1 offs and people seeking health remedy in hospital outside of their homeland. Are you really telling me that you believe every Roman Catholic Archbishop we have has citizenship of the country they practice in and does not use Vatican authority to conduct their duties? And I will give you a good for instance, although several come to mind, I will use a recent example from November 2, Han Suyin...we have her listed as Chinese-born British writer. However, she died in Lausanne, Switzerland. She had originally married a British citizen and was famous from her days in London. However for the last half century of her life, she was married to a citizen of India and maintained a citizenship from Switzerland. We dont have her listed as Swiss or as Indian even though she had citizenships of both countries and hadnt lived in London since the early 50s. By your logic we should have her listed as Chinese-born, British/Indian/Swiss author. What sense does that make?

Another one that will come up is Olivia de Havilland. She was born in Japan to British parents, became world famous from Hollywood and now lives in France where I believe she holds citizenship since the 1950s. But I wouldnt list her as French...it would be Japanese-born, French/British-citizen, American actress. Nina Simone? She was born in the US and we have her listed as a such in 2003, but she moved to France after resigning her citizenship and a French moniker was added. Gerard DePardieu? Is he Russian now? What it comes down to is an editor making a rational decision with reason and support of the community. Starting an edit war like we had tonight is not conducive to anyone. I was offering a reasonable solution to the problem.Sunnydoo (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

And one more thing, sometimes you simply dont know and take a best guess. Tonight I added Bhava Kanta Saikia. He wrote 2 books that dealt with social relations specifically African-Americans and Indians in US Society. He moved to the US permanently in 1991 from the article. But it says nothing about whether he adopted US Citizenship, held a Green Card for Foreign residence, etc. But both of his books dealt with the US not India and the audience was definitely American. That is why I listed him as Indian-born American author. Simply listing him as an Indian author is doing a dis-service to our community of readers who scan the page.Sunnydoo (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

January 8th 2013 - Patsy Sutton, 76, wife of former college basketball coach Eddie Sutton

Hi

Surely the wife of a notable person is not automatically notable? One cannot be notable by association, or through some sentimental processing. As there is no prospect of her redlink becoming anything but that, please consider removing this entry. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

My experience here is to be more tolerant of redlinks during the current period of the announcement and to remove redlinks when the month archives. I don't think it's an impossibility for an article to be created for her as well. --My76Strat (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability is generally not given by association to marriage. Four exceptions I can think of are First Lady's and other important political figures, Titled such as Duke and Duchess, and 2 exceptional cases when a wife would step in to preserve a husband's legacy like Dana Broccoli or Roy Orbison's wife or in the case of being a Muse of a famous literary or artistic art piece with clear lines of provenance. An example would be Sara Lownds, who was married to Bob Dylan and was the object of several of his songs such as Sara. But the last 2 are very rare. WWGB has already whacked it.Sunnydoo (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Didn't mean to cause a fuss, if any. My experience, throughout all Wikipedia not just here, is to frown on frivolous redlinks, and certainly to look for notability to be proven as early as possible, rather than later. Subject closed? Thank you all. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Some entries sneak in and, when they do, we have a talk page for people like you to ask about them. No fuss at all. We give some leeway for redlinks, but not much. — Wylie pedia 16:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Question

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Question Werieth (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(Added below by Wylie pedia)

Not sure if this is the right place, but I have two issues.

Deaths in 2012 is a redirect while Deaths in 2013 isn't. Shouldn't it just be a conglomerate article transcluding the individual months (really improves readability and centralizes things)
Deaths in 2013 is listed in a very odd way (new items at the top) standard format is to add new things to the bottom of documents.

Can I get the thoughts/reasons for this particular change in structure? Werieth (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You are more likely to get a response to this as Talk:Deaths in 2013. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Deaths in 2013 is an evolving article, a "work in progress", so it is given room to grow month by month. It is listed top down as most readers are interested in recent deaths, so placing them at the top of the article makes them easy to find. Deaths in 2012, on the other hand, is an "archived article", so it is filed and looks somewhat different. WWGB (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Also note that we only list the current month of 2013 here, which is currently January. We will leave January here for seven days into February for those who wish to include deaths learned within the last week of January. Then, January will have its own "Deaths" article. If we have a "conglomerate" article with our current setup and include all months of the year here, we would have a very unwieldy and long-load-time page. Links to the individual months can be found at the bottom of the page. The main year page (2013) has a monthly listing of deaths, but their requirements for addition are more stringent than here. — Wylie pedia 06:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Weird death

This does not meet notoriety requirements to be added to the article. But I have to say, this is truly an original way to go and I dont think I have ever heard of such a thing as this before.Those with weak stomachs or get grossed out easily may not want to read this. Seeing this made me think of the topic WWGB brought up last year about people dying in a notable way. I thought a few of you (especially you defenestration people) would find this interesting.Sunnydoo (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't even work. This page doesnt have references--Mjs1991 (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Wylie pedia 09:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Didnt realize that, but its good to know.Sunnydoo (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And hey, when ya gotta go... Wylie pedia 09:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's not fit for this article, but perhaps it is fit for the List of unusual deaths article. I don't frequent that page a lot. And they seem to have a lot of arguments about what is and what is not an unusual death (and, therefore, what does or does not merit inclusion in that article). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability

Just discovered this article. The lead tells me it's "a list of notable deaths in 2013". I had noticed an awful lot of redlinks, and wondered if we have a special, local definition of notability. Clicked on Edit, and found "entries must be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article". A redlink means no article. What's going on? HiLo48 (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the red links on here, have blue links on the other language Wikipedia's. This gets people to translate.--Mjs1991 (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The standard practice is that a death reference that meets notoriety is listed despite colored link. A link has 30 days from time of death to become a blue linked article. If it does not, the red link is removed from the list. There are a number of reasons for red links. Wiki has only been around a limited number of years and there are several generations who have notable members that dont have articles written about them until they die. So in 1 way it encourages article writing and Wiki completeness. Good examples are previous members of the legislatures, older actors/singers and scientists. I can recall someone last year that was instrumental in the a vaccine process that died (which probably saved millions of lives and disfigurements) that didnt have an article. She was around 103 and no one had gotten around to an article for her. The same thing can also be said about foreign language figures. Often times someone may die in Romania, Brazil, etc. and not have an English reference and still be notable.Sunnydoo (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As for notability, we are a little more lenient than other areas. Typically if a death is covered by a Wire Service or by several newspapers in different locales, that person will usually make the list. Also certain people who participate in groups will also make the list. These can include musical band members who are regarded separately from the band, members of prestigious and notable military groups (Tuskegee Airmen, Easy Company, there was a Kiwi tribal death that I noted in October from the forces that fought Rommel) or any members of Parliament of state/foreign governments such as India, Iraq, etc. Usually a red linked name will have a description of why they are on the list. There was a Welsh inventor from this week who devised the Electronic Breathalyser. While his name may not have been a household name, the product he designed has been used by millions probably.Sunnydoo (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sunnydoo, that all sounds terrifically reasonable, but the instructions do say "entries must be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article". I do like the idea of encouraging the creation of articles. HiLo48 (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think "to have" suggests that an article must exist or be able to be sustained in the future. I don't read it the same way as "entries must have their own Wikipedia article". WWGB (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. That was the case I was making. By your interpretations HiLo, many members of State Legislatures (as an example) would not be admissible. There are several Wiki projects going on with these right now to create articles. We have one gentleman (RFD) who does an excellent job of going behind us that create the initial entry and makes sure each of these guys gets at least a stub article for his state and position. The same is true for an Olympic team we have (and I apologize for not remembering your names) and for a team that focuses on Catholic priests (I havent seen much of them lately, I hope they are OK). One of the really rewarding things for digging up a lot of these names is to see how many of my links go from Red to Blue in a week and in a month. I am shocked sometimes by the enthusiasm of the other editors out there to help complete the gaps in info. If you need to see what a gap might look at, pick a state and then pull up its Legislature. Depending on the State, they have from 50-200 politicians sitting in office at a time. But just about every state that I have looked at barely has 100 names in the total for the history. So I make sure I cover that when digging. And that just isnt for the Legislatures. There are many other gaps that need to be filled, so its kind of like working on a Chain gang filling pot holes. You dont think about how many there are, you just shovel the dirt and move on to the next one. Eventually we will get there.Sunnydoo (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And the other thing is that we need to be sensitive to other cultures which is an ongoing Wiki subtext. In the past we have gotten extremely critical messages left via our feedback mechanism because we 'ignored' certain cultures particularly sub-Saharan Africa. It wasnt an intentional slight but a combination of things. Many Africans do not have access to the internet. Many of the ones that do dont speak English and there are not a lot of articles out there made for/by them. There has been a conscious effort by some editors (and I am one of them) to sweep sites like AllAfrica and papers out of Zimbabwe and S. Africa daily to get some of these important Africans included. Yesterday for example I added an Ugandan industrialist. One of his companies makes most of the plastic utensils and plates for the entire Continent, yet there isnt a Wiki for him or his company. He also owned several other companies that did other things. That to me is notability and if it was a literal interpretation, he probably wouldnt have been included.Sunnydoo (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And not to beat this to death (this comes up quite often and its really not a problem as we encourage the dialogue here), see WP:Notability. Some people get Notable and Famous confused. There are stark differences between the 2- you can be one or the other or even both, but all 3 qualify. Some of the requirements are things I have mentioned: Significant Coverage (Wire Service or multi-newspapers), context (the why they are here), easily verified (why we have citations), notability isnt temporary (which we try hard to avoid and in some cases upset people over victims of plane crashes, terrorist attacks and things like Sandy Hook). Just put in WP:Notability in the box up top and it will bring up the entire policy and lists of topics.Sunnydoo (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not debating notability. I agree that it can be achieved, and should be able to justified, in many ways. But those very clear words say "entries must be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article". To argue that one can interpret those words in less than obvious ways should be unnecessary. Are they really the best words that we can come up with? HiLo48 (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the issue. Those words are clear and straightforward. To me, they say: "to be notable, a person must warrant a Wikipedia article, which may or may not yet exist". At this exact moment in time, we can't have an article for every single notable person in the world. Correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Why don't we use words more like those you just used? HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Only an admin can edit that page notice. Perhaps they are watching ..... WWGB (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Can an admin please make the words more clear (less ambiguous) on the page notice for this article, according to the above discussion? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Done The wording now reads "This list includes all biological deaths (human, animal, and other living things), and entries must be notable enough to warrant their own Wikipedia article, whether or not that article currently exists. If you are here to remove an entry, please ensure that you apply this accepted standard." —Darkwind (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Cause of death

What is the general practice in this article, when someone is murdered? Do we use the term "murder"? Or "homicide"? Or something else? Is there some accepted practice at this page? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Its by method. Shot, stabbed, bludgeoned, hung, etc. This keeps coming up, but its a good question and I will explain again. There are 5 Medical Examiner classifications of Death- Homicide, Suicide, Natural, Accidental and Unknown. That classification is then broken down into primary and secondary causes of death. So for a Natural Cause death, the primary cause could be Cancer, Heart Attack, Stroke, etc. Homicide and Suicide we do by method, with Suicides being listed to distinguish them from Homicides. Why? Well there are many more Homicides than Suicides in the world. So Suicide by defenestration, hanging, gunshot, poisoning, etc. Homicide by method as cause. Accidental we normally have the vehicle type, but most are TRAFFIC COLLISIONS...this keeps us from having to separate lingo (lorry, auto, etc) and puts it altogether. We also dont use accidents or crashes because of connotations of those words. There are other types of accidents and they are just listed by nature as they are explanatory i.e. falls, drowning, etc. Unknown are very rare and usually left blank until the Coroner/M.E. fills in a reason.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And one other thing on secondary causes...sometimes the M.E. is unable to tell which underlying condition causes a death. There was a singer this week who had both heart failure and diabetes. The M.E. then rules that both secondary causes contributed to the death and both would be listed for causes here. Sunnydoo (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In terms of Joseph's specific question, we don't report homicide/murder as that is a legal decision generally unknown at the time of death. Hence just shooting/stabbing/whatever ... WWGB (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree with that statement. Many many cases it is known that it is a homicide. Car bombs, roadside bombs, military actions including drone strikes, shootings particularly assassinations are all known within hours of the death. Typically in the US and most Western countries, a preliminary Coroner's report in such cases is completed within 24-48 hours because the apprehension of the parties responsible is imperative early on. If anything, its the accidental and underlying causes that drag out like the cancer death of Jack Klugman or toxicology reports for various singers we have had.Sunnydoo (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, all, and thanks. Maybe my question wasn't clear, so I will clarify. Let's say that we know that the person was murdered. No question, no doubt. Given that ... do we say "murder" or "murder by XYZ method" or "homicide" or "homicide by XYZ method" or what? That is what my original question was asking. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Neither. Just how the person was killed. Shot, stabbed, bludgeoned, bombing, etc. There is no mention of homicide or murder as those are Classifications, not causes of death.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I see. If, indeed, that is the practice here ... I am not sure that this practice makes any sense. For example, let's say that the murder is a "shooting". How would the Wikipedia reader know if the shooting were murder, homicide, or suicide ... just by seeing the word "shooting" in the one-line bio? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats why I gave you the long explanation. Murder=Homicide (they are the same thing). Homicide only has method listed, so we would say he was 'shot', 'stabbed', 'poisoned', etc. We signify Suicides by method and title. So if he shot himself, it would be 'suicide by gunshot'. You assume its a homicide unless listed as a suicide just because there are so many more on this page than the other.Sunnydoo (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I understand what you are saying. And perhaps so do the regular editors here on this page. But my question is: how does the average Wikipedia reader know the distinction that you mention? If they (the average readers, who are not regular editors on this page) see the word "shooting" in a bio, why would – or should – they assume that it's a murder and not a suicide or homicide? They wouldn't. Also, murder and homicide are not the same things. Homicide is when one human kills another, whether legally or illegally. The illegal homicide is the "murder". A "legal" homicide might be: a cop kills a suspect; a homeowner kills an intruder in self-defense; the state of Texas executes a criminal; etc. There are instances where it is perfectly legal for one human to kill another; these are "homicides". Only when that homicide is illegal is it deemed a "murder". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Semantics. I think that is splitting hairs way too fine. If a person wants to see the details surrounding a person's death, they only need to clink the link or attached article.Sunnydoo (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, the entire issue is semantics ... i.e., how we word the one-line bio here. You state: "If a person wants to see the details surrounding a person's death, they only need to clink the link or attached article." How is that different in a murder case, homicide case, or suicide case? Why the distinction here, on this page? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What happens is you start having an issue every time someone kills someone with a drone strike or in a war or an execution. You will have one side arguing its murder and one saying its homicide. And if you take this out, why do we not list Natural Cause deaths as Natural Causes by cancer or heart attack, etc etc. Suicides are listed to distinguish between the 2 for the reasons above. Deciding what is a homicide and a murder is really beyond our scope. Putting homicide up for every entry or natural causes or whatever is just going to take up a lot of space without really adding a lot of value. This is another reason why I was pushing for an FAQ page so that we could have this all explained if someone needed to know it.Sunnydoo (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but it's not really addressing the issue. If (and I said "if") we have trouble distinguishing between homicide and murder, we can always use the word homicide. All murders are homicides. In other words, murder is a subset of the larger, more general category of homicide. My problem is that a typical reader will not / cannot distinguish between homicides and suicides when they see the death as "shooting" (or whatever). So, why are suicides specifically listed as suicides, but homicides are not? (A) There is no valid reason for this distinction. And (B) the typical reader will not understand what the death was all about if they just see the word "shooting". Perhaps, we can set up an FAQ. And, perhaps, we can address this specific issue / inconsistency. It does not serve the reader, it only confuses the reader, I think. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. There have been a grand total of 6 suicides the entire month so far. I will do a count for December of Suicides v. Homicides but I dont expect it to be much better.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point. The numbers are completely irrelevant to the point I am making. How does the reader know it's a suicide versus a homicide? Yes, I understand that you (a regular editor) will recognize the difference. But, how will they know? They won't. A phrase like "shooting" does not tell them that (critical) information. If it's a "mountain out of a mole hill" (i.e., an insignificant matter), then I am sure that you don't mind if we change the practice to my liking, and away from yours. Correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but you dont realize how infinitesimal suicides are. There is a reason we designate suicides and not homicides. Last month we have 10 current suicides (which may turn out to be 9 b/c 1 is on red link) out of 523 deaths. That is 1.9%. That means for every 100 or so deaths, 2 of them are suicides. This is also the peak time for suicides considering that the Northern Hemisphere (which has more people in it) is in Winter. I would suspect following Suicide rates that the number is actually lower in the summer time. What you are suggesting is that we take the 30-35% of homicide deaths and mark them up. That will add even more load time, take up even more space on the page (which will get our clutterites who want to graphitize the page going again) and start issues on murder, homicide, etc. We dont use classifications for Accidental deaths. We dont use classifications for Natural Cause deaths. Lets say someone throws someone down the stairs. You want to mark it up as 'homicide by throwing down the stairs.' Ok then what happens when someone falls next. If its suicide, it becomes 'suicide by fall,' which it already is. But then you have to start classifying Accidental deaths too, such as 'Accidental by falling down the stairs' to differentiate from a suicide or homicide. Then you might as well just use all 5 classifications because you are now using 3 of them. And it just keeps adding and adding.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point about not wanting to do it. Load times, suicides are low numbers, etc. But, you still keep avoiding my question. How does the reader know? They don't. And why should they not know? Please answer that question: how would the reader know? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The reader knows because Suicides are listed as such when they occur. All of the other occurrences would just be homicides. If a person sees someone is shot in the newspaper, on the news, etc. that usually implies someone shot them. When you hear on the news someone shot himself that implies suicide. I dont think when there is a shooting downtown in some city outside a club, hey thats a weird place for someone to commit suicide. No, the first thing I think of is someone shot someone else. Same here no difference.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, you are missing my point. You keep saying this statement: "If it's a suicide, we list it that way. If it's a homicide, we don't". You say that rule as if everybody knows it exists, including the page's readers. Just because you know that this rule exists, does not mean that all the other readers know about it. So, again, how does the reader know this? How does the reader know that this "rule" exists? Let's say that I am a reader, and I see "shooting". Why would I say to myself: "Well, if it were a suicide, they would probably list the word suicide ... but if it's a homicide, they probably don't list the word homicide ... so I will just assume it's a homicide." You have this "rule" in your head ... because you edit this page a lot. So, again, how does the reader know about this "rule" or convention? They don't. That's the issue and the problem. When a reader reads one entry, they read that one entry. They don't scan the rest of the page to compare that one entry's conventions to all the other entries on the page. The one entry stands alone. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

And you keep missing my point. Lets say you listen to the radio tonight at 10 pm for the news. The headline going into the main news says, "Man shot and killed in pub on Main St." Now. Do you say to yourself....A) this is a homicide, B) this is a suicide or C) this was an accident. The answer is the most likely scenario- just as it should be on this page.Sunnydoo (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous point. Most people commit suicide in some private location (e.g., their house or a desolated park), outside of the view of many others (so that no one will interfere with their suicide plan). Similarly, most people commit murder in some private location (e.g., the victim's home or job), outside of the view of many others (so that they don't get caught and so that that no one will interfere with their crime). So, the victim of a "shooting" (whether murder or suicide) is likely found in some isolated spot, with no one else around. Your example of the rare instance where it occurs in broad daylight in a highly populated pub is simply ridiculous. Your example is also ridiculous for the following reason. If the radio announcer says, quoting you, "Man shot and killed in pub on Main Street" ... clearly, the radio announcer is announcing a homicide. If he were announcing a suicide, I am quite sure that the radio announcer would use different words, such as "Man shoots and kills himself in pub on Main Street". Your points and supporting examples are ludicrous. And, if I am making a mountain of a molehill – per your prior post – what is the big deal? Let's just change it to make it my way, instead of your way ... yes? Or perhaps, it's not really a mountain of a molehill, when you look at it that way. Correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Plus, you keep avoiding answering my question. How is the reader of this page supposed to know what is "common knowledge" to you? Namely, the conventions of the page when it comes to distinguishing suicide versus homicide. You cannot answer that question, other than to make the argument "Well, I, Sunnydoo – a regular editor on this page – know that ... so, geez, can't everyone else just figure that out, too ... including the average reader who does not regularly edit this page?". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Since nobody else has commented in a while, and the above is starting to get TLDR ... For the headline, I'd prefer the more rigid coroner's classification system. Buried in the above arguments is the problem of drone strikes (more generally, casualties of war) and executions, where calling them "murders" includes a moral judgement, and most certainly pisses off 25–75% of the readers, depending on the country. The simple categorization of either suicide or homicide, depending only on whether it was self-committed, is much "cleaner". In the case of homicide, I wouldn't mind specifying who did it, if known, and let people draw their own conclusions about the morality of it; This was, however, argued against (if not somewhat meanderingly) above in the case of Rizana Nafeek. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the above was getting wordy and lengthy. In a nutshell, I proposed that a death should be listed (for example) as "homicide by shooting" or "suicide by shooting". The other editor agreed with "suicide by shooting". For "homicide by shooting", the other editor disagreed, stating that the "homicide" word should be implied by the reader and that "shooting" was sufficient to list. I disagreed, stating that while the average editor who regularly contributes to this page might reasonably make such an assumption, the average reader of the page would not have any basis for that assumption. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Joseph, how would you propose to report these deaths, all of which are "homicide"?

Eifan Saadoun Al Issawi, 37, Iraqi politician, MP for Fallujah, bombing.[1]
Rizana Nafeek, 24, Sri Lankan domestic helper, convicted of murder in Saudi Arabia, execution by beheading.[2]
Maulvi Nazir, 37–38, Pakistani militant commander, drone strike.[3]

I have been staying out of this discussion, but when I see "shooting" or "stabbing" I just figure "someone got him!". That's why we qualify if it was accidental or suicide. I don't see anyone (else) expressing confusion about the current method. We also have to be cautious about WP:OR. Unless the reference cites murder/homicide, we cannot assume that. WWGB (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else facing this?

Everytime I am editing this article, I am facing "Wikimedia error"- only in this page, page length might be an issue! Anyone else facing this? --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Everytime I add or compare revisions. It's a Wiki-server problem. Too many people adding/checking WP and big articles like this use lots of bandwidth/space. That's why the error messages suggest donating to Wiki to increase server speed. And I don't remember errors here with the old format last year. — Wylie pedia 13:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Someone add this to the 22nd please:

Margareta Teodorescu, 81, Romanian chess player.^[1]

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I am boldly implementing a simpler inline reference style, without use of the cite news template, to try and speed up loading time. The reference is in the form <ref>[url & title]</ref> which still meets the "requirement" of an inline reference. Without some kind of intervention this article is rapidly grinding to a halt. Editors will simply give up if they keep getting an error message when trying to make a reasonable post. If this change does not improve response speed, we must consider returning to "bare" URLs which never caused the sorts of problems we have now. WWGB (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

WWGB is my hero, if the plan works! — Wylie pedia 04:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Review process

Can we please get rid of this [expletive] novelty? When the refs start stacking up, the page slows down, then we have to take time to approve someone's addition, which, by my estimate, the majority of are fine? We've survived the end of the world last year without it and can manage. — Wylie pedia 13:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree The simple protected page format worked fine and it enabled an autoconfirmed editor to check all the facts before adding the entry to the page. I've done a few pending changes review approvals, but regularly get edit conflicts and other problems, whilst I suspect the Pending Changes sytem significantly increases load time.

Wikipedia:Pending changes specifically states:-

"Intended for infrequently-edited articles that are experiencing high levels of such problematic edits from new or unregistered users, pending changes protection can be used as an alternative to semi-protection and full protection"

There is no way this is an "infrequently-edited article", so why was Pending Changes protection chosen, when it is specifically not "intended" for a page like this? - Arjayay (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

References

What's going on with the references? Somebody is changing the references from the proper style to a simple short style--Mjs1991 (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Look above at "Anyone else facing this?" — Wylie pedia 07:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Distinguishing British passings.

There's alot more to Great Britain than just being "British". There's the Welsh, the English and the Scottish. I feel that we should post their entries by that, not just "British". Robin Sachs is just one example. He was born in England, so we have him as English. RAP (talk) 23:01 18 February 2013 (UTC)

An important consideration here is Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. It recommends that we should use British, or English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh, according to how the individual identified. Robin Sachs was English AND British, though his passport would have identified him as a British citizen. Even the BBC refers to him as a British actor. The standard applied here over many years has been to use British as the default nationality, unless the deceased was strongly identified with one particular country. WWGB (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Listing of Vietnamese names

I am seeking opinions (and hopefully consensus) on the correct way to list a Vietnamese name. Nguyen Van Mau had the family name Nguyen. He is listed alphabetically in Category:Vietnamese Roman Catholic bishops under "Nguyen". Another editor prefers to list his death under "M" [4]. I believe the death should be listed under "N". Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

M. See Vietnamese name. — Wylie pedia 08:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Notable animal death

Empress the Pig has passed. Apparently she made several memorable television appearances in England on a comedy series titled the Empress of Blandings which is a BBC show. She must have an article before she can be added and I know very little about this subject. If someone else would like to tackle, by all means go for it. http://www.impartialreporter.com/news/roundup/articles/2013/02/21/399963-blandings-star-empress-dies-days-before-final-episode-is-aired/Sunnydoo (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, as with any budding or new "celebrity," several appearances on one show do not an article make. Someone could attempt one, but I don't see it lasting a ~~month~~ week. — Wylie pedia 16:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

BBC article regarding her demise- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21571581 Sunnydoo (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's see:

She lived on the grounds of Crom Castle.
She was very flatulent while alive.
She loved to sleep 20 hours a day.
She died of an apparent heart attack.

I don't see why an article couldn't be done on her! </sarcasm> Wylie pedia 09:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You could say that about a lot of the animal television celebrities like Mr. Ed for instance- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo_Harvester or who could forget Wilbur. My Mom's family all loved Green Acres and Petticoat Junction and I can remember some good times growing up watching it with my Grandpa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Ziffel But they do add something to our world and is more than worth the trouble if they cause us to laugh, etc.Sunnydoo (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Never a good argument. — Wylie pedia 00:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I dont buy that. A pig on one comedy show v. a pig on another comedy program where neither are featured. Yet one has an article and one doesnt. Also makes no sense mathematically speaking either. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Sunnydoo (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Qvack! (Hägar the Horrible, anyone?) 1) Try to list her here. 2) Try to make an article, mirroring Arnold Ziffel, using what references you can. (I will even allow my canned concise history above to be used.) Then, we'll see how long both last. P.S. "Arnold" won a few awards, I don't see any for the subject in question, which is critical for something called "notability". — Wylie pedia 11:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I note that the Arnold Ziffel article does not have any references. There may be a moral in that. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes the moral is that we that we are both probably older than dirt to know who he is. I cant remember, did we even have Newspapers back then?Sunnydoo (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Sam Drucker's store was partly a newspaper office, so yes. Oh look, another unsourced article... — Wylie pedia 10:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

New Nationality Guideline

As many of you know that have been paying attention, there has been considerable disagreement over some of the Nationality assignments given some of countries and territories for those countries. I for one feel that several groups have been held to a different standard than some other groups even though there Territorial distinction was the same by the Constitutional standard. WWGB and I have been discussing the issue and today we have decided to go to whomever issues the Passport that is accepted internationally will be the country given the distinction of nationality. This is going to cause a very sensitive stir at first especially since some of the Territorial statuses are awkward even in their own countries. It basically worked into 3 categories- Option 1) Listing Nationalities by Country & Territory, Option 2) Listing Nationalities by Country, or Option 3) Listing Nationalities by Territory. And the 2nd Option was chosen based on Issuing body of the Passport.

I have come up with a partial list below (I am sure more will need to be added) with the Country that will be used for Nationality listed first followed by the subsequent territories.

United States- Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, All Indian Nations, Midway, Wake, US Virgin Islands and the Northern Marianas. (See United States passport; yes most Indian nations do issue their own passports, however they fail to meet recognition with foreign states of government. This is also the case with indigenous tribes from Canada.)

Canada- All Indian Nations whether in or out of the main governing treaty

China- Hong Kong, Macau

Britain- Falkland Isands, Akrotiri, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, St Helena, South Georgia, Sandwich Islands, Turks and Caicos and Northern Ireland (verified from wiki UK passport page that they issue passports to citizens of NI).

Denmark- Faroe Islands

Spain- Canary Islands, Basque territory

France- Fr Polynesia, St Barts, St Martin, St Pierre, Miquelon, Walls and Futana, Guadeloupe, Fr Guyana, Martinique, Mayotte, Reunion and New Caledonia (vote scheduled later this year on autonomy)

Australia- Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, Cocos Island, all Aboriginal Tribes

Sunnydoo (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Some of these countries, such as Puerto Rico and Hong Kong, send a team to the Olympic games. For sportspeople most editors use the country they represent at international level. Another problem with your proposal is nationalism e.g. some people in Northern Ireland regard themselves as Irish and may slightly object to being described as British. This is true of many of the countries you have listed. Racklever (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm a full-blooded American with Irish roots and would completely object. — Wylie pedia 10:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

And I understand that. Likewise I am sure a lot of indigenous people in the US and Canada reject the labels of those countries, as the activist Russell Means from a few months back would have. The problem with the current system is that you have 2 sets of rules that are being applied to different groups. It makes no difference to me which system we go with, but we cant have some people listed by territorial distinction while others are strictly listed by nationality as has been the case here in the past (particularly Hong Kong and indigenous tribes of the Americas). WWGB suggested the Passport system and while that may set some people off, it is the simplest solution to determine who is whom. The macabre comedy in all of this is that we are talking about less than 5 deaths per month, but somehow today which is the 2nd day of the system we had both a Puerto Rican and a person from Northern Ireland make the list. I am half-Irish and believe me I understand the political ramifications. But there has to be a fair system for everyone involved. If someone else has a solution feel free to propose it, but it has to be representative of everyone and not just select groups. Sunnydoo (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:UKNATIONALS#Guide to finding UK nationality makes clear that people who strongly identify as Northern Irish (or English, Scottish or Welsh) should be described that way, rather than British. Hong Kong issues different passports to China. WWGB (talk) 10:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

So why did you revert my Hong Kong edits in the past? And why did the American Indian Nations get reverted since they issued their own Passports as well? And what are we going to do since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_passports is different than the UKNationals article? This wasnt my solution to the problem and we need a definitive answer.Sunnydoo (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Please direct me to an example where I reverted Hong Kong to China. My point about passports has always been limited to recognised passports, not fanciful pieces of paper. WWGB (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok will do. There was a Singaporean TV star a couple of months back who was born in Hong Kong that you delisted to China. Let me find his entry. I also had a Macau entry about 4 or 5 months ago that you did the same thing to. And you also sidestepped the issue with N. Ireland...do you use passport or the UK National guide?Sunnydoo (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is your answer WWGB. 04:12, 8 January 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-16)‎ . . Deaths in 2013 ‎ (→‎6: Hong Kong is still China). Your edit and in your edit history. And please weigh in on Puerto Rico when you get around to it too please. (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You misrepresent me, sir. I did not "revert" anything here [5]. I simply removed Hong Kong(ian) as a citizen of Hong Kong remains a citizen of China. The qualification was and is unnecessary. WWGB (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not misrepresent anything and I stand by what I said. I had "*Leung Ping-kwan, 63, Chinese-born Hong Kongian author, lung cancer" listed. You changed it to "*Leung Ping-kwan, 63, Chinese author, lung cancer." You said above that Hong Kong has its own Passport system and should be listed as Hong Kong. Here is an exact case where you removed Hong Kong in favor of China. Do not question my ethics. You said "direct me to an example where I reverted Hong Kong to China." Well there you go, I did.Sunnydoo (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines reverting as "the page being restored to a previous version". I did no such thing. I merely edited an entry. WWGB (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Grasping at technicalities but the point is the same. The entry should not have been touched by your definition of the passport system. I am not trying to be argumentative about this. I just want a clearly defined system where everyone is treated equally. Saying things like "fanciful papers," makes me wonder if this is possible. I realize you are Australian and there are issues there with you guys and the Aboriginal authorities. But in Canada and the US there are clearly defined roles that are defined in treaties mostly because of our previous behavior towards the Indians. Our Congresses (or Parliaments) cant just order the Indians to do what they want them to do. It is a negotiation just like everything else within the Department of Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs involving Tribal Ambassadors (like the Cherokee Ambassador I listed) and government officials. The Indians have their own tribal lands and rights, including a gaming system that got a number of states to finally change their laws. They have their own legal system, can issue their own Tribal decrees and even issue their own passports, which is extremely difficult in a post 911 world. As for Puerto Rico, the citizens of the islands are issued Passports by the US State Dept. Yet we continually list Puerto Rico on here as if it is a Nationality. Rack pointed out they have an Olympic team. So what is the solution WWGB? Is it China or Hong Kong? Northern Ireland or Britain? American or Indian/Puerto Rican? Danish or Faroese? Sunnydoo (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

As with everything in Wikipedia, it's how they are described in a reliable source. WWGB (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

But we have shown here in this discussion that there are reliable sources on both sides. There is the UK passport site and the UK Nationality site. I showed you the other day the WP:Nationality on Indians of the Western Hemisphere and yet here there is argument the other way. And what about Hong Kong and China? Hong Kong is listed as a Special Administrative District on its wiki page. Is that enough to qualify it as its own Nationality? Puerto Rico is listed as an unincorporated territory of the United States. Does that qualify and why or why not? Northern Ireland is listed as part of the United Kingdom- which could also be either/or.Sunnydoo (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I am starting to think the only reasonable solution to this mess is if we list the Main Country and Territory for Nationality. Hence- Chinese Hong Kong, British Northern Ireland, American Puerto Rican, American Sioux, Canadian non-treaty, Danish Faroese, etc.Sunnydoo (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of talk pages used to be that editors suggest ideas, which are then discussed by interested editors, possibly suggesting counter-proposals or amendments, until consensus is, eventually, reached.

I then read at the top of this section

“WWGB and I have been discussing the issue and today we have decided to go to whomever issues the Passport that is accepted internationally will be the country given the distinction of nationality.”

At that point it appeared that the new way of deciding things is for two self-appointed editors to have a private discussion, and then hand down a “ruling” that they expect all other editors to follow.

Rather amusingly, subsequent edits seem to show that the self-appointed editors, don’t seem to be able to agree about what they agreed upon, and are wondering if they need to revise their decision. Perhaps we could go back to the old way – where someone makes a suggestion, and it is then discussed? - Arjayay (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I had no part in placing the "guidelines" in this section. I was asked for a personal opinion on my talk page, which I provided. My opinion on this topic clearly differs from Sunnydoo. WWGB (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification
Perhaps Sunnydoo would like to insert "Possible" at the beginning of this section's title, and explain his/her proposal for consideration by others? - Arjayay (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

That was not my intention to hijack the page Arjayay. This is the 3rd time this discussion has come up in 6 months. The last time when input was asked for (which I believe was November) the only people that participated in the discussion was myself, Joseph and WWGB. And nothing was settled. This is a problem that needs to be fixed and my attempt here was to push this to a logical conclusion of some kind. The Status Quo isnt working because it borders on racism and treats people inequitably which is clearly not Wiki is for and intended. The reason I sought out WWGB was that he is usually the Editor with the final say in the matter. He is the one that usually changes things (as I pointed out above) to whatever. That is why I enlisted his opinion which he stated he wanted the #2 Solution. You can review our discussion on his talk page. Sunnydoo (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Looked it up to make sure I was correct. The last time this came up for review was around the time Hector Camacho (from Puerto Rico) died in late November. Nothing was advanced out of that discussion. There was a brief tet a tet involving the Portuguese Azores in January, but it didnt make it to the Talk page as neither did the Chinese/Hong Kong example mentioned above. That was a purely back and forth between myself and WWGB outside of this page.Sunnydoo (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

And as for the proposal, the 3 options are clearly listed (ie #1 Country/Territory, #2 Country only, #3 Territory only). I would rather this be settled here in our soiree than having to take this discussion to another part of the Wiki site where people who dont necessarily frequent this page have a say in the matter. That usually leads to unintended consequences as the last go round with citations and a certain party came into being. Like I said earlier, I dont care which of the 3 it is because it treats everyone the same way. The only thing I have a problem with is the Status Quo which treats different groups differently even though they have the same distinction. That is one way racism and regionalism creeps in.Sunnydoo (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree the place to try and resolve problems with Deaths in 2013 is here at Talk:Deaths in 2013, but we still have to observe the more general Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If agreement cannot be reached here, then a WP:RFC may be required.

Although the majority of cases are fairly simple, so far, I am not convinced there is just one, global solution, which can be applied in all cases. As pointed out by WWGB above Wikipedia:UKNATIONALS#Guide to finding UK nationality has already been drawn up to deal with just one small, if often very vitriolic, aspect of this. However, this indicates the types of problems that arise from trying to force-fit everyone into one classification system.

Difficult cases often (but not always) relate to independence, or unification, movements. “British Northern Ireland” (as suggested above) is not a common phrase in the UK, and, attached to the death of someone who believed in the unification of Ireland, will lead to major disputes. Similarly, those striving for Kurdish, Punjabi, or many similar independence movements, do not wish to be labeled as Turkish, Pakistani, Indian or whatever country happens to be controlling their ancestors’ birthplace at the moment.

I appreciate that this can be seen as defining someone by their race, religion or politics, but if that is what they were best known for, or as, I see this as inevitable. Equally some of the combination titles proposed above, such as “Chinese Hong Kong” or “American Puerto Rican”, could be misinterpreted as racist. Sunnydoo is concerned about regionalism, as if this is necessarily a bad thing – is it? I don’t know the answer I’m just asking the question. Many parts of Wikipedia – e.g. categories, are trying to use more precise definitions.

Without a “system” there will inevitably be disputes, but a system will not stop disputes and there may possibly be more, due to the inflexibility of any such system. As anything agreed here will be, at best, a guideline, and not a policy, there will be lots of people citing the fifth of the five pillars : Wikipedia does not have firm rules. WP:IAR, so, even if they can be agreed, you cannot just cite the guidelines and assume that everyone will be willing to go along with them. - Arjayay (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

And I can appreciate that. One of the problems though is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Territories. You see down the right side Under Tier 1 it has Commonwealths and Indian Territories. Even though they are equal in status, we treat them differently on this page. And if you add Northern Ireland to this, they are treated like a Commonwealth (Puerto Rico), while Macau and Hong Kong are treated like the Indian Reservations. I can appreciate you guys bringing up the Northern Ireland thing (as I said, I am half Irish), but we had a case where one of the most vociferous Native American voices of the 20th Century died within the last 6 months and he was not given the honor of being listed as such but instead as American which he would have absolutely hated (see Russell Means). It is absolutely not fair that some people are afforded courtesies while others are not. If you go to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality page, it clearly states "This meaning of nationality is not defined by political borders or passport ownership and includes nations that lack an independent state (such as the Scots, Welsh, English, Basques, Kurds, Tamils, Hmong, Inuit and Māori).Individuals may also be considered nationals of groups with autonomous status which have ceded some power to a larger government, such as the federally recognized tribes of Native Americans in the United States."Sunnydoo (talk)

Personally, I have no problem in following WP:Nationality as it entirely supports my points above - I am, however, confused by this argument, as Sunydoo's previous post concludes "That is one way racism and regionalism creeps in." which appears to be arguing against the use of "groups with autonomous status" as are allowed in WP:Nationality.

Rather than just sticking with the three options identified by Sunnydoo, should we consider being more definitive? "Texan Senator" is punchier than "American, Senator for Texas". I realise that this could open the floodgates to arguments for smaller and smaller locations being used - but I think it needs to be considered, even if it is dismissed.

A different problem arises with people who have been known and identified by their ethnicity, or religion, rather than their nationality. There have been arguments here about "Jewish" rather than "Israeli", or "Jewish-American" - giving the religion higher priority than the nationality. Similarly, when Pope Benedict XVI dies, will he be "German pontiff", which is confusing as his role spread far beyond Germany, or "Catholic leader"? - Again, I'm not suggesting any solutions, but as a subject for discussion. Arjayay (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Benedict XVI, German-born Vatican prelate, 265th Roman Catholic Pope (2005–2013), Pope Emeritus (since 2013). WWGB (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Good to know the obit is already in the can ;-) - but it raises yet another question - when should we use birth place, rather than nationality? Arjayay (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Good question, it's always been there, if it differs from current nationality, for as long as I can remember. Why? I don't know ... Is it significant or important? Also dunno ... WWGB (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question Arjayay about the ending of my post. I am not arguing against the Policy, as it is not being used here. I am arguing against the Status Quo which helps support Racism and Regionalism. As I stated in my 2nd post, if you look up Nationality it clearly states that Passports are not the deciding factor and that American Indians among others should have their autonomy respected. As for your other question handling the Nationality and the birth status, it has always been there. It helps avoid edit wars and can help out with the Notability. There are many Americans that are famous in Europe but not so in the States, just as I am sure there are people from other Countries that are famous elsewhere but not in their home country. You also cant assume that they gave up their citizenship when they left one country to go to another. So in the best interest of everyone both are included. People get rather sensitive about famous people and where they were born, lived and died- which is why you can usually find all of that info in the bios.Sunnydoo (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Question on Alpha

I looked at the policies on Wiki and on the web but could not find one single convention to cover. My question is that on some of the European styled names, lets take de and De for instance, how do you alphabetize them? I have often gone by the old rule I learned in grammar school circa the early 1970s that if it is capitalized De it is filed under "D", but if it is the little "d" it is alphabetized under the next name like de Herrera would be under "H". Similarly, German or Dutch names like van der Wahl or Van der Wahl would go under "W" and "V" respectively. Does Wiki follow this convention? And another form for Scottish names- is Mc seen in Wiki as Mac or just as the Mc characters? Thanks.Sunnydoo (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen a concrete source as what to go by, but I have seen where, when they are "first mentioned", the "de or De" names should be considered De: Section 15-3. I also remember from a business course that I took that "Mc" names should be listed as pronounced, i.e "Mac". See Alphabetical order#M', Mc and Mac. However, "Macdonald" would always come before "McDonald".

Another question I have is shouldnt "Paul Bearer" be under "P" just like MC Hammer would be under "M". Titles and characters are different than regular surnames. It makes little sense that he is under "B".Sunnydoo (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That is my opinion also. — Wylie pedia 01:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Paul Bearer's name may be an assumed name, but it still has all the hallmarks of a standard "given-name + surname" type name. His article is riddled with references to "Bearer", just like "Smith" or "MacDonald", so the writers seem to think he's Mr Bearer. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably because constantly typing "Paul Bearer" there would seem redundant. That article also awkwardly switches from Moody ("Mr. Bearer"'s real name) to Bearer, but that's a horse of a different color. — Wylie pedia 02:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't wash. If it's meant to be a homophone of "Pallbearer" and only that, then nobody would ever call him Bearer or Mr Bearer. Just like, nobody ever called Wolfman Jack "Mr Jack", or The Big Bopper "Mr T. B. Bopper". But they do call Paul Bearer "Mr Bearer", hence that's his surname, and he gets sorted under B for Bearer. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

In laundry terms, someone has put the darks and the whites together: Since you brought up Wolfman Jack, nowhere in his article do they call him either "Wolfman" or "Jack". They always either use the two names together or uses his actual last birth name. I don't consider a "character name" a surname, as that is either a family name or Christian name, but that's just me. Not that this is a vote, but "Paul Bearer" should go under P here. — Wylie pedia 04:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Wylie. Having "Snoop Dogg" listed under "D" and Prince under "P" makes no sense whatsoever. A title or pseudonym should be listed under the first letter, not a psuedo surname.Sunnydoo (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

But that's exactly my point. Nobody ever refers to "Dogg" or "Mr Dogg" when they mean Snoop Dogg, because we consider the whole name to be the sorting key, and he gets sorted under S for Snoop Dogg. But people do refer to Paul Bearer as "Bearer" or "Mr Bearer", hence Bearer is considered his surname, and he would be sorted under B. As for Prince, if you're referring to Prince (musician), I can't see what letter other than P could possibly apply. But if you're referring to Prince Charles, then he's obviously under C for Charles. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Peter Butterly 06.03.13

I removed the wikilink to Peter Butterly as this is a redirect to Real IRA which is 1) a repeat 2) gives the impression that he has a page in Wikipedia and 3) Real IRA on last reading did not even mention him by name. He is a valid person to list of that there is no arguement but the existing entry is not correct. Edmund Patrick – confer 06:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

We link every deceased's name on this list. If there is no article after one month, the entry is removed as notability has not been established. WWGB (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that every deceased's name should be linked if possible but as we can see from today's reading this is not always possible. In this particular case someone clicks on Peter Butterly link to be taken to an article that describes an organisation but does not mention him in person. They then click on the link to the organisation that it it stated he was the chief of to discover it is the same article. The value in that for an encylopedia misses me, execpt maybe for point 2) above. It should be a redlink until such times that an specific article is created. Edmund Patrick – confer 06:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the revision history of Butterly's article, you can see that someone created it and immediately redirected it to the Real IRA article. Butterly would have been a redlink if they would have left it alone. Personally, I really hate when editors do this just to prevent a redlink here. — Wylie pedia 07:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Wylie. I think that editors who create a bluelink redirect actually do the deceased a disservice. Editors seeing a redlink may be moved to create an article or at least a stub. The bluelink just masks the fact that no article exists. WWGB (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with you Wylie. One of the "perks" to adding a lot of folks for me is watching the number of blue links the red links turn into. I am always surprised by the eagerness of some of my fellow editors here in the formation of articles. If I had to guess, I would say that half of my adds are blue and half red. But about half of those reds turn into blues.Sunnydoo (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

After watching it today, someone or something is flipping the traffic switch on the page. Sybil Williams went blue in a matter of minutes after I had put her in today. The traffic light has her set now to Richard Burton, outside any force redirects the editor can do from the edit page.Sunnydoo (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

As the editor who created the Peter Butterly redirect - what's the issue? Creating a redirect for a person (deceased or not) who I do not believe is notable for their own article serves two purposes - it re-directs the reader to a relevant article, and it prevents over-eager editors creating a non-notable article. I have done hundreds of these redirects over the years, and as far as I know only one has ever been converted into a full article. Giant Snowman 11:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the purposes of redirects, none of the reasons you give for creating this particular one exist, that I can see. As the OP stated, Butterly was mentioned nowhere in the Real IRA article. I think you just read where they linked him in the source, created his article and redirected from there. I understand some articles in Wikipedia do not get updated and Butterly may have very well been a recent "chief" of the group, but as you also stated "only one [of your redirects] has ever been converted into a full article." What this means from the "Deaths" notability perspective: Butterly was not notable enough to even have an article, should've remained a redlink and, most certainly, should not have been redirected to another article of a group of which he was never proven (in court) to be a part. — Wylie pedia 14:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly, take to WP:Redirects for discussion. However, links between the Real IRA and Butterly are covered in reliable sources. Giant Snowman 14:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sunnydoo listed him here 18 hours before you created his redirect. The sources you list cover his death after that listing and most don't mention him being a "chief". In my opinion, "members" do not bear articles nor mention here. I'm not extending this conversation any further than that, nor at the exhaustive RfD discussions, and the matter regarding his listing here will be fixed in April 2013 if his article is not expanded. — Wylie pedia 14:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

GiantSnowman said "I have done hundreds of these redirects over the years, and as far as I know only one has ever been converted into a full article". That's my point. By converting redlinks to bluelinks, it hides the lack of an article and discourages the writing of one. While your actions have good intention, you may actually be doing a disservice to Wikipedia. Much better to create some stubs than just redirects. WWGB (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Feb and Jan

How come this page only includes deaths from March, not February and January?NTPYTO (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Look in the 'Deaths by Month' box at the foot of the page. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Wayne Fleming

Can any RD frequenters maybe chime in on the conversation that is occurring at my talk and User_talk:Rusted_AutoParts, on whether to list examples for the listing for Wayne Fleming, a longtime journeyman NHL assistant coach? The discussion as it stands does not seem to be going anywhere. – Connormah (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Because you're insisting one example isn't enough for the legendary (only heard of him today) Fleming. If you bothered to look at the other sports people entries,we've done the same thing.Rusted AutoParts 05:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

If you think that's my argument then you're totally misinterpreting. Maybe you should read what I've repeated multiple times on your talk again. – Connormah (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Usually we go with a team or teams that an athlete makes a significant contribution to first, then by longevity secondly if that criteria isnt met. Recent example from today was Sleater who played for several different teams, but only led the league in appearances 1 year with the Orioles. There is nothing wrong with listing multiple entries- it just has to have a reason (significant contribution to all of the teams listed) behind it as opposed to just listing for listing sake. One could make the argument for example that Virgil Trucks should be listed as a Yankee in addition to the Tigers, as he was the oldest Yankee at the time of his death. I am not that familiar with Fleming, if any on the teams he coached won the Stanley Cup, then they should probably be listed. From what I saw in his bio, Hockey Canada should definitely be listed as they won a Gold and a Silver while he was an executive/coach with the team.Sunnydoo (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've been saying all along. Another example is Gus Triandos - it seems he was most notable for his time with Baltimore (having spent most of his time there) so it is appropriate to list it in his entry. Fleming did not win any Stanley Cups from what I knew. Was mostly a behind-the-scenes assistant (in Edmonton he sat in the pressbox), which is why I think listing no teams, or as you put it, just Hockey Canada would be more appropriate. – Connormah (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Triandos should be listed as an Oriole because he made 4 All Star teams- each one while he was with the Orioles organization. Its more an issue of what was accomplished followed by longevity. Thats why Fleming should be listed as Hockey Canada followed with whichever NHL team he made the most contribution too. One example from amateur and pro should suffice (unless there were multi Stanley Cups or other coaching awards).Sunnydoo (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Where are the archives?

I'm probably missing something staring me in the face, but where are the archives to this page?
Although Misa-bot seems to be removing old discussions, I cannot see an archive list ("Archive 1", "Archive 2" etc.) allowing one to look at older discussions. - Arjayay (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Miszabot must've screwed up. ~~I don't know how to report it, but~~ the archives so far are at Talk:Deaths in 2013/Archive 4. It should be in Archive 1. I think that is why it shows no archives here at all. Reported it to Misza13. — Wylie pedia 05:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

In looking back at the edits, the original started at 4, which is where the bot sent it. That was my mistake in creating the headers for this page. Now I know. I will inform Misza. — Wylie pedia 05:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I have moved Archive 4 to Archive 1, and reset the archive counter to 1. Hope it works on the next bot sweep! WWGB (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Update: Archive 1 now showing at top of this page. All seems OK? WWGB (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of, it archives some global discussions, like Notability. I won't bring them back here, but that is irritating when/if the topic(s) come up again. When a new month begins, I try to leave global topics here and only move specifics. Bots. — Wylie pedia 05:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Simple reference format

I understand the reasons for the use of simple reference format on this page, and am not trying to re-open that discussion.
However, nowhere in the visible article, nor in the hidden text that appears when editing the article, nor even on this talk page, is that explained. Yesterday, an experienced editor (>50k edits) spent about 8 hours filling in the references. With no statement about simple references, these were good-faith edits, and, although I explained the situation on their talk page, I suspect they were less than pleased to see all their work reverted.

I think the use of simple references, and the reason, needs to be explained on the page. Currently, the header concludes:-

A typical entry lists information in the following sequence
* Name, age, country of citizenship and reason for notability, established cause of death, and reference.

I suggest this is amplified to say something like:-

A typical entry lists information in the following sequence
* Name, age, country of citizenship and reason for notability, established cause of death, and reference.
* References should be in <ref>[url & title]</ref> format, as full citations makes the page too slow to load, and too big to edit.

Any objections/alternative wordings? - Arjayay (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. WWGB (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've always wanted a ref guideline on here, before or after the simpler format. Others thought it didn't belong. — Wylie pedia 05:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Point taken, but that discussion was before we had to abandon full citations.
The line could become:-

* References should be in <ref>[url & title (and language in brackets if not English)]</ref> format, as full citations makes the page too slow to load, and too big to edit.

However, IMHO that is rather cumbersome - any other opinions? - Arjayay (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, stick with the original proposal. I'm sure the gnomes can deal with non-English cites. WWGB (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

OK I've been WP:BOLD and inserted the "original proposal" - quite happy to consider any alternative wordings. Arjayay (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks OK to my eyes. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Nationality again

Had a Gibraltar reference pop up this morning. I have changed it to British with a Gibraltar reference and a Hong Kong to China. Gibraltar is a territory of Great Britain, Hong Kong is a territory of China,so the Nationality would be British and Chinese respectively. Same as the Faroe Islands for Denmark or Puerto Rico for the United States, among a myriad of other examples.Sunnydoo (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Charles Bruzon identified as a Gibraltarian in the same way that a British person can identify as English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish. See Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. WWGB (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Alrighty. If this is the route you want to take, then American Indians will be listed by tribe, as well as Puerto Ricans by territory. I dont care which way as long as everyone is treated the same.Sunnydoo (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

We should be thoughtfully following reliable sources, not enforcing pointy rules. William Avery (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Its been a problem in the past with such people like Russell Means among several others. I just am happy that WWGB finally made a call one way or the other and that there is precedent now set to Territorial distinction. As I have stated, dont care which way we go as far as Territories or as Nationalities, just want everyone treated the same way. So if a person from Hong Kong or Macau is given a distinction, that should carry over to the Falkland Islands, Samoa or anywhere else based on the main government form which is easily referenced on Wiki like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Territories. I am still extremely upset over his call for Russell Means back in October because Means never would have wanted to be labeled an American citizen or American Indian for that matter.Sunnydoo (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ted Dewhurst, 83, British cricketer

Could somebody explain to me why an amateur Cricketer who only played in the local leagues of Liverpool 60 years ago and who was almost certainly unknown to everybody in the world apart from about 50-100 people in one area of England has been mentioned here?

I rightfully removed his name earlier but was told it was a foolish thing to do and his name has now been restored!

If everybody who played a bit Cricket for fun and was only known to a small amount of people in one particular area of England was listed here when they died, then they'd be about three additions of that kind a day.

Should everybody who played a bit of pub Football be listed on here as a British Footballer when they die?

How about somebody who played a few local amateur Tennis tournaments in their younger days. Should they be listed as British Tennis players on here when they die?

The fact that news of Ted Dewhurst's death was only mentioned on the website of one tiny local paper tells you all you need to know:

This man was nowhere near famous enough to feature in a list of notable deaths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Stowmarket #talk • contribs# 19:27, 18 April 2013 #UTC#

The editing guidelines for the notability of cricketers is given at WP:CRIN. Whilst the club that Dewhurst played for may just about pass for notability purposes (although Southport & Birkdale Cricket Club do not currently have an article on Wikipedia), Dewhurst as a former player does not. "Note especially that the person must have earned notability in their own right; they are not notable if they are only a member of a club, even if the club is notable.".

Also it is contrary to good faith guidelines to suggest than an editor's edit is "foolish". Mr Stowmarket deserves an apology.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

And one more thing I would like to point out. This list isn't geared to a particular age group as your comments suggest from the edit page. It doesnt matter if a person is 1 or 115 if they are notable. Who may remember them and who doesn't isn't really an issue at all. Which leads me to my 2nd point. This list just isn't for famous people. This list is for notable deaths. That is someone that has made a substantial contribution to society whether they are well known globally, just regionally known or to just a small group of people such as with a scientific, trade or medical discovery.Sunnydoo (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Toomer's Corner Oaks

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9194614/auburn-tigers-fans-celebrate-oak-trees-toomer-corner

Brings up an interesting question. For those unfamiliar with the US college traditions there is a place at Auburn University in Alabama where the students go to celebrate major victories. Several years ago, one of their arch-rivals from the University of Alabama decided to poison this grove of Oak trees out of maliciousness. He has been sentenced to get 3-5 years in the pokey. Because the trees cant be saved, they are going to be cut down on Tuesday, April 23rd. There is a wiki section dedicated to the place where they are located, but as a grove of trees and not a single tree would this qualify for the page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toomer%27s_Corner#Toomer.27s_Corner. I will leave it up to you guys to decide. My own personal feeling is yes it should. Sunnydoo (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Definitely an intriguing story. Looking at the direction at the top of the page, I would think that the trees qualify as a notable biological life form, but I notice that even Toomer's Corner itself doesn't have its own Wikipedia page. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 07:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Cite web has been updated

Template:Cite web and other citation templates have now been updated and this has reduced page saving and loading times on the 2012 articles. --Racklever (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Any idea by how much the saving and loading times are reduced by? - Or possibly more important, how much slower is the "new" cite web than the current <ref>[url & title]</ref> reference format? - Arjayay (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I know it's not "required", but it would most certainly be appreciated if editors would leave somewhat of an edit summary when making changes to the page. Frustrating to have to track things down, especially in the longer daily sections. Wishful thinking, I know. - Wylie pedia 08:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

For those that dont know what that is, look down VVV in your edit box. After the text box finishes, you will see a Tabbed Insert box and underneath that *bingo* is Edit summaries. Tell us what you did and why you did it after the /. Keeps several of us from having to dig thru every entry and it is very much appreciated.Sunnydoo (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Shirley Firth

Before this gets started, read this line-

"According to family, Shirley took special pride in her three daughters and her Gwich’in heritage."

She was a member of the First Nation in Canada and would have wanted to be identified as Gwich'in then Canadian as her Nationality.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

"would have wanted to be identified as Gwich'in then Canadian as her Nationality". Oh really? That is purely speculative and is not supported by an independent source. Any others like to offer an opinion here? WWGB (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Speculative? Her family said that. Why do you not like indigenous people or Africans? We keep having this recurring problem when this comes up? You say this-"Charles Bruzon identified as a Gibraltarian in the same way that a British person can identify as English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish. See Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. WWGB (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)", but when the shoe is on the other foot, you suddenly change your tune. Tired of this shenanigans with people getting treated differently based on how you feel.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Back off buster and stop playing the racist card (again). You know nothing about me. Criticise the edit and not the person. Her family did NOT say she "identified as Gwich'in then Canadian", you made that up yourself. Firth skied for Canada, not the nation of Gwich'in. Again, wait for others to comment. Clearly, you and I will not resolve anything here. WWGB (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

After what you did to Russell Means, there can be no other explanation. The same with the Cherokee Nation Ambassador to the United States. You say one thing, but your actions say another. And I am not attacking you. I am just pointing out there is duplicity in the arguments. And like I have said before, maybe for Australians you guys have different ways to treat your tribes. But in the US and Canada they have their own governments, the US cant send security forces onto their land without negotiation, they issue their own passports and licenses, have their own ambassadors and they are not governed by the US Congress or the Canadian Parliament but through negotiation in the Bureau of Land affairs. They even single-handedly got gambling re-approved thru many states in the US after their tribes started putting up Casinos which could not be stopped by Federal or State law. I am not Indian but I will fight for their rights when they are not being represented faithfully or fairly just as I would with anyone else. Wiki should be a neutral site and I am calling this out as a non-neutral policy of yours.Sunnydoo (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? What "I" did to Russell Means? Check out this edit summary before you play fast and loose with the truth. WWGB (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

":::Sioux is not a nationality,it is an ethnicity. While some people may not like their nationality label, that's how the law recognises them. WWGB (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)." That is the statement I was referring to. That is incorrect reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Territories and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation using the sovereign territory terms that were established with Gibraltar and for those that self-identify like Means most certainly did. There was also several other discussions like this regarding indigenous people if you would like me to bring those up as well. Sunnydoo (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is called an o-p-i-n-i-o-n and we are all entitled to express them. I am still mystified what you think I "did" to Russell Means. WWGB (talk) 06:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

^ "Obituary - Margareta Teodorescu". fide.com. Retrieved 2013-01-26.

[Teodorescu-1] "Obituary - Margareta Teodorescu". fide.com. Retrieved 2013-01-26.

[1]