Talk:Deaths in January 2009

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jett Travolta & Notability

First off, I want to say I agree with the decison to keep Jett Travolta's name off of this page. While his death was tragic, neither his life nor the circumstances of his death were of sufficient notabilty to warrant inclusion on this page.

That being said, I believe that there is a bit of an imbalance in the criteria used for alowing names to be posted and remain on the page. No disrespect to Don Sanderson, but he still lacks an article and any article that is created will mainly be covering his death.

What makes his inclusion okay and not that of Jett Travolta? This isn't an attack, just an observation. Ulric1313 (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors generally allow some latitude on this page, and a person with a reasonable chance of notability remains for one month to allow for an article to be created. Sanderson may well meet the notability requirements of WP:ATHLETE. Travolta, on the other hand, has no notability other than that conferred by his parents and his untimely death. WWGB (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Jett Travolta isn't notable, then surely George Bush's cat isn't! This entry should be removed.

Smurfmeister (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the entry that you removed. As it says right on the top of the page Deaths of notable animals (that is, those animals with their own Wikipedia articles) are also reported here. India (cat) has its own Wikipedia article and the entry should remain on this page until such time as the article disappears. Cheers, CP 21:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because animal deaths ARE reported here, doesn't mean the very idea isn't extremely silly. Williamb (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does it mean it is. tomasz. 17:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article alone is not proof of notability - otherwise anyone who wanted to add a name to the notable deaths page could simply create a Wikipedia page to justify it. The point is that if Jett Travolta was only notable by who his parents were, India was only notable by who his owner was - so if that's the line we're taking, India should be removed. Smurfmeister (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the recent deaths page is not to determine who or what is notable, it is to show who or what died in 2009. If you want to argue about India's notability, then do it on its page, although I point out that since it has survived three AfDs, that's a very good hint that, at the very least, there is no consensus that the cat is not notable. This is not a list intended to honour the dead. It is a list to list all living entities who, during the course of 2009, ceased to be living. If Prometheus dies tomorrow, it should be listed here as well. The only criteria is that they have a Wikipedia page within a month of their death. If that page is deleted, then so is the entry. If India gets merged into an other article, I'll gladly remove that entry myself. The absence or presence of an individual Wikipedia page is the only remotely objective means of deciding who gets on Deaths in 2009. If you start removing entries with articles on the basis of the fact that you don't think they deserve to be on there, where does it end? Maybe Manuela Fernández-Fojaco shouldn't be on here because she's only notable for being old. Maybe Lisa McMurray shouldn't be on here because all she's notable for is dying. Maybe Gautam Goswami shouldn't be on here because he was only know for the corruption accusations. The only way to take personal feelings out of this is to use the absence or presence of an article as a guiding criteria. Jett Travolta does not have an article; it was decided by an overwhelming consensus that it should stay that way. As I mentioned, India has survived three such discussions. Maybe you don't think that that's fair, maybe I don't either, maybe no one on this page does, but that doesn't matter; consensus rules the day at Wikipedia. Cheers, CP 17:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it appears that Lisa McMurray's article was removed at AfD as well, so I will, in fact, remove her. Cheers, CP 17:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No CP, this page is NOT a list 'to show who or what died in 2009' - it is a list of NOTABLE deaths in 2009. If it is just going to be a list of deaths my mate's aunt should be on it. You are correct in saying that this page is not intended to establish notability; however, that nobility does need to be established before the subject is included here. You say India's article has 'survived' three deletion attempts and that 'consensus rules the day'; all you have to do is look at the page's history and you will see all those discussions resulted in NO CONSENSUS. You are completely contradicting yourself, and if you are going to use the concept of consensus to revert my edits, at least make sure it exists. Smurfmeister (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:No consensus#Deletion Discussions, "no consensus" defaults to keep. Therefore there is no mandate to delete either the article itself or internal links to the article, such as that in Deaths in 2009. WWGB (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the overall context of what I wrote above, I think it's fairly obvious that I meant "to show who or what of note died in 2009" with "of note" being the issue of debate. Cheers, CP 23:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the whole point I was making was that if Jett Travolta (famous dad) is not notable, India the cat (famous owner) isn't either! Smurfmeister (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a ringing endorsement of the article's value, is it? Smurfmeister (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. While this cat has its own article, a state of affairs I find ridiculous, it gets an entry on the List of Deaths. Removing deaths of people / animals that have their own articles, simply because someone disagrees with their notability, sets a precedent that will lead to big problems. It's not the purpose of this list to establish notability - notability is established by those who took part in the AfDs. The article still exists so the entry in this list should stay. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that "notable in media" is a very US-centric view. With due respect, who cares outside the US that Jettdied, or Bush's cat died? For example, China, having more than 1.2 billion people, and India having 1 billion has also numerous famous persons, and 100 times more persons/cats/dogs related to them. Sometimes, the deaths of such cats / dogs make it to newspapers having circulations much larger than Washington Post. However, still no one would consider these events or cats notable. A systemic bias occurs as a result of the obsession with US news sources, and the general undue weight put on pets in the US. For much of the outside world, a notable person's cat is simply NOT at all notable. --Ragib (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree, and the place to have this discussion is at the article's talk page and the next AfD that it gets. Maybe people should start creating articles for every pet that every world leader ever had... Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently one of Gordon Brown's kids had nits a few weeks back. Do nits count as pets? I'll get working on the article ;0) Smurfmeister (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Asheton

Asheton was found dead on 6 January, having died about 31 December or 1 January. His death notice has been bouncing between 1 January and 6 January (currently in BOTH). Can we get some agreement? Personally, since the d.o.d. is unclear, I favour 6 January with a statement like "body found on this date". Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your solution, not in the least because it aligns with the current state of the article, which says "c. January 6, 2009". Of course, that may change, but to me that is the most verifiable answer. He obviously died "around" January 6... until more is known, that's all we can say. Cheers, CP 07:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i also think this is the best way to go. His body having lain for "at least several days" is far too vague to establish a date of death until further info gets released. r.i.p. tomasz. 13:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best, although I did run across a couple of headlines that have since disappeared that said he died within hours of a New Year's party. Star Garnet (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the consensus is clear, so I'm going to move him and apply the same logic used here to the case of Jon Latimer. Cheers, CP 04:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cat

Due to the ongoing edit war over a dead cat the page is now protected. Let me know when you sort it. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With edit wars on high-profile articles, especially this one with only two editors edit warning, the editors should be blocked instead of the article being protected as it gives a bad reputation. Should have been mentioned in at least WP:AN first. I'm about to unprotect it, any objections. Secret ^account 13:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was at work and didn't have time to fully go through it. So protecting was the only option at the time, plus the editors can't discuss while blocked. After looking at it more closely it appears possible that one editor logged out to revert. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say this...the news worthy death of Oscar Grant is apparently not worthy of note, despite cultural impact, whereas the President's cat is? Ragan651 (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aviator/Aviatrix

Suggest we have a discussion here before changing "aviatrix" to the less appropriate "aviator" simply because one user has decided it's too complicated a word to use. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that it was "too complicated", "aviator" is more widely understood that "aviatrix", so communicates the fact better. Aviator is perfectly appropriate. I think you will find that the person's article uses aviator. You classified using the term aviator as "dumbing down" in your edit summary, which makes it seem that you feel using "aviatrix" is clever or, at least, more so than "aviator". What is the correct criteria to use for this? I suggest that it is to communicate meaning as clearly as possible. In my opinion, "aviator" does a better job than "aviatrix", simply because it is a more widely understood word. 87.114.13.108 (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Simple English Wikipedia, but this also not the PhD English Wikipedia. Stick to what's simple, because it works. Elm-39 (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for all dialects of English, but in mine (basically Midwestern American/Californian), the use of "aviator" to describe someone known to be female is just plain wrong. It's one of the few words (like waiter/waitress, steward/stewardess, actor/actress) that preserves a gender distinction.—Kww(talk) 17:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was also my understanding of the situation in "English" English. tomasz. 17:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I haven't researched this deeply, but in terms of usage in California, I did find this from the San Francisco Chronicle (although it is only one source). Aviatrix is certainly not common in many places, again as far as I know, and if we want to communication to as many people as possible. I would suggest that perhaps people would understand Aviator, even if they may use Aviatrix (but perhaps not the other way around). 87.114.13.108 (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for England this from The Times. I am not saying that Aviatrix is never used (I have seen it several times while searching), just that Aviator does seem to be acceptable to use for women. 87.114.13.108 (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that "aviatrix" is not widely understood. I have understood its meaning for about as long as I have understood the meaning of "aviator". By this token, all words that can be replaced by more common words should be replaced forthwith, starting by replacing "aviator" with "pilot" to help those who are finding it a problem to click on the link. Words that provide a gender distinction are widely used, and it is used in the article relating to the lady in question. Suggesting that a PhD is required in order to understand words like "aviatrix" is a bit sad. Wikipedia is not here to make things easy for those who refuse to simply click on links to learn about terms they are not familiar with. I am not familiar with exactly what an aneurysm is, but I don't go around changing it to something a bit simpler just because I think it'll be a bit easier to understand.

I think Wikipedia should be making things easy for people to understand, without forcing them to click on links. What about people for who English is not a first language? Do they have a better chance of understanding aviator or aviatrix? 87.114.13.108 (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, I would appreciate that the anonymous editor here might refrain from leaving threatening messages on my talk page, suggesting I should be blocked. He/she has persistently forced the change from "aviatrix" to "aviator" before any kind of consensus was reached, even after this discussion was started. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a 3RR warning, because you had reverted 3 times. If you consider that threatening, you may want to discuss that with whoever authored the template. 87.114.13.108 (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of trolling [1] is inappropriate, as are these comments. 87.114.13.108 (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I have not said that it is 'clever' to use "aviatrix", I simply maintain that it is more specific, which is undeniable. The fact that "aviator" can be used to describe female pilots is not a reason to ignore a more precise term. I refute that it is in any sense unclear. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that the primary criteria is that we should convey the meaning as clearly as possible, to as many people as possible? 87.114.13.108 (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you have also reverted three times so perhaps you could forego the moral high ground. You have still enforced your change before consensus. Leaving warning messages on the talk pages of experienced editors when you don't even see fit to register is also something that is not very helpful. Read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. I do accept that the meaning should be conveyed clearly, and that was originally the way it was. Do you accept that "pilot" is a more common word than "aviator"? If so, I look forward to you making the change. Having just asked someone whose first language is not English, they did not understand either word, and saw no problem in clicking on the link to understand it. That is what links are for, or do you dispute that too?

I hardly think that asking one person is a representative sample. No, I do not dispute that links are to be clicked on, but why use more obscure words when there is a perfectly acceptable word that is more common. I think aviator is better than pilot, because pilot does not only mean people who fly aircraft, so is probably too ambiguous. I have no idea why me giving you a warning has angered you, but you did revert 3 times - I either reported you without warning you, or warned you first. Let's keep ego out of this. 87.114.13.108 (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, I notice that 87.114 has reverted the use of "aviatrix" in the Nancy Bird Walton article itself, saying in the edit summary that the word was only used there after the dispute arose. This is not true at all. The change to "aviatrix" was made before he or I made any edit on the subject anywhere, and I resent the accusation that the lady's article was changed because of this dispute. There is some manipulation of articles, edit summaries and the revert / warning procedure here which I find very distasteful. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest that it was a representative sample. Why do you insist that "aviatrix" is an obscure word? You think aviator is better than pilot, so what if someone comes along and changes it to "pilot" because they think it'll be more widely understood that way? There is a subtle difference between "aviator" and "pilot", as there is between "aviator" and "aviatrix". You giving me a warning about 3RR angered me because you seem to think that you are allowed to do it and not me!! Read the history, you have also done it, or do you deny this? As I have said on your talk page, reporting someone for doing something you yourself have done is a bit pointless. What has ego got to do with anything? I would just prefer it if you didn't think that rules were only for others to follow. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my annoyance, I have just realised that, while edit-warring, neither of us actually broke 3RR. Neither of us reverted more than three times, which makes your warning even more unhelpful. I apologise for saying you broke 3RR, and I'd appreciate a similar apology from you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been invited to comment here on the use of aviator or aviatrix at Nancy Bird Walton. I will not as this is plainly not the right place. Please see that article's talk page instead. Paul Beardsell (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It started here because at the time the dispute arose, I believed that the problem existed only here. Since it is not specifically related to Walton herself, rather an issue of word choice which affects all aviators/aviatrices, I don't think it really matters where the discussion is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nonsense. Of course it matters. I suggest that Talk:Aviator is obviously the right place for this discussion, and the correct choice for Walton is on Talk:Nancy Bird Walton. As if you're going to resolve a general WP issue *here* is plain ridiculous. Paul Beardsell (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But while I'm here. Earlier Kww did comment:

But I note that I can't speak for all dialects of English, but in mine (basically Midwestern American/Californian), the use of "aviator" to describe someone known to be female is just plain wrong. It's one of the few words (like waiter/waitress, steward/stewardess, actor/actress) that preserves a gender distinction.—Kww(talk) 17:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The female form of profession names and job titles is disparaged throughout much of the English-speaking world. It is held to be discriminatory in many (perhaps PC) circles. That the word "aviatrix" is understood does not mean it should be used. cf coolie. Paul Beardsell (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please not my use of the phrase "one of the few words". I agree that it generally is disparaged in English these days. When I was young, use of separate male and female words was common, and now only a few remain in common use. There used to be hundreds, now there's a few handfuls, and those are dwindling. "Songstress" is dying out, and "server" is starting to replace "waiter/waitress". I still maintain that while it's OK to call a female that waits tables a "server", it is incorrect to call her a "waiter", and I feel the same about calling a female an "aviator". "Pilot" is the gender-neutral word.

One thing that occurred to me while writing this: what on earth is the male form of dominatrix?—Kww(talk) 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest either dominator or male dominatrix. :-) Vive la difference! Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that is the heart of the problem. We see a difference between dominator and dominatrix. You can see why male nurse is in some sense offensive. I disagree about aviator: A manager can be a man or a woman. Manageresses is a subset of managers. And many use the term to disparage. Same with nurse and male nurse. "He is a male nurse" is just unnecessary. "She is an aviatrix," potentially similarly. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And "pilot" and "aviator" are not synonymous. A flight engineer, bombardier or navigator is an aviator. You cannot simultaneously have aviator as the collective noun and then suggest that it has a male gender. No. It is gender neutral and the term aviatrix is used (many do say) to imply that it is unusual or uncommon for women to be aviators in that they are not suited for the role becuase of their gender. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to drag this out, I think it's quite a leap to make that the term "aviatrix" implies that a woman's involvement in aviation is unusual or unsuitable. I also think that using this as an excuse to try to wipe out gender-specific terms from the language is over-opinionated pettiness. Note that this is a general point regarding your statement, not an accusation against you. I agree that "pilot" and "aviator" are not synonyms, but not that "aviator" is gender-neutral. It has a femenine form, hence it is as masculine as "aviatrix" is femenine. Only retrospective politically-correct fussing can change that, and no doubt for some people that's ideal. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is leap, but one that is made. You won't deny that "aviatrix" and "male nurse" are sometimes used to disparage? Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that snappy tone is entirely appropriate, in fact, I'm sure it's not - but I reiterate that, at the time, I did not believe there to be a problem anywhere but here. Clearly that makes me a complete idiot. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting you were not acting in good faith. I am saying that your suggestion to argue this issue here was wrongheaded. (As if the only aviatrices to die all died in 2009. Or that only the death of an aviatrix is notable enough to be in WP.) If you want to take that personally then there is little that I can do. Paul Beardsell (talk)

Okay, I accept that. I do suggest though that your tone was unnecessarily less than friendly. Of course you're not here to be friendly, but it makes the world go round. It helps. I'm not taking anything personally, but I do reiterate that at the time I originally entered this dispute, Nancy Bird Walton used the term "aviatrix". I checked there and assumed that the dispute was confined to the deaths article. Naturally I did not trawl through all the other articles where the term may have been used, but I do not see anything particularly objectionable or ridiculous in that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There will be a WP guideline about this. I suggest we find it and follow it. If anyone doesn't like it (who knows, it might be me) then that should be discussed on that guideline's Talk page. Paul Beardsell (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a guideline, so I find, and it says "aviator". I did not realise that political correctness had dictated that "actress" is now as unacceptable as "coolie", nor did I realise that Wikipedia bowed down so readily to such rubbish. I suppose this discussion is over. I do note, though, that is guideline is very widely ignored. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a guideline/rule, somewhere, saying: should a guideline be widely ignored, this is not an excuse for ignoring the guideline. The issue is not over. If you don't like the guideline go fight your corner on the guideline's talk page. Paul Beardsell (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stated no intention of ignoring the guideline, nor will I. Just because thousands of others ignore it, I'm not about to use that as a reason to get into a pointless debate about it. I passed through here this morning and saw someone else's use of "aviatrix" changed to "aviator". I thought it unnecessary, changed it back and incurred wrongly-given warnings from IP editors, followed by the lengthy discussion here. Life's too short for it. The issue is well and truly over as far as I'm concerned - I spend my Wikitime doing things I enjoy, not fighting unwinnable battles over the finer points of word choice with people who stretch the interpretation of civility to its limits. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say what you seem to be saying I said: I did not say you were intending to ignore any guideline. I simply pointed out that a guideline could not be ignored because it was ignored elsewhere, and I did this in response to *your* comment that the guideline was widely ignored. Furthermore, I have not tried and I am not trying to provoke you. I am concentrating on improving WP. A *lot* of time has been wasted on this (you and others have been in an edit war) which would have been avoided if only those involved in it knew the rules and guidelines. You are proving very quick to take offense. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was an implication in your statement "should a guideline be widely ignored, this is not an excuse for ignoring the guideline" that I wished to clarify, nothing more. I never believed you were trying to provoke me, I just don't believe that you recognise that your tone is a little brusque. If you simply disagree then we'll agree to disagree. I have not taken much offence, incidentally - I reserve serious lapses of my good humour for the real world. I agree with your latter point, again, I assumed that because "aviatrix" was used at Nancy Bird Walton, that it was the generally agreed term and that the now oddly-absent, unapologetic IP editor was going against the norm. My mistake, next time I shall dig up the guideline. This kind of farce is not my usual gig; I am generally only concerned with content, not style. Style is too subjective for my tastes. Suffice to say that I'll not be repeating my intrusion into the world of style guidelines any time soon. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to that guideline for me?—Kww(talk) 22:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly - it's here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the combination of two rules in that guideline

That we should avoid uncommon gender-marked terms (conductress, career woman, male nurse, aviatrix), with the possible implication that the participation of the subject's gender is uncommon, unexpected or somehow inappropriate
Where the gender is known, gender-specific items are also appropriate ("Bill Gates is a businessman" or "Nancy Pelosi is a congresswoman")

I submit that the correct answer is "pilot". Pilot is a common, ungendered noun. Aviator is reasonably common, but it is gendered: it is only appropriate to use for men.

I'm going to consider what to do about its statements on the use of "they" as a singular pronoun. Those constructions still hurt my ears, and no amount of political correctness makes them acceptable.—Kww(talk) 22:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "aviator" is every bit as gender-specific as "aviatrix". Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Smith is an aviator." What is Smith's gender? Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Jones is an aviatrix." And that of Jones? Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that Smith was male, but then if people don't want to use aviatrix, then it creates confusion as to the gender of the subject. This is my point about retrospective PC fussing and blurring of the terms. If people just used the gender-specific terms, there would be no need to specify, and there'd be no sense that aviator was gender-neutral. It also raises the point that saying "Jones is an aviatrix" clears up any doubt, suggesting that gender-specific terms are more helpful. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, brusquely: You're out of kilter with common usage and currently accepted grammar. English is not equipped to cope with this situation in the way that German is, with male, female and neutral genders; and English is not styled as French is, where every noun is either male or female. In English we often have the situation where we have one word which is the root and which is *not* gender specific and another which applies only to female examples. And if that was not the way it was, with *certain* examples, it is the way it is now. Calling a female manager a "manageress" can be an invitation to have your head bitten off. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt I am, but I also not wrong, or grammatically incorrect. I care little for what is common usage, and I make use of whatever the English language has to offer, within the constraints of my knowledge and of what is grammatically correct. I agree, if I understand you correctly, that common usage in this context is relatively modern. This does not render a previous usage incorrect, nor unusable, in my view. 'Manageress' isn't a term I'd think of using, but I'd have no qualms about using it if it popped into my head. If I thought it would cause irritation to some who deserved to be irritated, I'd have no hesitation. I would certainly never call a waitress a waiter, nor a 'server'. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Example of how extensive gender titles were and ultimately how silly I've seen in several different books WWI British female munition workers referred to as munitionettes....... Williamb (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not as silly, or as crass, as applying today's fashions to the past. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, regardless of how you see current trends in language tending toward the PC or not, this is beside the point. The issue at hand is how to keep Wikipedia usable to speakers of English, as the language evolves. Following grammarian rules as set-out in the early 20th century would be foolish as the language has changed vastly since then. Similarly, most people who use the term aviator would not see it as gender specific as in common usage it tends not to be used as such. With regard to the guidelines as set out above, these are the standards set, this is not the place to disparage them or share your views on them.Fol de rol troll (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear that as soon as I was aware of the guideline, I accepted it as the way Wikipedia works, for exactly the reasons you set out. I wasn't advocating a diversion from the guideline at any point. My views on the nature of the guideline were aired, briefly, solely as part of the discussion, not as an out-of-the-blue attack on the guideline itself. If my views on the PC nature of current language trends and the guidelines that develop thereof are out of place here, then so is any belated critique of those views. I should clarify, though, that my comment of 00:18 on January 17 was not aimed at the guideline in any way, more the comment immediately prior. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot vs Aviator

"Pilot" and "aviator" are not synonymous. A flight engineer, bombardier or navigator is an aviator. You cannot simultaneously have aviator as the collective noun and then suggest that it has a male gender. No. Aviator is gender neutral and the term aviatrix is feminine. Aviatrix is used (those who take offense do say) to imply that it is unusual or uncommon for women to be aviators in that they are not suited for the role because of their gender. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to drag this out, I think it's quite a leap to make that the term "aviatrix" implies that a woman's involvement in aviation is unusual or unsuitable. I also think that using this as an excuse to try to wipe out gender-specific terms from the language is over-opinionated pettiness. Note that this is a general point regarding your statement, not an accusation against you. I agree that "pilot" and "aviator" are not synonyms, but not that "aviator" is gender-neutral. It has a femenine form, hence it is as masculine as "aviatrix" is femenine. Only retrospective politically-correct fussing can change that, and no doubt for some people that's ideal. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is leap, but one that is made. You won't deny that "aviatrix" and "male nurse" are sometimes used to disparage? Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea whether or not "aviatrix" has been used to disparage, but yes, "male nurse" is used that way. I suppose my view is that I should not be required to stop using a helpful term simply because others have used it disparagingly. That's the basis of political correctness, which shackles the language, as far as I'm concerned. Bretonbanquet (talk)

Nancy Bird Walton's biography My God! It's a woman. Countless examples of passengers refusing to fly when airlines started introducing women pilots. That the fighting of sexism has been hijacked by the overly politically correct does not mean we should be blind to it. Or that we should not be careful with our language. E.g. there are perfectly useful racially descriptive words which we avoid for the same reason. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're right, and I can see that aviation is your subject. My specialised subject of motor racing has experienced similar issues, but thankfully "racing driver" and "racecar driver" are genuinely gender-neutral. I agree fully with your last point, and my refusal to bow down to political correctness does not stretch to using racially-offensive terms, however innocent their original meanings. We may well have gone off on too great a tangent for the purposes of this talk page though! Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong place for this discussion and the discussion has been had. See Talk:Aviator. But you cannot say, surely, that aviator implies "male pilot, male flight engineer, male navigator, male bombardier, or male wing-walker"? If so then duty would have you hurry over to aviator and correct that article. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that pilot is not a synonym for aviator and do not advocate its use in this instance. My objection, growing weaker by the minute, is that aviator is not a synonym for aviatrix, at least not one I see as necessary. In short, I understand all the arguments but I maintain that in my opinion, I have not seen a reasonable cause not to use "aviatrix". The guidelines state that there is a reasonable cause, and that's where it ends for me as far as its use on Wikipedia is concerned. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The position in English as it is used currently, by practically everybody, throughout the world, is this, I contend: An aviatrix is a female aviator but the term aviatrix is not in common, popular use. An aviator is a person (of either gender) who is a crew member of an aircraft. An aviatrix is an aviator, an aviator is not necessarily an aviatrix. It seems to me that WP ought to reflect that. And I think WP guidelines do reflect that. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that, I just object to the idea that a word should not be used, simply because it's less common, in cases where its use is grammatically correct. It constricts language. Wikipedia does reflect the view as you have laid out, but in my view it does not adequately explain why aviatrix is actively discouraged at all times, other than its adoption of a woolly PC viewpoint. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a PC viewpoint unfortunately as much as people would wish to deny it Wikimedia is one of the most PC places on the planet. Williamb (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No argument there! Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Edmondson, 2nd Baron Sandford

John Edmondson, 2nd Baron Sandford listed 13th January 2009, has a request for a citation,. The only one I can find is wikipedia itself, which does not answer the need at all. Should it be removed? Edmund Patrick – confer 20:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have solved it John Edmondson is listed under John Sandford for his obit and not Edmondson! Doh! Edmund Patrick – confer 20:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Sczesny

Why is Matt Sczesny listed in both Jan. 3rd and Jan. 4th sections? --212.36.9.145 (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source says he died 3rd, so I've removed it from the 4th. Thanks. --Rodhull andemu 16:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Fai

I have hidden Sonny Fai on January 4. He is missing and presumed dead, but his death hasn't been confirmed yet. Saying that he's not coming back is unsourced crystalballing. What we need for inclusion in this list is a reliable source that says that he is actually dead. Reports that his friends have given up the hope of finding him alive or reports that he is probably/presumably/likely dead are not enough. Aecis·(away) ^talk 07:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to apply that reasoning then we should also remove Harold Holt from 1967#Deaths. WWGB (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The entry makes it very clear that he was swept out to sea and is presumed drowned. That position is supported by numerous reliable sources such as [2]. WWGB (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presumed and probably do not equal confirmed. "He may very well be dead" does not equal "he is dead". Sonny Fai is currently "missing presumed dead", not "dead". And please, inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Maybe Harold Holt shouldn't be included in 1967, but we're not talking about Harold Holt and the article 1967, we're talking about Sonny Fai and this page. Aecis·(away) ^talk 08:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legally, Harold Holt died in 1967. He was officially presumed dead 2 days after he went missing, and in 2005 the Victorian Supreme Court said he had died the day he went missing. If a person is legally dead, then as far as we're concerned, they're dead. If he ever turns up live and kicking (not bad for someone who would now be a centenarian), we'll all have to have a rethink. Until then, .... As for whoever Sonny Fai is, if he's not been comfirmed dead by either a doctor or a court, then he's not yet known to be dead (even if it is later shown that he actually is now dead), so we can't say he's dead. Just missing. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Deaths in 2009#Missing persons who are presumed to have died, a proposal to add a sentence to the lead to clarify exclusion/inclusion of missing persons. 58.8.1.230 (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Updike

I'm not immediately editing this as I'm not sure on the standard set, but shouldn't John Updike be listed as being known for the Rabbit series of novels, rather than one of the novels? Two of them won Pulitzer's after all. If that's not really correct, can someone give me an answer on what decides what works should be noted after people's names? Is it just down to the original editor or is there a guideline somewhere? Fol de rol troll (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no strict protocol here, it's what the contributing editor chose to link. I guess Rabbit Is Rich was chosen because it has its own WP article; the Rabbit series does not. WWGB (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. And as the Rabbit series doesn't have an article, maybe it'll go on my to do list. Huzzah, more pointlessness :) Fol de rol troll (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibility of Template Usage

Is there some way someone can get a template up there for the coming months of 2009? I'll look but as of right now this article is kind of...well looking crude with all those red links up there. --Amaraiel ^{Send Message} 01:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sometimes it is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon" WP:REDLINK. Regards, WWGB (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.examiner.com/a-1787003~World_War_II_hero_from_Wash__dead_at_89.html
Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist
http://www.examiner.com/r-5044179~RFT__Finkel__Prince_Joe_Henry__1930_2009.html
Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag. No further action is necessary.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Deaths in January 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090110/pelletier_obit_090110/20090110?hub=TopStories
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512215134/http://gawker.com/5138385/goodbye-veatrice to http://gawker.com/5138385/goodbye-veatrice
Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20090131/1165868.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 9 external links on Deaths in January 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 54 external links on Deaths in January 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.corrymeela.org/article/JohnMorrow.aspx
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.projo.com/news/content/pell01x_01-01-09_1KCQP48_v1.1945a5c.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cphpost.dk/news/politics/90-politics/43907-top-left-wing-politician-dies.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090118030014/http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=RSSFeed-World&id=375329b8-94db-4adf-a412-aa519ac5bd75&MatchID1=4875&TeamID1=1&TeamID2=3&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1229&PrimaryID=4875&Headline=China+military+hero+turned+counter-revolutionary+dies+at+96+ to http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=RSSFeed-World&id=375329b8-94db-4adf-a412-aa519ac5bd75&MatchID1=4875&TeamID1=1&TeamID2=3&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1229&PrimaryID=4875&Headline=China+military+hero+turned+counter-revolutionary+dies+at+96+
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nascar.com/2009/news/headlines/cup/01/03/smcquagg.obit/index.html?eref=%2Frss%2Fnews%2Fheadlines%2Fcup
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103195840/http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200901051532.htm to http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200901051532.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.skif-kuban.ru/news/231/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090119213249/http://counterpunch.org/papaleonardos01082009.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/papaleonardos01082009.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.northjersey.com/obituaries/Man_responsible_for_tangy_hotdog_topping_dies_at_78.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/professor-john-holt-physicist-who-increased-our-understanding-of-matter-at-its-most-fundamental-level-1663420.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hirado.hu/Hirek/2009/01/07/11/Elhunyt_Ilosfalvy_Robert.aspx
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512231736/http://www.inquirer.net/specialreports/inquirerpolitics/view.php?db=1&article=20090106-181809 to http://www.inquirer.net/specialreports/inquirerpolitics/view.php?db=1&article=20090106-181809
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140513012444/http://www.portalangop.co.ao/angola/en_us/noticias/sociedade/Remains-PLD-party-leader-already-Luanda%2C14a0f6b5-8f23-45e0-ad0c-3952c38d61e0.html to http://www.portalangop.co.ao/angola/en_us/noticias/sociedade/Remains-PLD-party-leader-already-Luanda%2C14a0f6b5-8f23-45e0-ad0c-3952c38d61e0.html
Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20120220020643/http://www.lerenseignement.com/00_koama/visu_espionnage/index.asp?sid=339&cid=13312&cvid=18659&lid=1 with https://archive.is/20120220020643/http://www.lerenseignement.com/00_koama/visu_espionnage/index.asp?sid=339&cid=13312&cvid=18659&lid=1 on http://www.lerenseignement.com/00_koama/visu_espionnage/index.asp?sid=339&cid=13312&cvid=18659&lid=1
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125210954/http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/breakingnews/breakingnews/view/20090111-182718/Band-vocalist-succumbs-to-brain-aneurysm to http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/breakingnews/breakingnews/view/20090111-182718/Band-vocalist-succumbs-to-brain-aneurysm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614061022/http://www.fides.org/aree/news/newsdet.php?idnews=21680&lan=eng to http://www.fides.org/aree/news/newsdet.php?idnews=21680&lan=eng
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=112135http%3A%2F%2Fwww.acadvertiser.co.uk%2Flanarkshire-news%2Flocal-news%2Flocal-news-lanarkshire%2F2009%2F01%2F12%2Fboxing-soul-legend-freddie-mack-dies-aged-74-65864-22675201%2F
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090118170638/http://www.zenit.org/article-24757?l=english to http://www.zenit.org/article-24757?l=english
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/37685109.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tasr.sk/30.axd?k=20090111TBB00403
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wtov9.com/news/18467270/detail.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512224112/http://www.tipperarystar.ie/news/local-news/tributes-to-late-bishop-russell-1-2267723 to http://www.tipperarystar.ie/news/local-news/tributes-to-late-bishop-russell-1-2267723
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.grimsby-townfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10417~1520036%2C00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090812050653/http://www.gmanews.tv/story/143995/Estradas-mother-Do%26ntildea-Mary-Ejercito-passes-away-at-103 to http://www.gmanews.tv/story/143995/Estradas-mother-Do%26ntildea-Mary-Ejercito-passes-away-at-103
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512214530/http://old.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/story/6D6AF90060A4937EC225753D00365645?OpenDocument to http://old.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/story/6D6AF90060A4937EC225753D00365645?OpenDocument
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202080539/http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/30/668235 to http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/30/668235
Corrected formatting/usage for http://fijivillage.com/?mod=story&id=1601097fd182082efe39e119f28e85
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921054136/http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2009/Jan/16/eu-russia-obit-dudarova-011609/ to http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2009/Jan/16/eu-russia-obit-dudarova-011609/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.philly.com/philly/obituaries/20090120_Lillian_Willoughby__Quaker_activist__dies_at_93.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nola.com/timespic/stories/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fobits-33%2F123217268677100.xml&coll=1
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mydesert.com/article/20090119/LIFESTYLES01/90119027/1263/update
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090314000139/http://archpaper.com/e-board_rev.asp?News_ID=3248 to http://www.archpaper.com/e-board_rev.asp?News_ID=3248&PagePosition=1
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090129091416/http://austriantimes.at/index.php?id=10776 to http://austriantimes.at/index.php?id=10776
Corrected formatting/usage for http://psg.theoffside.com/team-news/the-passing-of-clement-pinault.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1378004.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708113619/http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/classifieds/obituaries/listing.php?id=192717 to http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/classifieds/obituaries/listing.php?id=192717
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713202616/http://artists.letssingit.com/gerard-blanc-the-end-of-the-story-z5skd/news/292675/1 to http://artists.letssingit.com/gerard-blanc-the-end-of-the-story-z5skd/news/292675/1
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.espnstar.com/football/other-football/news/detail/item190549/Cornejo-dies-of-cancer/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sportinglife.com/boxing/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=boxing%2F09%2F01%2F25%2FBOXING_Gutteridge.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308051618/http://www.jta.org/news/article/2009/01/27/1002553/interfaith-pioneer-rabbi-leon-klenicki-died to http://jta.org/news/article/2009/01/27/1002553/interfaith-pioneer-rabbi-leon-klenicki-died
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr230209.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/professor-michael-majerus-geneticist-who-defended-darwin-in-the-battle-against-creationism-1608181.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140819090649/http://www.blogdolcevita.com/post/1423/italian-music-mino-reitano-dies-at-64 to http://www.blogdolcevita.com/post/1423/italian-music-mino-reitano-dies-at-64
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oregonlive.com/obituaries/argus/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fobituaries%2F1233341457316270.xml&coll=6
Corrected formatting/usage for http://google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jj4yj37U9DWYfLMh8iNpt2MokknAD9617D280
Corrected formatting/usage for http://epaper.jfdaily.com/jfdaily/html/2009-02/03/content_194742.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029183812/http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/145429_Ambassador-Lucille-Mair-is-dead to http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/145429_Ambassador-Lucille-Mair-is-dead
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.european-athletics.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7063&Itemid=2
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512222633/http://jaxairnews.jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/407800/2009-01-28/lynyrd-skynyrd-keyboard-player-billy-powell-dead-56 to http://jaxairnews.jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/407800/2009-01-28/lynyrd-skynyrd-keyboard-player-billy-powell-dead-56
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.princeclausfund.org/nl/what_we_do/exchange_events/AngelWainaina.shtml
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/news/Tributes-paid-Swans-hero/article-659345-detail/article.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214070934/http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/breakingnews/breakingnews/view/20090202-186910/80s-pop-icon-Mike-Francis-dead to http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/breakingnews/breakingnews/view/20090202-186910/80s-pop-icon-Mike-Francis-dead
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20090131/NEWS02/901310372/1009
Corrected formatting/usage for http://old.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=188196
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202173211/http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090131/FREE/901319995 to http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090131/FREE/901319995
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2009/02/01/Sir_John_Fuller_dies_aged_91
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512225022/http://www.federationgenealogie.qc.ca/avisdeces/avis/pdf?id=465319 to http://www.federationgenealogie.qc.ca/avisdeces/avis/pdf?id=465319
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512223927/http://archive.deccanherald.com/Content/Jan312009/national20090131115727.asp?section=updatenews to http://archive.deccanherald.com/Content/Jan312009/national20090131115727.asp?section=updatenews

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 8 external links on Deaths in January 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]