Talk:Deaths in July 2016

Ion Ianoși (July 1, R.I.P.)

His entry here originally described him as "Romanian-born Israeli" but this seems to be based on a RO:EN mistranslation of "de origine evreiască" ("of Jewish origin" - not "Hebrew" or "Israeli"). Neither does the cited obituary in the Romanian-language press mention Israel. I've corrected the entry here to read "Romanian writer and essayist of Jewish origin" and alerted the original poster (User talk:MJ for U#Ion Ianoși, R.I.P. - why Israeli?) requesting confirmation ASAP. I'll then follow up accordingly. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The "of Jewish origin" was removed. Religion is not mentioned here unless a field of study. If he wrote about the religion, then that can be worked in somehow. — Wyliepedia 10:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2016

Error on Deaths in 2016 page - July 5th/Brian White - says year of birth is 1997, it should be 1957. It is however, correct on the page link when you click on his name and it takes you to his Wik page.

130.221.145.5 (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• That's the date he was elected to public office, not his birth date. Skudrafan1 (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - as explained above - it states "MP (1997–2005)" - he didn't die in 2005, and he wasn't eight - Arjayay (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC),

• • But he was an MP from 1997-2005. In no way do those dates imply birth or death. Skudrafan1 (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I wondered why we put ages after the entry names on a 2016 page... </sarcasm> — Wyliepedia 21:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Noel Neill on July 3 links to the Superman franchise.

I think the correct link for Ms. Neill should be Superman. That will take a reader right to the property with which she was directly involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.41.117.182 (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

She was also the original Lois Lane, starring in serials Superman (1948) and Atom Man vs. Superman (1950), so the link that RustedAutoParts made to the Superman franchise seems more fitting. BurienBomber (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

John McMartin

If you are familiar with his career, you know that John McMartin was best known for Sweet Charity. His obituaries reflect this. Not only was he nominated for a Tony award for his performance, but he also starred in the film version. It really needs to be one of the three credits listed here. BurienBomber (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

...It is though. Rusted AutoParts 15:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Alton Sterling and Philando Castile.

Is there a policy reason that Alton Sterling and Philando Castile aren't listed here? The FAQ doesn't say anything about whether or not to list cases where a death becomes a story, but the person who died wasn't notable before. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yet another "gray area" of this page. Technically, we do not have an article about "Alton Sterling" or "Philando Castile". Because they are not notable. We only have an article about "the death of Alton Sterling" and "the death of Philando Castile". Which is a different matter altogether. So, it's a gray area. I think the "rule" is that they are not listed when we do not have a page, proper, on them. A page about their death is not sufficient. I think that's the present "rule". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The general consensus is "no bio, no article". If we add Sterling and Castile, someone else will want to add the dead Dallas police, then someone else will want to add the Pulse nightclub victims. Then we are on a very slippery slope. Of all the recent attacks, only Omar Mateen has an article, and hence the only participant or victim listed here. WWGB (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

So this would apply to the Shooting of David Douglas? Rusted AutoParts 16:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Depends on his zookeeping skillz. — Wyliepedia 07:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Babenco credits

I believe Héctor Babenco's three credits should be Pixote, Kiss of the Spider Woman and Carandiru, while Rusted AutoParts thinks Ironweed is more deserving of mention than Pixote. While Ironweed is a somewhat better known film than Pixote, at least in America, Pixote is an internationally renowned Brazilian classic and Babenco's breakthrough film; it is widely considered a masterpiece. It received at least ten awards from various film festivals and film critics awards -- including two for Best Foreign Language Film and three for Babenco himself -- as well as a Golden Globe nomination for Best Foreign Film. Compare this to Ironweed, which received only one award (two if you include the NYFCC Award that Jack Nicholson got for all his films that year); the film's stars earned Oscar nominations but Babenco himself did not, nor did he win any award for the film. Pixote is also significantly more widely acclaimed than Ironweed, with the former received an 8.0/10 rating on IMDb and a 100% Rotten Tomatoes score compared to the 6.8/10 IMDb rating and 65% RT score for Ironweed. Pixote has even spent time on TSPDT's list of the 1,000 Greatest Films, which is compiled using polls of critics and filmmakers. For all these reasons, I feel Pixote is a more fitting example of Babenco's work than Ironweed. --ThylekShran (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I lay credits in people's entries with two things being kept in mind: Most notable works of the individual, and how well known the project is on an international scale. So I look at how many non English wiki's there are for the project. *Pixote* is on 6 other wiki's. *Ironweed* is on 15. That indicates to me *Ironweed* is more notable on a global scale.

Babencos death is still a recently reported one, so there isn't much sources out about it presently, but the ones we do have don't mention Pixote as often as they do Ironweed. New York Times, Irish Examiner, The Chronicle Herald. CBS currently is the only one. Rusted AutoParts 15:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, regarding most notable works of the individual, they don't get more notable for Babenco than the three I mentioned above, for reasons I've already laid out here and in the edit summary. As for its international renown, Pixote won accolades from organizations in Spain, Switzerland and the U.S. and was nominated for a Golden Globe by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, which comprises over 50 different nationalities. On IMDb -- which can be accessed worldwide -- Pixote has only 1,500 fewer user-rating votes than Ironweed, and only 359 fewer votes from non-US users (2,603 vs. 2,962) -- and again, Pixote actually has international awards recognition, unlike Ironweed. Pixote is also considered an influential landmark of Latin American cinema, per the AFI's 'World Cinemas, Transnational Perspectives' and other sources ([1] ; [2] ; [3]). Ironweed, not so much. :) Also, all of the foreign-language obits so far highlight Pixote over Ironweed, with some (such as the Globo obit) not even mentioning Ironweed. Edit: Oh, and one more thing: Babenco actually co-wrote Pixote, so including it also gives an example of his screenwriting work. He only directed Ironweed. :) --ThylekShran (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Recognition is fine and dandy. Swell even. Doesn't change that Pixote isn't globally recognized as much as Ironweed, as ive pointed out in my non English wiki's point. Ironweed may not have the same accolade reception, but accolades aren't everything to a film. It's not like *Ironweed* was only nominated by the Academy Awards, it was in competition at the Moscow International Film Festival and nominated for the Golden St. George. All that counts in the end is worldwide notability, and right now the non English wiki ratio favors Ironweed. Also off topic, smiley faces added into conversations when it's a disagreement/argument drives me up the wall, so I'm a little annoyed atm. Rusted AutoParts 16:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're annoyed at my attempts to keep things friendly and lighthearted. I'll be sure to treat all future conversations on trivial matters with deadly seriousness and condescension. As for your point regarding non-English wikis, I'm sorry again; I didn't know the number of wikis for which people have bothered to create a specific page held more weight than actual recognition, acclaim and influence as shown above and as noted in many other sources. That being the case, you're absolutely right, Ironweed is totally the more notable film. I therefore concede your point and offer you my congratulations on winning a debate on such a grave matter with such insignificant evidence. Good day, sir. --ThylekShran (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I apologize.

I should preface by stating I spent a year working tech support, so it's thrown off how I interpret people's tone. In non verbal discussions I take part in, I typically just read it neutrally, not putting a voice to it so I don't interpret a tone. So basing my previous experiences with discussions where I disagree with someone, whenever a smiley face is inserted I tend to view it as the person being passive aggressive or just attempting to get under my skin. I know that wasn't your intention.

As for the discussion at hand, yes unfortunately it shows which countries consider it noteworthy. Predominantly this wiki will be read by English speakers, and the average person will likely be more familiar with a movie starring Meryl Streep and Jack Nicholson. And in this scenario Ironweed would probably be the better choice to showcase in his credits. Rusted AutoParts 21:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I said GOOD DAY, sir... Oh, *ahem*, sorry. Anyways, no worries; apology accepted. I can overdo the smileys sometimes so I can see how it could come off passive-aggressive, but no, I didn't mean them that way. I must apologize too 'cause I did get a bit riled up in my last comment, though I tried to maintain a sarcastic tone (not sure I succeeded there; seems to come off as straight angry now.) Anyways, after giving it some thought, I now think you're right about Ironweed; English speakers/readers are more likely to know that film than Pixote, even if the latter has more impact and prestige. So I'm okay with the credits the way they are now. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this. Cheers! --ThylekShran (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

El Lebrijano

In his own article he's sorted as Lebrijano, El, because El simply means The. But here it's under E for El. We need to be consistent. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This may be a colloquial thing, but articles (as a part of speech) have evolved into meaning in this day and age (not the way it was 20 or even 10 years ago). U2's guitarist, e.g., is The Edge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Edge). Not Edge, but The Edge. The "The" has meaning now. Blame it on The Ohio State University or whomever, but articles (as a part of speech) have a presence now. Whether you want to treat them all alphabetically or do it on a case by case base is a decision on the community. But I would be willing to bet that this is more of an American and Western thing than Aussie or British (even though The Edge is Irish). Dont know that answer either.Sunnydoo (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

My point is that, whatever the decision is for this person, it must be applied the same way everywhere he appears. In his categories he appears under L for Lebrijano, because his article contains the Defaultsort parameter to make it happen that way. But we're ignoring that here. Why are we being inconsistent? I moved him to the appropriate place in the list of Deaths for 13 July, but that move was reverted. That seems like wilful perversity to me. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Helen Bailey

I'm unsure how best to treat this person's death, in this list article. Remains were found on 15 July, and confirmed as hers the next day - but it is clear from the context that she must have died on or very soon after 11 April. Any guidance from regulars here? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Usually we put a tag on the death as in "Body discovered on this date" similar to the "Death announced on this date," until a more definitive date can be substantiated. In this case that would be up to the Coroner or Medical Examiner at autopsy and death certificate/inquiry filing.Sunnydoo (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Done - but disappointingly now edited by another to remove a clarifying hidden note. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, by me. We don't need secret messages on this page. Death scenarios belong in the subject's article. WWGB (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That's bollocks. But you might at least have made an effort to be consistent. See the immediately following entry. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, gone too. WWGB (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The Helen Bailey article has now been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Bailey. I know that editors here are far more experienced than I am in terms of the notability of a subject before his/her death - what do you think about her (pre-disappearance) notability? JezGrove (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

And is now a keeper. — Wyliepedia 07:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Dennis Green missing Stanford

Why is Stanford not listed amongst the place Dennis Green coached? He led Stanford to a a big victory at Notre Dame in 1990 which ended a long home winning streak by the Fighting Irish. And he was coaching Stanford when he was hired by the Vikings. He should be listed as coaching Stanford, too. DavidSteinle (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

3 reasons off the top of my head. First, he coached 5 years at Northwestern and only 3 at Stanford. Secondly, he ended what was the longest losing streak in Division I history (at that time) while at Northwestern- after the previous coach had gone 1-31-1 during his tenure. The Wildcats lost 34 straight but finally beat Northern Illinois during his tenure. He went on to win Coach of the Year in the Big 10. Third, he was hired there in 1981 becoming only the 2nd African American football coach in D1 history and the first in a "power" conference.Sunnydoo (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, we have a "rule of three" here, as in listing only three of the more notable offices, jobs, works, etc. — Wyliepedia 09:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Shawshank tree

If a discussion is promised (even in edit notes), it should be taken up, if only to lay out an opinion rather than trying to counter an opposite one. And so, I noted that (briefly) a non-human subject called the Shawshank tree had been added to the list of "deceased", following the catastrophic loss of the organic non-thinking entity this month. I also acknowledge that it (currently) has been removed. To put in general terms, then, historically we have consensually agreed that non-human species may be included here, as long as they have their own Wikipedia article, and that's a fair standpoint. What I personally have trouble understanding is the reason why anyone would want a non-sentient being such as a plant (which a tree is, at its basest level) included in a deaths list. Humans are eternally interested in the deaths of other humans, and find a need to read about such events perhaps in order to understand their own mortality. This is a state of being which certainly doesn't exist for (say) a deceased racehorse. Equines do not read, and so do not read about other dead horses. The premise becomes even more tenuous for species which never had a beating heart. So I would say the removal is correct, and the rule for inclusion should be set only to sentient species, upon their demise. And certainly not plant life. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

We had this discussion over the Eisenhower Tree too (see Talk:Deaths_in_2014/Archive_1#Eisenhower_Tree). The list is of notable deaths. The scope is notable living things that died in a certain time frame. This includes trees. I see no reason to exclude it. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Rusted AutoParts who removed the entry (and I think do the same on the Eisenhower Tree back when). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I feel my stance is fairly obvious. I really don't believe a tree falling qualifies inclusion on a deaths list. It's all I have to say on the matter. Rusted AutoParts 21:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It is a biological being- whether or not it is sentient has no bearing. It lives and it dies. And here we record it on our list. It is the Circle of Life. The rules are the rules and it is the rules we have agreed to play by. It has an article. It died. It gets listed. End of Story. Wiki is not about your feelings. It is about facts.Sunnydoo (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

'Tis true, it's an agreed-upon policy which has been included in the FAQ here and in the lead on the main page. It trumps "I don't like it". — Wyliepedia 01:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

From the FAQ (which I forgot about): "This article reports the death of any notable biological life, not just humans." That includes trees. So can we please add this back in? Original entry is at this diff. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done but with only one source. — Wyliepedia 03:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

As I stated, the promised discussion needed a start point, and in doing that I also added a purely personal opinion into the mix. The discussion has produced the required result (through consensus or a reminder of a previous agreement), so I go away happy. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Refsworldlee: Apologies for blowing through your original post, but I posted the tree's demise on Facebook, which was a Trending topic at the time, and got immediate sad emojis for responses. I saw the news on Facebook first, came to WP to see if it has been mentioned (anywhere), then saw its removal here, after its article was created. The point to all that is: it was a notable living thing, and, if the Deaths In page is the only way a microcosm of people get their death notices (I usually check here first), then it should be added – animal, vegetable or mineral. — Wyliepedia 15:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• I support the outcome of this discussion. Biological deaths are, and should continue to be, recorded here.--John Cline (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Małgorzata Bartyzel

Małgorzata Bartyzel died 23 July, not 24. Konrad Czub (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The quoted source says Sunday the 24th. I will look into it.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Upon further review, I think it should stay the 24th. All of the sources that I can find say she died in her sleep sometime Saturday night/Sunday morning. That is she was found dead on Sunday morning. We cant say definitively she died Saturday, but we can say she was dead on Sunday.Sunnydoo (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Marni Nixon

Marni Nixon has quite a few classic works to her name. Can we add a few to her credits on this page? She is very well-known for singing in these very well-known films. For example, The King and I, West Side Story, and My Fair Lady. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that thanks to the rats in Hollywood, she did not get credit for her work on the screen. Yes we know it is her, but the credit went to Audrey Hepburn, Natalie Wood and Deborah Kerr. Since she didnt actually appear in those movies, it is kind of a touchy situation. I am inclined to agree, but I can see the other side as well.Sunnydoo (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't follow. Whether or not she worked on a film is a different question than whether or not she received screen credit. Two completely different things. I imagine there are dozens upon dozens of sources indicating that she worked in these films. Her article is littered with these credits. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think adding "playback singer" then any body of work is suitable. Or, should we list films without it, then check to see if those film articles have her listed? Damn the actual screen credits! I knew her voice without them. — Wyliepedia 10:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

"Playback singer" is just a special sub-category of "singer". So, I think that using the word "singer" is fine. And, again, screen credits do not matter whatsoever. If she did the work, she did the work. And there are a gazillion sources for that. Her receiving or being denied screen credit is totally irrelevant. I am quite sure that "no screen credit" was the standard for this sort of thing, back in that era. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Barka Warduko Al-Mahdi

Although the link is red at the moment and I have no problem with that I do have a misgiving when, upon going to the reference provided, I am told (if I can remember correctly) that my computer is being checked first! A new one on me and I shut the link down as quickly as I could. 1) could someone with more savvy please check it and 2) it maybe worth putting a note in the listing to reflect that this will / may happen. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 12:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. That was not there last night. We probably generated a little bit of IP traffic and the IB decided to monitor the situation. I have zone alarms, malware bytes, regular anti virus and several other tools that I use as I phish for the obits, and none of them are going off. I think it is more of a country specific protocol going on instead of a personal intrusion to your computer. Will keep an eye out for another obit if one gets posted up. I may see if I can find a link in Arabic if nothing else.Sunnydoo (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I just completed a scan of each of them and I am not showing anything wonky.Sunnydoo (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, much appricated. Edmund Patrick – confer 20:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Non-updating page for unlogged in viewers?

Hi. If I view the Deaths page in my logged out state, such as now, there have been no updates since before midnight on 28/7/2016. When I log in with my username, I can then see all the recent additions. Having logged out again, I am once again unable to see the recent additions (thus ruling out a cache problem with my browser I believe). Any ideas? 86.113.157.129 (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Apologies. It was my browser cache. 86.113.157.129 (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)