Talk:Deaths in 2017/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Source headlines which appear in text form in the list of references at the bottom of the article and as a tooltip for certain media devices.

It's always been my understanding (and I've never been reverted on this until today) that we always stay faithful to the source article when reporting both the correct and shortest URL, plus the correct headline or most prominent line of text acting as a headline. Outside of creating the main description of subject, age, nationality, notability and cause of death, it is not our job to be creative prose writers when reporting the source details, such as adding arbitrary "obituary" or "death of" in an original research vein. If I am wrong, I'll happily go with any consensus formed here. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree. We reproduce the headline/title of the article/obituary/death notice exactly as it is published. WWGB (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems I justifiably reverted the revert then. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions

• Gonzalo Martínez Corbalá, 89, Mexican politician and diplomat, member (<years>) and Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies (1990), Senator (<years>), and Governor of San Luis Potosí (<years>). Or some variation. — Wyliepedia 09:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Link rot

Per WP:CITE, please do not keep things to a simple citation format. This encourages link rot, which can plague wikipedia articles. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Before removing a template, I could not find the previous argument for not using a full citation for a source. It seems very against standard. Could someone dig it up? I've tried and found nothing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

For starters. — Wyliepedia 16:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

On reading a nearly 10 year old debate, I believe its easy enough to return to it here. The predominant argument from 2008 (nearly ten years ago) seems to be that the articles were updated quickly and frequently. I see reason to actually keep it to a full citation length as it a) follows wikipedia standards, b) promotes reliable sources and c) there are far more tools nowadays to making citations done simply and clean. Perhaps its time to open up it again? Things have changed since 2008. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

If you take the time to review the talk archives the issue has been revisited again, and again, and again. There are very good reasons that the current referencing system 1) obtained consensus and 2) maintains consensus year over year, one of the most important of which is load times. If one of the most widely viewed pages on Wikipedia becomes unavailable to many readers, then it's useless.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

From the guidelines: "References should be in <ref>[url & title]</ref> format, as full citations make the page too slow to load, and too big to edit." Feel free to template all the references in a sandbox and see how it affects page performance. Reach Out to the Truth 17:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate others showing me this template like this. I foolishly only searched discussion on this from this pages history. I appreciate your patience with me sorting this out. Perhaps to avoid issues like this again, we could a banner head on the talk page suggesting why we edit this page the way we do. Thoughts?Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

One of the reasons why 'simple cite' is used is to keep the (eventually) very long pages as "light" as possible when loading on a device. For that reason, banner head advice is also kept to a minimum, as well as to avoid it turning into an instruction manual which occupies the majority of the top-of-the-page visual (Wikipedia pages, as I have always understood it, are meant primarily for convenient referencing by the visitor, not for the guidance of the editor). By becoming a regular and valuable contributor to these particular pages, editors can learn conventions and consensii (?) as they go along - like I myself did over many years. Hope this is at least one answer to Andrzejbanas. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a fine thing to mention in our FAQ. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Cardiac Arrest

This keeps coming up. We have a long standing understanding that Cardiac Arrest is NOT a true cause of death. Cardiac arrest is a condition/symptom with an underlying cause of which there can be many from disease to drug overdose to electrocution. In the last few weeks, there have been many cardiac arrest deaths. We have had a drug overdose, heart attack, septicemia, and now pneumonia all ending with cardiac arrest. It was not cardiac arrest that killed them, it was the symptom/complication from the disease.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Please direct me to that "long standing understanding". WWGB (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I will have to dig it out of the archives. Seems like it was late 2015 when we last had this topic come up. But the point remains, it has an underlying factor that is the actual cause of death.Sunnydoo (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you remembered this, but it is a long way from an "understanding". WWGB (talk) 07:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is a link for the Mississippi Department of Health as a directive to Coroners/ME. I have seen a similar sheet for the NHS as well. But until I can find that link take a look at this sheet. There are about 6 "Conditions" that are not formal Causes of Death. Instead they are known as "Modes of Dying." Sunnydoo (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is the NHS listing of Causes v. Modes. See Pages 7 and 8 including Table 1. Sunnydoo (talk) 04:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

And here is the official US version from the CDC. See Case 7 specifically pages 30 and 31 for respiratory arrest. In the US, the terminology is mechanism of death instead of mode of dying. They are a different and distinct thing from cause of death.Sunnydoo (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Ontario frowns upon counting cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest, hypoxia, asphyxia, syncope, shock, cardiovascular event, asthenia, debility and frailty. Ten points to anyone who's even heard of asthenia. I have it, and I hadn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, if not rather WP:ORish. As always, we follow the sources, which is not necessarily the truth. If the majority of reliable sources state "John Doe's cause of death was cardiac arrest" then we are bound to follow that.

Still hope others will contribute here. WWGB (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll go by whatever consensus dictates but generally if a source states something like "X died from cardiac arrest", then it's accurate to put it into the entry. Though if there's a decision to not include it, do we not add a COD then? In this case the argument is that pneumonia led to the cardiac arrest of May. So would we list it as "pneumonia-induced cardiac arrest" then? Rusted AutoParts 06:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we should put cardiac arrest as the main cause of death since it's listed as that on the death certificate. Possibly "Cardiac arrest as a result of sepsis"DrKilleMoff (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

In actual fact, given the Wikipedian standard of not allowing a clear untruth into any of our articles, you could state any one of about four causes without being accused of having introduced such into the Deaths page in this case. There is a truly under-the-microscope obsession here about showing the absolute irrefutable truth rather than being content that a total lie is not present within the page. Which is why I usually steer well clear of naming causes. I've already contributed to this discussion twice more than I wanted to. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I could go for "cardiac arrest from/due to/as a result of sepsis", as a second choice. I still think it's a bit much, since everyone's heart stops when they die, but it should satisfy those who think a source explicitly saying so makes a difference. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed! Where a reliable source or the death certificate states cardiac arrest as cause of death, I am happy to accept that we report "cardiac arrest due to <condition>". Thanks, WWGB (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like we have got a consensus then. If no one objects I will add the COD accordingly. DrKilleMoff (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

There's a separate but similar issue with Indians, whose news treats cardiac arrest and heart attack as synonyms, not just different levels of detail. These should not be given the "cardiac arrest due to..." treatment. Should just find a "heart attack" source. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add this in as a point of discussion (and possible clarification) - - - the AHA (American Heart Association) defines a "heart attack" as a blockage of any blood vessel supplying blood to the heart while a "cardiac arrest" is due to something wrong with the heart itself and not connected/related/due to anything dealing with blood supply. The AHA simplifies it with heart attack is circulation, cardiac arrest is electrical.

I've had a "heart attack." That is what the ER doctors called it and, since it was due to a blocked artery on my heart, the label followed AHA definition. If I had died, the COD on the death certificate would've stated "heart attack" not "cardiac arrest."

Also, COD on a death certificate regarding the heart can vary from 'doctor' to 'doctor.' Here in Phoenix, AZ, the COD on my mother's 2010 death certificate lists "acute cardiac arrest."

So, I say go with what's on the death certificate and don't try to interpret or second guess the professional who filled it out and signed off on it.

I'll also be the first to admit that CODs can change. My experience in researching family history & genealogy proves that it can change due to medical improvements and changes in understanding. For example, my great grandfather's 1913 death certificate lists "galloping consumption" as COD; today, we know it was actually "tuberculosis." 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Date of Death

It think it should be made clear that when entering a date of death that it be the date at the site of death; i.e., using the deceased's local time zone. This may still be somewhat confusing if the place of death is not also recorded. For example, if someone dies at 1:00 a.m. on July 1 in London, it should be entered as July 1 even though the entry is being made on June 30 in Los Angeles (and to the Angeleno, the date will forever be remembered as June 30).

An alternative — but less palatable — method would be to enter the date of death using UTC. What date was it in Coordinated Universal Time at the deceased's time of death? This has the advantage of not having to enter the place of death, but the great disadvantage of having to determine the UTC date first. Dwendl (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the first one would be better, mostly based on the fact that exact times aren't always released (and that's what the day articles use, simpler to keep it that way for consistency). -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You're arguing for the status quo, Dwendl. It has always been the case that an event of any kind, including the death of a person, is recorded according to the time zone of the place where the event occurred, not any other place. Where one happens to be when one hears about the event is supremely irrelevant. Billions of people around the world heard about the death of Princess Diana, at various different times according to their time zones, but the only date of any relevance to the historical record is the date in Paris at the time of the crash, and according to the time zone Paris was under at that moment. It is possible that an event occurred at a place on Day X, but would have happened on Day X+1 or Day X-1 if daylight saving had or had not been a factor. That's why the precise time zone for the place is important. And that's why media reports that so-and-so "died overnight" are completely and utterly useless.

I've previously argued that the date of the 1969 and later Moon landings cannot be reported using an Earth-based calendar, simply because those events occurred nowhere on Earth, by definition. At the very least, the reference point on Earth has to be specified (Houston, Washington, Cape Kennedy, wherever), not just "The landing happened on 19 July 1969". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

"Died overnight" is useless because the day starts in the middle of the night rather than after it. Even if we all lived in Newfoundland, we'd still be just as confused. Only wetter. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, November 11, 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Clear case of WP:IFITAINTBROKE. WWGB (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Basically though, the date of death is just subject purely to verification by checking a source or range of sources, as with any other info used or claimed in a Death entry. And should match any DoD in a subject's own Wikipedia article, if one exists. If not, there needs to be a check balance between here and there as to why that's not so. Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)