Talk:Deaths in 2019

British nationals

To my tastes people from the UK should always be called "British" unless their English,Scottish,Welsh etc. identity was central to their notability.I take it prevailing sentiment here differs?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd say, be guided by whatever the description is in their article, if one exists. Certainly if the country of birth (neither Britain or the United Kingdom are countries) is not clear, "British" is an acceptable encompassing label. Nationalists will never agree with you though (for example, hardened Scottish independence campaigners would in fact hate to be called British, you'll find). Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The essay Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom#Guide to finding UK nationality provides some advice on this matter. WWGB (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who was a "hardened Scottish independence campaigner" would therefore have reason to be called "Scottish"...but they can't decide the proper description of other Scots indifferent to the issue.12.144.5.2 (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

When I add people from the Kingdom, I usually link their birthplace to their nationality (eg born in Wales, then Welsh). There are many exceptions however b/c of the Troubles in Ireland and the six counties and some others. Scotland especially these days is getting touchy about such things with good reason why. And it only makes sense i guess with all of the people using Hong Kong, Taiwan and Puerto Rico...might as well use Manx and Jersey and all of the others as people dont care about who really controls the territory these days and it is fairly specific to their identity. And I am fine with that as long as it used as a standard (with exception) instead of hit and miss. Thats the thing, we are trying to be specific on this page and not use weasel words like businessman/woman. These people are notable and we should be able to be specific about them whether its their work or where they are from.Sunnydoo (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The British are coming ...

This is a recurring issue on these pages, but we really need to do better in reaching a position that can be supported by the contributing gnomes here. The above discussion petered out without any conclusion. More recently, Ref has implemented his own preference to align the death list nationality with the lead of the deceased's article. To my mind, this places undue weight on what may be nothing more than the whim of the article's creator. There is no reason why "our" list should be subservient to the singular writing of another editor.

In the absence of any clear Wikipedia policy on the matter, I prefer that we leave British/English/(Northern) Irish/Scottish/Welsh as written by the creator of the death listing, unless there is clear evidence that the deceased had a clear personal preference. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I think this belongs in "British nationals" at the top. Give it a conclusion, stop the petering! But yeah, never trust Wikipedia alone. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, November 24, 2019 (UTC)

 Done. WWGB (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

However, in all other ways we remain subservient to the description already in the subject article - we rely heavily on that description to formulate our own - and we also glean exact notability linkings such as achievements, memberships from the subject article too. My proposal is simply that we should do the same when it comes to country or nationality issues. You say "the whim of the article's creator" - well, that's not true now is it? Because each and every article, including this one, is subject to further editing by one or more who did not create it, yet have a differing view to the creator on certain points, and will change the article over time to reflect their view. Any conflicts of view will be resolved between editors (hopefully without edit warring) to give a balanced set of facts when the process has run through. Personally, I think we have a duty to make our description as close to the person article one as possible, if only for consistency's sake. (By the way, "done" is certainly not "done", at least not by merely juggling the views of three people in this latest round of discussion in this section, so hang fire please.) Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

”Done” simply means this discussion was joined with the earlier one , as suggested by Hulk. WWGB (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@WWGB: Noted - sorry for the misunderstanding there. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Terrorism is terrorism

Sometimes,accuracy demands what others call "judgmental labels",the "Islamic State" is not part of the community of nations...if claiming to "have no borders,only battlefronts" is not terrorism directed at the whole rest of the world,what is?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Recipients often say "terrorists". Those on the other side would say they are "freedom fighters" or "activists". It's not our job to decide which is which in a game of right and wrong. Just to add info encyclopedically and not "judgmentally" based on our individual prejudices. And I'd appreciate no abuse using the word "sympathiser" in any replies here (or elsewhere, as has been the case over many years of pointing this out). Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

So what expression of forceful opposition to your stance gets through to you most effectively?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Opposition to this change is grounded in the Manual of Style, namely MOS:LABEL, which represents a wider level of consensus than we editors can reach here. If you wish to change the ISIL-related descriptions, a discussion on the MoS talk page must occur first. Vycl1994 (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@12.144.5.2: No amount of force would get me to change my stance on that or any other baseline of encyclopedic requirement at Wikipedia. It's just a shame that your "stance" is so entrenched in flagrant bias. Stay as an IP editor and don't get an account here, unless you can modify that. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I've been an "IP editor" here off and on for sixteen years and been paid to edit published reference books years before that.When Wikipedia policies are foolish there's no excuse to accord them undeserved respect.12.144.5.2 (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

What you state is "undeserved respect" above, I've described as consensus several times. However, consensus can change, and the first step in that process for this case is here. Arguments from authority are of less use on this project, as on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, even though some notable Wikipedians are recognized experts in their respective fields. Vycl1994 (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

So...Usman Khan doesn't get neutral terms?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 08:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

No, because he was previously convicted of terrorism offences. WWGB (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Lords and barons, ladies and baronesses

Hi. In all cases of titles bestowed on people by the Queen of England, in the UK it is disrespectful to refer to any of them by their former first given names, and especially in death. Some allowance of their royal titleage has to be shown in the subject line when reporting a death here. You choose which way, but none of this "Edwin Bramall" nonsense for the lord and baron recently deceased. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

This listing if changed may need a redirect, as the article is in the name of Edwin Bramall. Alternatively, the article may also need to be renamed to make it more respectful. Editrite! (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

That discussion is for Talk:Edwin Bramall, and should take into account WP:NCPEER. Vycl1994 (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Our entry now includes "Baron Bramall" in the lead, and that omission (or very similar) was the only reason I brought this up. If the editors at his article can't see any folly in calling him "Edwin", that's up to them. We can be better than that. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

First apparel executives are ridiculous, then fatal asthma attacks are impossible, now giving a baron his given name is foolish. Which is it? Will you explain how you know better than us mainstreamers about remembering November dead, or will you keep greedily holding these truths self-evident? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, November 14, 2019 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, Edwin Bramall, so titled, appears on Wikipedia's main page as a 'recent death'. Just saying. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

What's a mainstreamer when it's at home? All I do is comment whenever general knowledge acquired over time conflicts with something being introduced into these pages. As does everyone from time to time, in some shape or form. There's absolutely no need to get personal. Ref ^(chew)(do) 01:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

It needs to get somewhat personal, you're the only one who seems to know why we (the list) would be better than them (the bio and front page) by ignoring "Edwin". If you have actual knowledge of something that'll make us all look like an unruly mob of ingrateful nutpickers in front of the Queen, spilling the whole scoop would be for the greater good. If you want to keep it bottled up forever, that's fine, too.

I'm not judging you here, I'm just the interrogator. We're buddies, see, I've never met you, you've never met me. But if a lot of fancy people are going to get butthurt and you know how, you need to open the door and talk to us. For their sake, brother! Trust me, you might feel better once you get it off your chest.

I'd ask the same of any Necrology Department colleague exhibiting a similar pattern of disconnection from what I believe to be reality, nothing personal in that regard. I'm not suggesting you're crazy. You may be right, for all I know. Just say how, and everyone can go back home to whatever mainstream business awaits individual lords and ladies. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, November 14, 2019 (UTC)

Well, OK. In the UK, the deference shown to the titled "ruling classes" is a matter of etiquette and not an actual "doffing of the cap" to an actual existing class system. The idea is that, if you offend the lord or lady in name or otherwise, you offend the king or queen who gave them the gift of the title and all that goes with it. Hereditary peerage is a different matter. For instance, Alexander George Thynn, 7th Marquess of Bath, may often be referred to as just Alexander Thynn (but usually with his title following closely behind), and his son Ceawlin Henry Laszlo Thynn, Viscount Weymouth (still only heir to the Bath title) is often labelled just Ceawlin Thynn. (His more famous wife, Viscountess Emma Weymouth - the dancing Lady from BBC programme "Strictly Come Dancing" recently - is serially just "Emma Weymouth" also.) As a footnote, I'd just say that there are probably a number of left-wing, anti-Royalist UK editors here who are steaming from the ears over what I've just said, as they can usually see no reason for such deference. Quickly, the "executive" opinion was just that - opinion and not fact - and the "asthma" thing accrued knowledge from having someone in my family who suffers badly with it (I like to read up in such cases). Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your honesty. I'm kind of a Royalist myself, easier than remembering a bunch of rotating ministerial and gubernatorial titles, but I still have a mild simmering disdain for the various nobility and their inconsistent stylings. You're free to leave, sorry for any perceived besmirchment! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:22, November 14, 2019 (UTC)

No worries - a "slightly less animated" approach might work better in future! (Not for me - I'm getting used to you...) Cheers. Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

By the way, removing Sir Jonathan Miller's knighthood reference (to just "Jonathan Miller") does not carry the same weight in the UK and is not seen socially as a snub or slight. In fact some might see the inclusion of "Sir" in his piped link as being overly deferential. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Damn right "some might"! You don't see anyone else getting a title piped in over their common name, not even the Right Honourable dead. But when I last tried to lead a rebellion over this, most regular smallfolk who heard the call said they're happy just the way they are, so I changed my stance to Okily-dokily do in overt deference to the mob of nonbelieving neighborinos and sulked off to find another hill to die on, before realizing it wasn't the end of the world after all. Probably still isn't, even now that you mention it. Join us in perfect harmony, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:52, November 30, 2019 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Deaths in 2015/Archive 1#RfC Mention some titles? re consensus for the inclusion of "Sir" and "Dame". WWGB (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I refer of course to UK social etiquette where titling is concerned, and not regarding such a consensus in Wikipedia - which is why I have not removed "Sir" from "Sir Jonathan Miller". Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Cue "Alzheimer's isn't a killer"

That correction has yet to hit John Mann...12.144.5.2 (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree - his entry modified. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I see Catherine Small Long's entry has had "dementia" (the symptoms of which Alzheimer's is the leading cause) described as her cause of death,then changed to "complications of..." and then per WWGB saying "we follow reliable sources",reinstated.Now,either it is medically possible for dementia to be a cause of death all by itself,or it isn't.The AP story says that her family said the cause of death was dementia but they may well be oversimplifying or unaware of the nuances.It's not a death-certificate level of authority.12.144.5.2 (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

This is not a medical website. We publish based on “verifiability, not truth”. If a RS states cause of death was dementia,Alzheimer’s or cardiac arrest then that is what we publish. We don’t need to overthink it. WWGB (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

To devalue truth will always be bad policy.In any case,this article has had a consistent policy of changing claims that Alzheimer's was the direct cause of anyone's death for medical reasons and dementia would seem a similar issue.The Associated Press story (by a writer I was in CompuServe groups with decades ago) attributes that claimed cause to a statement by unidentified family members whose RS status seems questionable.12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

According to cdc.gov, "Alzheimer’s disease is ultimately a fatal form of dementia. It is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States".[2] If Long's death source had instead reported "the cause was cancer, her family said", I doubt we would be questioning that. The only local "policies" here are listed on the top of the talk page. I do not recall any consensus to add "complications of" when that is not in a reliable source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WWGB (talk • contribs) 21:49, November 24, 2019‎

Aye. Relaying questionable causes is fine. Inventing our own for anyone who happens to die after diagnosis is OR. A death certificate is certainly more trustworthy than most relatives, but these typically aren't publicized for celebrities on Long's level, unless foul play's suspected. We use what we can. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, November 25, 2019 (UTC)

Now Sir Jonathan Miller has had bare "Alzheimer's disease" listed.The mechanism is usually Alzheimer's leading to something else that is the direct cause.12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

"Sir Jonathan Miller CBE who sadly passed away today from Alzheimer’s disease". And that is from the Alzheimer's Society! WWGB (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I removed it earlier, precisely for lacking a reference exactly like that one. Maybe it could be more useful inline than back here? Just a thought. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, November 29, 2019 (UTC)

As a former Society president, maybe he had a vested interest . . . but seriously, the current CEO saw him a few weeks before his death suffering from "advanced" Alzheimer's disease. Editrite! (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Michael Lai

While I realize that Hong Kong is part of China, should we list him as Chinese or not. Most of his life and career seems to have been in Hong Kong, and in the past we have used Hong Kong in the listing, on occasions. Most or all of the sources only mention Hong Kong, as does his article. Editrite! (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

If Hong Kong is part of China, then he is Chinese, whether he (or various factions) like the idea or not. Britain gave up administration of the former colony in favour of a deal with China. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I stand corrected - the description has undergone a valid edit. Ref ^(chew)(do) 02:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Prince Mutaib

Surely 34 years as a cabinet minister are more important than three as a provincial governor?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Now he's linked to the article on the governor job,but as stated,his jobs from 1975-2009 were more important.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

None of his ministerial offices have bluelinks, a certain requirement here. Perhaps you would care to register an account and create them? — Wyliepedia @ 08:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Both offices were, according to his article, created to even the odds against the Sudairi Seven in a secretive deep state game of Anyone's Guess. That's not verbatim, but still. Seem largely ceremonial positions, less likely to directly govern millions as a governor might. I suggest drafting the articles in a text editor before signing up, 12. Might find they're impossible later, and then you're stuck officially working here for nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:37, December 3, 2019 (UTC)

Signing up for an account is something I decided not to do many years ago.His reputed fortune was I believe acquired through his piece of the action as a minister rather than his brief stint as governor.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I hear his dad gave him all the fishery earnings sometime before 1953, but that's from Wikipedia. The Wikileaks citation goes nowhere, at least for me. Investigating Saudi wealth is hard. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:59, December 3, 2019 (UTC)

The ticker

I know this talk page has been through this subject before... several times. But, we still seem to suffer from editors failing to differentiate between cardiac arrest, heart attack and heart failure. From memory, different nations/cultures/doctors/coroners/medics etc., also seem to blur these differences in their terminology. Sorry if I am turning over old bones, pun not intended, but is there a consensus that Wikipedia death page editors have previously agreed upon over this matter ? As an Englishman, I am specifically asking from a non-U.S. perspective. Thanks, - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I think (as a UK person and as a world person) that journalism and their sources are often to blame by quoting the wrong type in their reports. Two or three differing reported heart "causes" for the same death make things even more vague for the average editor, wherever they reside. It's true that sometimes editors plainly interpret causes wrongly, but then none of us (apart from those who studied prefessionally) are experts in medicine. It is, I'm afraid, a case of correcting mistaken causes as and when you see them, as I try to. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

As an example, a number of sources are reporting that Godfrey Gao died from a "cardiac arrest" (or even "cardia arrest", whatever that might be), while the majority quote a "heart attack", either "suspected", "apparent" or "what producers have said was". Sift throught that little lot for the truth. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Cardiac arrest is always true, provided the subject is dead. But not every dead subject is a human, especially in acting and modeling. So, (without recommending we do this) we have a more logical need to specify Gao's species than to inform readers his heart stopped on the day he died. Heart attacks, even suspected and apparent ones, are truly more useful in telling one death from another. A majority of sources providing such useful information, absent contrary claims, is good enough reason to relay it. "Cardiac arrest", either used properly or as a synonym, casts precisely zero doubt on "heart attack" allegations. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:57, December 6, 2019 (UTC) 15:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thats part of the problem. Cardiac arrest is not recognized in the US as a cause of death- although it seems to be in the Royal areas of the world. So it is a terminology thing like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in the US v. motor neuron disease wherever the UK was. Whichever way you go, its probably best you follow the source material as there are several true causes of death that cardiac arrest can be caused from. Everything from various organ and systemic failures, drug overdoses, poisonings, heart attacks and about 10 different other cardiac related problems covering a range from abnormal heart rhythms to electrical problems in the heart falls under that umbrella...which is one reason why the CDC guidelines were written the way they were. Sunnydoo (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I maybe dumb, but definitely not American, so what are 'CDC guidelines' please ? - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Here in the land of Imperial Cheese, we don't take cardiac arrest as a valid single answer from our coroners, either. It's India's problem, at least in the news, the idea that it means heart attack. Somewhat see it in Filipino press, too, but there are way more obits about Indians overall, so blame them in particular, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, December 10, 2019 (UTC)

This is the guidelines I was referring to. In the US, the CDC along with the NIH standardized reporting so as to be able to provide valuable data to the medical field upon peoples' untimely demise (why is always untimely?). Internationally you would know them from the outbreaks of several diseases such as Ebola where they help the WHO by providing manpower and knowledge to help stop epidemics.Sunnydoo (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanations. Do the Americans have an exact age at which one's demise is proper and 'timely' ?! What happens if one exceeds this - do you become untimely again. Also, presumably, the epidemic situation is to ensure that the WHO "Won't Get Fooled Again". - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Cavallo - Heart Failure

Why does Cavallo's cause of death keep getting deleted? It's cited in the Sun Sentinel article I initially linked. Rusted AutoParts 00:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I restored it again. If it is deleted again, I will make the Sun Sentinel the primary source, Euro block or not. WWGB (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

It's more than enough that the Sun Sentinel URL/info has been mentioned in edit summaries. The real problem solver would be educating the removing editor(s) as to their misguided actions. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Refsworldlee: To be clear, you were one of the recent removers of the COD, in your haste to restore the source. — Wyliepedia @ 09:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I was unaware of that error, and can only apologise. Hopefully, the status quo has been returned. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Roderick Strohl (December 2)

In case I missed it, where exactly is he mentioned in the Band of Brothers book and mini series articles? Editrite! (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Roderick G. Strohl. — Wyliepedia @ 10:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I found those wikilinks too, but they're not the redirect links being used. Editrite! (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Injuries and complications

There has been kerfluffle about Alzheimer's...I also see "complications from" pneumonia cited...now someone removed "injuries sustained in" from Leonard Goldberg's fall.People die from sequences of causes...I have my parents' death certificates and there's an A-due-to-B-due-to-C format with room for further underlying contributing conditions.What to allot in a brief listing depends on the circumstances.Goldberg died in a hospital where they were trying to treat the injuries he received when he fell...if he had died simply from the fall wouldn't he have been dead at the scene?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

In the interests of following sources and informing readers, we have over time conflated causes of death and manners of death. Terms such as "suicide", "shot" and "fall" are not causes of death, but more like manners of death. Suicide causes death by asphyxiation, exsanguination etc, being shot causes death by ballistic trauma, organ damage etc and a fall causes death by blunt trauma, subarachnoid haemorrhage etc.

We tend to overthink such things and bring our own knowledge to the table. As always, we should follow reliable sources, and use what they publish. If the NYT says someone died from "complications of a fall" or "suicide" then that is what we use. WWGB (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Mind you, if the NYT says anything to readers who haven't registered with them, they won't see it at all because of that. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Dystonia is fatal now, according to my esteemed colleague, Dr. AutoParts. We're at war again! See Caroll Spinney's obits if you want to pick a side. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, December 8, 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see how that’s relevant here. Rusted AutoParts 03:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Conflation, overthinking, not following sources, complications and death. But no falling, hospitalization or the rest. I didn't want a new section for what may likely be a brief edit skirmish. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:13, December 9, 2019 (UTC)

Denise D'Ascenzo

Is Denise D'Ascenzo "viable" for a red link? See 2019 deaths in American television for her December 7th entry. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add this line at December 7: Denise D’Ascenzo, 61, Veteran American News Anchor, WFSB-TV CH3 , Hartford CT, heart attack. WanderlustWilly (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Not done as she doesn't have an article here on Wikipedia. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not the "standard" for inclusion on this page. As I asked above: Is Denise D'Ascenzo "viable" for a red link? See 2019 deaths in American television for her December 7th entry. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Her death is reliably sourced with the genuine possibility of an article being created, so I would say it should be included. The entry can always be removed after the 30 day standard period if it remains a redlink.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Aye. Others have squeaked by with fewer Emmy wins. Eleven isn't chopped liver, even by daytime TV standards. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:56, December 9, 2019 (UTC)

Baseline notability and redlink equals inclusion for at least 30 days. If an article (bluelink) has not been written about subject by that 30 day mark, the subject gets removed. Thus it ever was. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I started a "stub" article. Here: Denise D'Ascenzo. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Was "Radio" a football coach?

The link to James "Radio" Kennedy is a redirect to the article about the film,which does not say that he himself coached football,only that there was a football coach who took an interest in helping him.The linked source obit basically says he hung around the football practices and mimicked the coaches.Is it fair to say that he WAS a coach?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The source says "assistant coach, cheerleader and half time performer", although it's the only source I could find (this listing is not my work) that mentions any coaching capacity. I think a more appropriate term would be "figure" or maybe even "iconic figure". Editrite! (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

"Fanatic" or "fan". An honorary assistant coach, but in the feel-good sense, like a kid riding along with a cop or a cat providing moral support for dinner. Not at all like iconic figure Tom Landry's actual job. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, December 15, 2019 (UTC)

"Fan" will suffice. Editrite! (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Non humans

Under December the 9 there is a racehorse. Should horses and other (non human) animals really be on this list? Ahlabonde (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ahlabonde: See FAQ #4 at the top of this page. WWGB (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

To clarify for the editor, animals MUST already have a dedicated article written about them in Wikipedia. Else, no. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

RIP and FU to Cosmo, the youngest star of Fuller House (no relation to Cosmo (dog) nor Cosmo the Spacedog), dead by surgery today. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, December 17, 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2019

The entry for Jud Phillips incorrectly states that he was the founder of Judd Records, causing confusion about his age. In actuality his father, also Jud Phillips, was the brother of Sam Phillips and the founder of Judd Records. 199.90.35.11 (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

You don't need a reliable source for a clear mistake. Jud Phillips Snr., brother of Sam Phillips (Sun Records), founded JUDD Records whether you like it or not - all you have to do is research it (try http://www.706unionavenue.nl/94656937 for the "Jud Phillips" story - Sam's brother Jud Snr. was born in 1921, which would make him 98 or 99 not 71). Jud Phillips Jnr., nephew of Sam Phillips (Sun Records) only did a few things in the recording industry - in fact almost too little to be considered notable. (See https://www.discogs.com/artist/4735845-Jud-Phillips-Jr for the sum total of his contribution compared to his father.) Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, Phillips Jnr. was a music executive for Mercury Records too, so a little more notability surfacing. Quoting from the http://www.706unionavenue.nl/94656937 source: "Jud Phillips' son Jud Jr., became an executive for Mercury Records. On July 20, 1992 Jud Phillips died in Memphis, Tennessee. He was 71 years-old." That was Snr. (JUDD Records) who passed on back in the 1990s. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Finally, the mistaken source laughably claims that the 71-year-old Jud Jnr. completed six decades in the music industry. He started out around the age of 11 then? I think not. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

FWIW...here is an interview with the son about the father,making clear their different identities...https://airplaytoday.com/inside/An_Interview_With_Jud_Phillps.php (The son says his career started working in the mailroom after school in the early 1960s).--12.144.5.2 (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Clearly, the reason for the confusion with the two Jud Phillips is that they were both 71 when they died. Coincidentally, they both died of cancer. Editrite! (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Roy Johnston

I see Roy Johnston has been added to this page. Are death notices acceptable, particularly as there is no evidence the person referred to is the subject of our article? Discussion also at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Roy Johnston regarding this. FDW777 (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Since there is no mention of family in his article (Roy H.W. Johnston), apart from his father, this source info tallies with that in the obituary source. Editrite! (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

If irrefutable mistaken identity becomes obvious, the subject gets removed. Or corrected, as in my recent edits for Jud Phillips Jr., who was inexplicably mistaken for his already late father Jud Phillips Snr.. Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Scot Kleinendorst & Bronco Horvath

First, Scot Kleinendorst. It seems his cause of death has been in much contention. I, for one, am in favor of keeping it at "workplace accident". This is apparently seen as too vague and "misleading". It's meant to be vague for the same reasons suicide, shot, car crash, etc are vague. It's also not misleading, the reader can assume what they want, but the reference clearly states the type of workplace accident incurred. Also, "fall from crane" is too specific and actually misleading. He survived the fall, the injuries killed him. So, in this case his manner of death should be "injuries sustained from fall from crane" and I think we can all agree it's way too specific and my reasoning behind "workplace accident" as the best alternative.

Now for Bronco Horvath. The FAQ states nowhere that Twitter is simply disallowed as a source. The Bruins Alumni is a reliable source, how they communicate information is up to them. The tweet would act as a statement from the Bruins Alumni organization. For example, if the only source we had for a death was from the official social media account of the person in question, would this be disallowed? Nanerz (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I hate the term "accident" as it implies an event that may not be preventable. I very much doubt that Kleinendorst died by accident. He leant too far, his safety equipment broke, something was not maintained or whatever. The inquest will decide. We no longer use "traffic accident", not should we use "workplace accident". I also note that the fall did not kill him instantly. I'm happy with "injuries sustained in fall from crane" or similar. WWGB (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The term "accident" is purely a temporary description, as the safety executive for the country is investigating the exact cause. Much more preferable than making sweeping assumptions and second guessing, I think. See my edits today and yesterday. Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

If you look up any of the articles covering this news, you will see that the family did not wish to pursue further treatment b/c the prognosis on the brain injury was very poor. Yes, he had 12 cracked ribs, lung damage, etc from the accident, but the brain injury was the fatal blow. Which is why i edited it as brain injury caused by crane accident. Really the whole workplace accident has no bearing on the fact that it was a brain injury that killed him. However, we have plenty of the same folks who like traffic collisions and plane crashes- which are the same thing...an event that leads to death, not the actual cause of death which is usually blunt force trauma, asphyxiation (whether positional or otherwise) or exsanguination. But that is really getting into the minutia which may or may not be brought to light by the ME/coroner report. I can simply live with brain injury until something else comes around.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, I have to disagree with the "accident" debate. If the death was unintended, it's an accident even if it's preventable. Now onto the brain injury distinction, you could very well argue that "removed from life support" as the cause of death then as, if what you say is true, he survived his injuries and was taken off life support due to the brain injury while not necessarily being the cause of death. Workplace accident acts in the same realm as car crash, plane crash, suicide, etc as it doesn't where it doesn't tell you exactly what occurred, however it does explain the actual event that took place that led to the death. If people want to find out more about the exact cause of death, they can read it in either the reference or the biography page of the person. Nanerz (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

As also noted,the profession given gives rise to inaccurate surmises about what his "workplace" was.Brain & crane references feel more accurate.12.144.5.2 (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The source headline says "workplace accident", so what's the problem? "Traffic collision" isn't specific and neither is "shot" nor "suicide" and so on. Consistency is key. Editrite! (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Consistency in vagueness doesn't inform.(For Erica Tishman,I'd say "head injury").--12.144.5.2 (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

That's the way the deaths page has operated, at least since I've been associated with it, rightly or wrongly. If you want more information, that's what the linked article is for, to find more detail. In the case of Erica Tishman, she doesn't have an article yet apparently, so unless one is created soon, it will be deleted after thirty days, anyway. Although it's likely that she died from a "head injury", we don't know for sure just yet, so I think "hit by falling debris" would be more appropriate, at least for the time being. "Head injury" also doesn't tell you how it was incurred. Editrite! (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

"workplace accident",on the other hand,tells you only circumstance and nothing about cause.A "suicide" usually specifies where known (gunshot,hanging,etc).--12.144.5.2 (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Suicide is one of the 5 manners for death in the US (the others being- homicide, accident, natural and undetermined) and is different than rulings on accidents. It is generally regarded with the method of death instead of an underlying cause- which the other 3 have. In an accident as stated above, it usually is blunt force trauma, exsanguination or asphyxiation that is involved as the cause of death. Undetermined is either a ruling where the cause could not be determined or is still under investigation. See this info [3] starting at page 11 for a more in depth look.Sunnydoo (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Rashied Staggie

In regards to Rashied Staggie's age:

I saw that the listing said he was 63. Where did that come from? There are some sources that say he was 58. source #1 source #2 source #3 Then there's a source that says 56. source #4 I'm tempted to go with an age of 58, since that's the age that keeps repeating, but I wanted to get feedback first. Snickers2686 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Pressreader.com is the only source that I could find which says he was 63. Most of the sources, as you have found say 58 which seems a safe bet on the sheer weight of numbers. However, he had a twin brother Rashaad who died in 1996. If you could find out his age when he died, and add 23 that would confirm it (or otherwise) i.e. if he was 35 at the time. By the way, his article says he was born in 1961, which would probably make him 58 (unless he was born in the last 18 days of the year, which is unlikely). Editrite! (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The Diarra debates

There certainly seems to be an edit war going on about the cause of death of Ibrahim Diarra.I gather multiple sources in multiple languages are saying different things that are interpreted differently by different people while which particular source is linked has changed?...anyway,why isn't it being talked out here rather than edit-warred?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This one is complicated. There are so many conflicting claims about the cause of death, that the best option is to leave it blank for now, until we have the results of the official autopsy (if there is one). Editrite! (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Where a clear, reliable and obvious cause of death is quoted by a decent source, we should use that. Speculation and second-guessing need to be left out. Where there is confusion and difference from source to source, no matter how reliable they seem, care needs to be taken and diligence shown in removing possibly incorrect (or badly-translated) information. Our duties as editors are not to just insert the source as reported, but to make sure the truth be told or assumption withheld, especially in matters of human decease. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, when I said "claims", that included sources. "Our duties are . . . to make sure the truth be told" is why I recommended waiting for more info to come through to clarify the actual cause. Unfortunately, at least one editor sees it differently, re "Cue Alzheimer's isn't a killer" above, and I quote "we publish based on verifiability, not truth". Editrite! (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

As you may agree, one man's verifiability is another man's untruth. If one source is plainly wrong, then find another source to verify for true information. That's all from me in this section. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Rich Rundles

Why was the original "Rich Rundles" talk entry entirely removed?

Just curious? 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

A reliable source quotes death from "natural causes". To query that is just raising a conspiracy theory which does not belong here. WWGB (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to raise any conspiracy theories --- but just plain deleting the original entry could be interpreted by some as just that.

However, I put the original entry in since I find it hard to believe that someone as young as 38 could die from "natural causes."

That's all. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Such discussions belong on the Rich Rundles talk page, not on this talk page. WWGB (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

RE: Stanley J. Stein

What is a "Brazilianist"?

My online research shows only one obit that uses that term --- and only in the article's title.

From what the article says, Stein was not an expert on Brazil, but was learning all he could about the country by reading and taking classes/courses.

From the other articles in my research, Stein wrote mostly about Latin America and Iberia and was considered an expert in those areas --- especially their history (just not exclusively Brazil).

For the entry, I suggest (after his age) -- "American writer of Latin America and Iberia histories."

Thoughts? 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who took a look at his Wikipedia article would plainly see that he was an historian (that's how it describes him). Changed. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Sports for Hartnett and Cooper

"Football player" in the text implies a player of gridiron football,though those who both played and managed other kinds such as association football have at times been identified as such generally with the kind linked if necessary...but Graham Cooper played Australian rules football and Connie Hartnett Gaelic football in countries that also compete internationally in association football...Cooper even has his bio link specify that sport...their obits should link to their sports as well.And aren't their players all "footballers"?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Generally, we now refer to players of Association football as "footballer" - unless they are also being mentioned as notable football managers, in which case they become "football player ([clubs]) and manager ([clubs])". That's my only observation on that. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Exactly...so instead of "football player" Cooper should be a footballer while Hartnett should be a footballer while "footballer" not linked to a specific other sport indicates association football.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I changed the description of Martin Peters to "footabller" and it's now been changed back to "football player", with an edit description of "restore common adjective". What should it be? --Bcp67 (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Calling someone a footballer and manager is too vague. Manager of what? In such cases, we write "football player and manager" to remove vagueness. WWGB (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, can see the difference now - "footballer" on its own is ok, but when its someone who managed as well, "football player and manager" - got it! --Bcp67 (talk) 10:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Punctuation

Shouldn't the bullets end without final punctuation (the period)? They're sentence fragments. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 18:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Does that mean that you want to give the "period" the bullet?! But seriously, technically you're probably right . . . but the linked Wikipedia article is not a good example, as many times punctuation has been used on that page after bullet points. Editrite! (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The MANUAL of Style is a guide (not a List of Style Regulations or Laws), and our lists are certainly not fragmented sentences. A fragmented sentence is where one starts off in prose form, then lists a number of different facets within the sentence by using a new line for each facet and a bullet point to start each line. Our lists are just lists, not fragmented sentences of the kind meant in the MoS. I actually think the main criteria within that page, as it refers to our very extensive lists, would be the following line: "List items should be formatted consistently in a list." Which we ensure they are, by making every bulleted line end in a (full) stop. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

What someone spend their free time complaining about... — Wyliepedia @ 00:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I know it's wrong, but I'm hooked on the feeling of normality it gives here now, so if you're proposing I stop, I'll do it later (unless my peers insist we don't have a problem, of course). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:11, December 23, 2019 (UTC)

What problem? I seem to sense a will to keep the consensus already in place, which is bulleted lines with a stop. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Good point, let's keep rolling with it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:54, December 27, 2019 (UTC)

Georgeta Snegur, deceased on December 23

She was not a politician, only the First Lady, which can hardly be considered a politician. And she was not the First Lady of Moldova. Moldova is a province within Romania. She was the First Lady of the Republic of Moldavia. Once, these 2 were one state/province, but not anymore, they are distinct now. --Sfântul (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know where you get your info from, but all the sources that I have seen say MOLDOVA. Even your linked article for the Republic of Moldavia redirects to Moldova or Republic of Moldova! Editrite! (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

WAS a province within Romania, perhaps. The article (and the rest of the world) states that Moldova is an independent republic. It has its own football team for goodness sake. Join the modern world and, more importantly, stop selling fake news making it appear you're advancing some kind of nationalistic propaganda. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 24 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus against - WP:SNOW close. (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Deaths in 2019 → Deaths in December 2019 – This page contains only deaths occurring in December. I cannot move the page since the destination page exists as a redirect. User-duck (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• @User-duck and Nohomersryan: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Not uncontroversial. This is standard formatting for the main deaths page, which always lists the current month. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, this has been the standard format for years. Each month gets moved to their own page 7 days into a new month. Rusted AutoParts 22:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per same argument as previous commenter. Month by month, the title "Deaths in 2019" is a navigational tool designed to show the most recent deaths in that year - for reasons of space and unmanageably bulky page coding, each month archives from the main focus page. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. This page has always been a rolling calendar. The information is always fluid in this area not only in the deaths, but also in the time and space. This entire lists rolls up nicely into both the year list and another master list which you can find here [4] and here [5]. And we have a team of dedicated individuals that take care of the flipping and listing every month in a timely fashion on the 7th. You can also find a list of the earlier months of the year's deaths at the bottom. So all of the info for 2019 or 2018 or whatever year is always at the ready on the entire page. There is no need to over complicate this matter further. There are many other things that already too complicated regarding this subject.Sunnydoo (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The current format is just fine as it is, and is already maintained accordingly with each passing month. There is no need to unnecessarily try and build a better mousetrap. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• Very Strongly Oppose! - We just went through this not too long ago with someone having a bug up their.. It is nice & easy to just type Deaths In 2019 & get right to the current deaths. If it aint broke DONT FIX IT! Now can we close this discussion FOREVER & not have it come back from the dead! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.134.50 (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The RM mentioned by the last !voting IP is Talk:Deaths_in_2018/Archive_2#Request_to_move_page_to_Deaths_in_November_2018, and since then, some edit requests (May 2019 example) have also concerned page moving. Such suggestions have been regularly declined. I'd also like to state that, although it is standard operating procedure for this page to include seven days of a new month, this practice is not observed when the year turns, as explained here. Vycl1994 (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Tessa Majors

I assume that Tessa Majors can be added in, for December 11 ... correct? I believe, at some point, we had the consensus that "piped links" were acceptable, if the deceased individual was directly named in the article title. Yes? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

What makes her notable? Editrite! (talk) 08:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

She has an article about her. See my above comment. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

She has an article which involves her. There is a difference between that and a true bio. Piping should not happen in this instance - an article in her exact name should be set up as a redirect to the "event" article you are pointing us to. I'll let other editors decide if they want to do that and add her. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand the difference between an article about her and an article about her death/murder. Yes, I understand that. For the third time, now, read my original question. It says: "I believe, at some point, we had the consensus that "piped links" were acceptable, if the deceased individual was directly named in the article title." I will just go ahead and add her in, later. When I have a free minute. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe someone can go back and find the discussion, where we came up with this consensus. If I remember correctly ( ... I said "if" ... ), I think this occurred when Ian Brady died (May 15, 2017). And we had an article that was pretty much about him, but not exactly (the Moors murders). And we debated about whether or not he should be included as a "death" within the scope of this article. I think we came up with the consensus that I mentioned above ... namely, that "piped links" were acceptable, if the deceased individual was directly named in the article title. That's how I remember things winding down. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

(1) I added Tessa Majors to December 11. (2) There is already a "redirect" from Tessa Majors to Murder of Tessa Majors, as someone had advised above. (3) How/where do I find the old archives of this Talk Page? I looked around, and I was not able to find anything anywhere. I'd like to find that discussion about Ian Brady (or whichever individual it was) that led to the consensus I described above. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is it: Talk:Deaths in 2017/Archive 1#Should "Death of X" articles be listed here?. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Brady was in May 2017; previous discussions regarding similar listings included one from June–July 2014 and another in August 2014, as well as the more recent one linked immediately above. Vycl1994 (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. So, yes, I re-read all of those links again. Thanks. So, it appears, my recollection and my understanding of the situation were indeed correct. Namely, that "piped links" are acceptable, if the deceased individual is directly named within the article's title. Therefore, the Murder of Tessa Majors -- or the (now) re-named Death of Tessa Majors -- makes the named individual, Tessa Majors, eligible for inclusion on this list. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

That's redirect, rather than pipe. WWGB (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Semantics, I guess? I call this ---> [[Death of Tessa Majors|Tessa Majors]] <--- a "piped link". No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but [[Tessa Majors]] is what should be listed here. This list only pipes when disambiguation or honorifics are needed, for the same reason simple citations are used, to cut down on page load times. Vycl1994 (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I did not know that. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I did try saying, above, either use an existing redirect in preference to piping, or consider creating one (I regularly do that). Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Status of Ari Behn

He was married to and divorced from a princess.He never had a royal title.At different times he has been described as a former royal,his relationship not mentioned,and now most recently as a royal.I don't think his children by the princess,though in the line of succession,have titles.I think that if his royal links are mentioned,even though they are what made him famous,it should be made clear that he was (and ceased to be) an in-law,not blood.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, title or not, he was a member of the royal family plain and simple. As Mike Tindall is a member of the British royal family by his marriage to Zara Phillips, who has no title either. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Are there explicit definitions of members of the family?...as in the recent loss of royal styles of the children of Prince Carl Philip of Sweden and of his younger sister?(They kept titles but are no longer "royal family",I believe).--12.144.5.2 (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The children of Prince Carl Philip and of Princess Madeleine are still members of the Swedish Royal Family, but not of the Swedish Royal House. They do not have the title HRH anymore, just Prince/Princess. --Marbe166 (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@12.144.5.2: By direct blood relation; by marriage; even by adoption. Being part of a royal family is no different to being a part of any other family, in the eyes of the laws of most lands. Titles mean nothing, as in the case of the Queen's blood relative already given as an example - her grandaughter Zara Phillips (daughter of the Queen's daughter Princess Anne, herself still 13th in line to the throne). She has no title of any kind, yet is a firm part of the British royal family and always will be. Royal family and "royal house", as just mentioned, are two different things, and there is no claim here that Ari Behn is or was part of the royal house of that country. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The idea of "not inherited" has disqualified many mothers, brothers and widows from a mention of their famous flock lately. If a royal family is indeed just a family, an ex-husband is no different in having to rest on his own laurels. Then again, Christmas is an arguably special time of year for familiar exceptions. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:49, December 27, 2019 (UTC)

Relevance is no other one way or another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DA:CF15:F482:3151:67B7:F9E3:836F (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Kelly Fraser

I see another edit war here over whether she should be described as merely "Canadian".It appears that she performed Inuit music and largely in the Inuit language and was nominated for awards for that genre of music...the reference is not just to her ethnicity(which may not be pure as she shares a surname with the Frasers of Saltoun and Lovat).Is it that different from calling some UK people "Scottish" etc?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not a genre, they just get their own category because competing with English pop would doom them in the general Canadian scene. The language is the difference, "Inuktitut singer" could get that across. We didn't call the French singer Monique Leyrac anything special, though (Quebec being Canada's Scotland). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:53, December 27, 2019 (UTC)

If you notice her article, it says Inuit ACTIVIST. That means she would self identify as Inuit not Canadian, but b/c of the rules here, both get listed. This is one of the indigenous rules. Someone has changed to a new article, but there is a better quote here- "”She believes that contemporary music in Inuktitut will increase pride in Inuit identity. By sharing her own personal struggles, Kelly brings hope to Indigenous youth who are struggling like she has."

Thats what makes her Inuit. So too long story short- Canadian Inuit is how she should be listed...Country and Autonomous region which in this case is her tribe.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't dispute her race or its particular struggles. But if you're active through songwriting, you're a songwriter, not an activist. Plenty of writers appeal to and inspire their own, be they black, white, red, yellow or Juggalo. There are whole trees of subgenres promoting people power. Maybe Buffy Ste. Marie, Jeff Foxworthy or Ice T has made it "their thing", but someone mostly known for translating radio stuff isn't quite there yet. In any case, Leyrac was just as officially Quebecois, by subnation rules. And the Inuit aren't technically a tribe (but your point remains). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:09, December 27, 2019 (UTC)

My 2c. We include culture/tribe/race/language etc when the deceased is known for being a writer/activist/singer/linguist in that area. When Cher can no longer turn back time, we won't describe her as an American Cherokee singer. WWGB (talk) 06:31, December 27, 2019 (UTC)

And how do we tell if a singer is known for being in a racial area? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:00, December 27, 2019 (UTC)

Usually there is either a body of work or self evidence. In this case, there are more than a few articles talking about her and the things she did for her people as well as the quote mentioned above. Another good example in the US as far as indigenous peoples was Russell Means the actor. And its not really a race/culture thing...it can be an oppressed people thing which would include such locales as the Six Counties in Ireland and Hong Kong/Tibet for China. The criteria for me personally is whether you are doing a disservice to the person by not mentioning their contribution or even causing offense to them by declaring them something they were not and stood against. Another good point of reference is the person's Wiki article. Usually the editors there have a closer opinion than just the general ones we form on fly bys. Fraser's article has her listed as Canadian Inuk in her tag line.Sunnydoo (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Currie did things for his people in Prince George's County, Maryland, one of the richest black counties in the country, but we don't call him African-American. Jones was all about those civil rights after seeing white-on-black bullshit, as his article describes, but no mention of his tribe's colour. Don Imus crossed over to TV fame specifically by insulting black women as a white man, but do we call him white?

Compared to those three, Fraser hoping "her people" would appreciate her album on a personal level isn't much at all. There's no indication any Inuit actually were inspired or otherwise affected. She just believed they might be (and yes, they might be). It's a dedication in the sense most albums have, a service to fans, but not the sort of contribution one makes through perseverance and commitment to a cause. Her main contribution was in Inuktitut language songs. Saying so simply adequately conveys her race at the same time, because no other oppressed people use that language for anything.

I think I agree with the criteria, but applying them to this case, I just don't see the need to make an exception to the "plain old citizenship" standard. But I won't revert her entry if someone wants to change it. I'll just quietly find it (not the editor) a bit casually racist. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, December 28, 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2019

Change the date of death from 25th Dec to 24th Dec for... "Kelly Fraser, 26, Canadian Inuktitut pop singer and songwriter." Following the links shown say she passed away on 24th Dec. 143.159.248.105 (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done, but, in the future, please provide said links. Original source here still had 25 December. Thanks. — Wyliepedia @ 03:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)