Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 05:12, 29 April 2021 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Removal of banner from talk pages

For years, one editor has been repeatedly removing the Death banner from talk pages of articles (mostly recent fatal transport incidents) which clearly fit this project's criteria. He's well aware of the project's criteria & consensus on this matter & has taken part in discussions, but persists in removing the banner. The latest to be affected is Talk:Stonehaven derailment. Jim Michael (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I checked back as far as 2020-06-27. He did the same to 2020 Beirut explosions [1] which you appear to have corrected the following day (8/5 & 8/6). Pretty prolific editor; lots of edits. I was searching for "Talk:" to highlight and see what I could find. I guess just keep a log of his removals and at some point bring it up on one of the noticeboards. Normal Op (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
He removed the same banner from many talk pages & has been doing so habitually for years. He often targets the same talk pages repeatedly, including Talk:Stonehaven derailment & Talk:2020 Beirut explosions. Several people (including me) have told him in edit summaries & discussions that he's going against the rules & consensus, but this hasn't stopped him doing it. He's a very experienced, frequent, regular editor who's well-educated & knows how to edit productively well within the rules, so there's no lack of understanding on his part.
Where should it be brought up? I came here as I thought this the most relevant place.
Does WP:3RR apply to article talk pages? Jim Michael (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Sure 3RR would apply to the header/structure of a Talk page. I'm assuming he's not reverting other editor's comments from Talk pages, but the structure of the page such as the list of Wikiprojects are part of an article's content or management. 3RR violations could be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, but there are other variants mentioned at WP:ANI... or just plain ANI. It sure is an odd behavior; like why would anyone care if an article is part of Wikiproject Death or not? Does that editor think that WPDeath is only to discuss matters of death and not actual incidents? Normal Op (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
It's only the Death Project banner that he removes from talk pages. He's an otherwise good editor.
The 'reason' he gives for removing the banner is that the image of a clean, whole human skull on it will traumatise people (especially those bereaved by the incidents which the articles are about) who see it - even when the banners are nested or collapsed. I've repeatedly told him that people who are sensitive about death won't choose to visit such articles, let alone those articles' talk pages. Several people have pointed out that his claim that the skull is inappropriate is clearly untrue, because a skull is a universal symbol of death. Jim Michael (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
That's a pretty lame excuse, but have you tried swapping out the image to see if he somehow stops (which would prove or disprove if his stated reason is really the reason)? Or maybe run a poll to see what WPDeath participants think of keeping or changing the image, and if change then to what else? Normal Op (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
He claims the altruistic motive that he's removing the banner for other people's sake rather than his own, even though no-one is asking him to, nor backing his claim that the skull is horrifying. There have been many discussions which have included him, on here as well as on several articles' talk pages, about both the skull image & the project's scope. On several talk pages, the banner has had its image removed. Despite his persistent banner removal & claims about the banner as well as explanations to him, there has never been anything close to a consensus for removing the image or changing the project's scope. This situation has persisted for years, and he has removed the banner from Talk:Stonehaven derailment yet again as we've been having this discussion. It's clearly a settled issue in which one editor is going against the project's scope & the community's consensus. Jim Michael (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Persistent problem editor, then. Just revert his individual incidents of vandalism at this point, then do an ANI or one of those things. Collect up all the diffs you can or links to the various discussions on Talk pages. Sounds like he's beyond discussion and has fallen into Wikipedia:Disruptive editing category. Normal Op (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but as far as I'm aware, he's only a problem in regard to the Death banner. He shouldn't be stopped from editing. All that needs to happen is for him to stop removing the banner. He ignores me & would do so anywhere I were to raise the subject. Jim Michael (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
When we first created this project - we never envisioned the WP:IDONLIKEIT cohort would necessarily arrive and make life difficult for us (not many of the original crew around these days) - and there was a prolonged and extended conversation about the image used in the project. Denial of death is a problem for some groups of people, and can in itself (the problem) extend to others, in real life. For one editor to inflict their problem onto relevant articles is simply bad behaviour and needs sanctioning till they stop it. I would encourage any admin we have 'watching' this to visit - if no visit in short term - then ANI - with the prospect of sanctions - short of blocking. The precedent level of this is quite dangerous - no one should be removing project tags for other's sensitivities - Wp:NOTCENSORED. JarrahTree 09:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
He's an otherwise good editor who frequently improves articles. It's strange that he has a fixation on removing this one banner from articles which he knows are well within the project's scope. He frequently chooses to edit articles about fatal incidents, so it's bizarre that he has such an aversion to an image of a clean, whole skull - or wrongly believes that many readers of those articles' talk pages do.
There's a much worse problem of removing clearly applicable banners & categories that doesn't involve the editor we're talking about or this banner, but I'll mention it here because it has some similarities, it's current & it's persisting. A small number (I think 3) editors are repeatedly removing clearly applicable crime-related cats from articles & banners from talk pages of crimes committed in the name of Irish republicanism, as well as those of the people, organisations etc. which committed them. Their uncivil tone & long discussions in which they back each other, claiming a consensus based on that, scares away many people who would otherwise contribute constructively. I'm consistent in editing crime articles regardless of what motive the perpetrators (appear to) have had, but have been accused of being biased when adding criminal cats to furniture shop bomber Bobby Sands, Brighton bomber Patrick Magee, former Glasgow cell member Martina Anderson & Aldwych bus bomber Edward O'Brien. They removed the criminal cats from those articles on the ridiculously biased basis that, despite them having committed very serious violent crimes, they shouldn't be categorised as criminals because they weren't 'common criminals'. The also have used suggestions from discussions that took place years ago to claim there was consensus on matters when there wasn't & one even used claims from convicted criminals & their mothers that they weren't criminals as though that makes it a fact. Their latest target is Talk:Battle of the Bogside, a riot in the UK which they are repeatedly claiming should not be in the British crime project. Jim Michael (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The Death project is not the place to bring the Irish matter up - there are much more relevent places to deal with the problem, it looks like a clear ANI item ! Nothing to to do with here. Please help the Death project by dealing with death items here and taking other items to a place where it gets the eyes and the capacity to deal with it. Please. JarrahTree 11:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it's a British Isles attitude or something when it comes to activism (which IRA is). I've recently jumped into the animal rights articles and the Brits have the idea that committing crimes is necessary in order to wake people up and get their point across. They're still crimes, though, AND the activists get convicted and go to jail. (Then their fellow activists support them in jail and martyrize them, too.) Normal Op (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Removing wikiprojects from Talk pages has other consequences. For example, when someone submits an article to AfD, there's some bot that goes around and adds the AfD to the lists on the project pages of those projects that are listed on the Talk page. If the project banner has been removed, no one in the project gets notified (except for those who had the article on their Watchlist). I'm sure it also affects the assessment table, causing articles to no longer be found in the chart. There may be other similar consequences. So the consequences of that editor's removal is not simply a "hide the nasty skull from the weenies", but it affects the wikiproject. Normal Op (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Jim Michael, I fail to see how these Irish things are relevant here at all. If you want to go and establish a pattern of disruption, do it at AN/ANI. Here, you are just muddying the waters, and it makes it look like it's personal for you. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue is well beyond a single project talk page - and should be moved to more relevant pages. Many projects have logs - ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team have bots that keep logs for project assessment - so that the larger picture of the project can be understood at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Statistics many projects have not utilised the tools for evaluation - the current version is the best overview of this project https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Death Please help to keep this project talk page in scope, thanks JarrahTree 11:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I seem to recall an earlier version of a discussion on this topic suggested that a compromise might be to agree a pictorial symbol that was less offensive (to some people) than John's "perfectly clean skull". But hey, if we want to instead characterise folks who find a skull picture a little childish as "weenies" and to set out battle lines for a good ol' confrontation, then who am I to intervene. I'm guessing the editor whose name has not yet been spoken i.e. User:Pigsonthewing may want to contribute here in some way. So am deliberately naming him. Alternatively he may not wish to participate, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
nah missed the mark completely - this is the case of a serial project tag removalist - imho not the same as pigsonthewing territory - apart from the irish being dragged in it's really more editorial behaviour that requires action - much less the principals that were being discussed about the images... JarrahTree 11:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh. We're confusing Pigs here with some other unknown serial project banner deletionist? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
please do not allude to the full name in shortened circumstances - it is completely different - the context for the current one is removal on the basis Idontlikeit and offering a much limper complaint compared to the - very valid complaints of the nature of the image inside the tag... JarrahTree 12:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Ah ok. Regarding other throwaway compromises.... couldn't the banner and/or the image be simply default collapsed? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
oh no not all this again, where are the vogons, or daleks, to read poetry to this discussion to curtail the regression to things that have been thrashed over here times so many before JarrahTree 12:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh no, sorry... hang on.... it is already default collapsed, isn't it..... Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The banner being nested/collapsed on most talk pages that is present on has been pointed out to Andy by multiple editors, but he still objects to the banner on the basis that the skull image is visible for some editors for about a second during page loading. Jim Michael (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I would estimate that I get about 150ms, if that helps.... Martinevans123 (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The skull image being visible for even 1 millisecond would be enough for Andy to claim that removing the banner hundreds of times is justified. He hasn't suggested an alternative image, nor is there significant support for a different image. Jim Michael (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
LCD apparatus capable of reliably providing exposures to 1 ms or less have only been available since 2015, so the research literature is somewhat sparse. But Efron (1970) suggested a lower limit of 120–240 ms: [2] Nevertheles, Kunst-Wilson and Zajonc (1980) suggested that subliminal exposure seemed to unwittingly affect mood (although I think they were using written Chinese characters, not coloured images of skulls). "The Grim Peeper 123" (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
While a chartable view would be to assume that it is kindness that makes Jim Michael think he should attempt to speak for me, nothing he says when doing so should be believed, as he lacks the ability to represent my views or actions truthfully; and the decency to alert me when he presumes to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I've tried to discuss your removal of the banner from talk pages in a huge number of edit summaries, on several talk pages & on this project. Several other editors have also tried to discuss it with you. Despite all that, you've continued removing the banner frequently, for years, from many articles.
I've stated the motive that you've claimed. You're welcome to explain your motive(s).
You can see from this discussion that at least one editor wants this matter to be taken to ANI. I'm trying to prevent that. Jim Michael (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Then stop putting images of skulls on pages about recent bereavements; and stop edit warring to return them without consensus or discussion on the pages concerned. Your claims about both past discussions and my motivations include falsehoods. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
They're not articles about recent bereavements - they're articles about fatal incidents which are clearly within the project's scope. It's not skulls, it's an applicable banner which includes an image of a single, clean, whole skull. Contrary to your claim - and as you've been told by other people as well as me - it's an extremely appropriate & relevant image because it's a universal symbol of death. How recent the incidents happened is irrelevant. As you know, it's you who's causing the edit war. I'm correctly adding the banner to talk pages that are within the project's scope. If you weren't wrongly removing it, there'd be no edit war. What's it going to take for you to stop doing this?
I've stated relevant things that have been said. You're welcome to state them yourself. You know that WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason to remove a relevant banner. Jim Michael (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
striking out my comments, as I had thought there was another editor involved. Apologies to Pigsonthewing for the misunderstanding and comments that are easily misconstrued - early in the piece I thought I had seen a link to another editor. JarrahTree 06:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't know who else you thought was involved. Please give your comments on this matter now that you know more about the situation, so we know what you think of it. Jim Michael (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
As one of the early editors on this project - nope. The situation as is for other editors to resolve, I am not in a position to carry on any further. I reserve the right to recuse myself from any further comment, and hope that the discussion is able to resolve the issue. Best of luck. JarrahTree 08:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
"What's it going to take for you to stop doing this" I have already indicated that above: where the banner is removed from a talk page, show consensus to include the skull image on the page where your edit is disputed. Or simply stop including images (plural) on pages (plural) on which you place the banners (plural): contrary to your repeated false assertions I have no objection to the banner itself being added to pages; it is the image which is - as "several people (including me)" have told you - inappropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
As you know, consensus has long existed to include this project's banner on talk pages of particular types of articles & to include the skull image on the banner. You're usually the only editor who objects to the banner & claims it's inappropriate because you don't like it. It's you who needs to stop removing it. No-one should be told to stop adding it to talk pages where it should be present. Jim Michael (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Jim Michael, change the image and the problem is solved. You haven't actually addressed the real issue: at least one editor finds the little image to be distasteful. Andy, propose changing the image. I'll support. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
A change of image is one of the things that was debated & nothing close to a consensus for it was reached. The real issue is years of one editor removing a banner from many talk pages which it is clearly meant to be on, against the project's scope, various discussions on the matter & repeated confirmation of the consensus to use it. WP:CENSOR & WP:IDONTLIKEIT are clear that we don't change things because a tiny number of people object to it. Jim Michael (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
"As you know, consensus has long existed to include this project's banner on talk pages of particular types of articles & to include the skull image on the banner."[citation needed]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
You know that's the case from the many discussions about this matter, several of which you've participated it. Jim Michael (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Do we need an RFC? Ceoil (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
We've already discussed it many times. There's never been anything like a consensus for change in regard to this matter. Jim Michael (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
NEWSFLASH: "Because Jim says so" is not evdience. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Relevant wiki guidelines

Here are the relevant wiki guidelines.

  • See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide: "Many WikiProjects use talk page banners to mark certain pages as within the scope of the WikiProject." ... "In general, one should not attempt to police which projects are sufficiently relevant to place their banners on a given talk page." ... "[I]f a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, do not edit war to remove the banner."
  • See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people: "[C]onsensus was that a WikiProject tag identified that an article was within the interest of a group of editors rather than categorizing the article as belonging to a topic field; removing such tags without consensus of the involved WikiProject(s) was seen as unhelpful." ... "Legitimate concerns were raised about potential association discomfort for people connected with the subject of a BLP article, and sensible suggestions were put forward for wording or presenting WikiProject tags in such a manner to clarify to all readers the purpose of WikiProject tags."

— Normal Op (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The situation regarding placement/removal of project banners is therefore clear. What next should be done in regard to one editor who, for years, has been incessantly removing the Death banner from the talk pages of many articles that are clearly within the project's scope? What should be done about the tiny number of editors who are removing banners of crime-related projects from the talk pages as well as relevant crime-related cats from articles which relate to crimes committed in the name of Irish republicanism who claim that the crimes & their perpetrators shouldn't be classed as criminal? Jim Michael (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I would think Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If you're not sure of the exactly noticeboard, there's a list near the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Normal Op (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
You just can't trust these crime-related cats. But yes, it can be irritating and vexatious. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Which of those policies stipulates that of pictures skulls are to be placed on the talk page of articles about recent deaths - each one of which is most definitely a bereavement to someone? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be specified - the image is part of the banner. This project has chosen & confirmed the use of image. As several people have repeatedly told you, it's an extremely appropriate & relevant image because it's a universal symbol of death. It's not traumatising to see it. It's a clean, whole skull - it's not smashed & bloody with chunks of flesh hanging off it.
As I've also said to you repeatedly, people who are sensitive about death (whether bereaved or not) will not choose to read articles about fatal incidents, let alone their talk pages. No person or policy is telling you to remove the banner & as you can see no-one is backing you. Consensus is firmly against you. Your argument for removing the banner is a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You can see from this discussion that some people want to take this to ANI. Jim Michael (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Although a project member, I fully support Andy's removals of banners. This project needs to be more narrowly focused, for eg my own relevant interest is in funerary art. Ceoil (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
How would restricting the project's focus help WP? Editors aren't going to be diverted to niche topics by narrowing its focus. The current way things are here doesn't present a barrier to editors who work on niche interests. Having a funerals task force/sub-project (if there's enough interest) would be a better & more effective way to work towards better coverage of funeral-related articles. Jim Michael (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Projects don't get to ride rum-shot over everybody else. Andy hit the nail on the head here, and also, what if project air, for example, tagged every bio, as you know, we all breathe air. Similarly, we all die. Ceoil (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
"As I've also said to you repeatedly, people who are sensitive about death (whether bereaved or not) will not choose to read articles about fatal incidents" You have indeed repeatedly said that. As it's bullshit, and as I have experience of interacting with the bereaved relatives of article subjects on the talk pages about them or the incidents that killed them, I have regularly ignored it, and intend to continue to do so, should you repeat it in future. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
You're claiming those are people who are sensitive about death & are offended/horrified about the Death banner? Jim Michael (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
God almighty man, do you have any empathy? Increasingly I'm thinking an RFC is the only way to go here, as reason doesn't seem to be working. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
You appear to be assuming it's true that recently bereaved people visit the talk pages of articles about recent incidents, where they are traumatised by the appearance of a clean, whole skull on the banner. I've seen no evidence of that. Jim Michael (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
To repeat: Jim Michael think[s] he should attempt to speak for me, nothing he says when doing so should be believed, as he lacks the ability to represent my views or actions truthfully. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

If there was any sense of imagination on this page

Reneging on my recusal and identifying myself as an early participant in the creation of this project as a reaction to the creation of a vast amount of categories related to death without a project...

I would say that very simply rather than focus on any one editors response that has pervaded over the years and the choice of images of the problem of the project tag - rather than go down one road - it would be not really be that difficult for a template system where recent or problematic death subjects could easily have a template that has no image at all, and really, for the energy expended here now and in previous years over the images used, anyone who has the slightest sense that wikipedia decisions that move towards consensus or conciliatory positions have no need to go to ani or wherever - really in the end to insist on a project tag with images is as much problematic as the removal...

As one of the earlier editors here at this projects origins, I find thst the intransigence toward an editor over removal is as much a problem as that perceived of the editor being focused upon. If anyone had the capacity to read the earlier discussions, there were reasonable attempts to be negotiable, and there were attempts to resolve the issues of earlier image (s). To vilify any one editor loses the point of what making an encyclopedia is about.

This project has chosen & confirmed the use of image I beg to disagree - the process of resolving the tag and the image was more stop and start than a traffic jam - and due to the number of people who have come and gone from the project or this talk page over the years - there was never anything particularly fixed as that claim might assert.

I would strongly suggest that there is the capacity in this project for the development of an alternative image free tag. Think of it, many projects have editors who do not even understand let alone implement adequate maintenance of their projects to even know what a project tag is or how to put on the talk page. The fact that this project has a tag, it wouldnt make any harm to the project or degradation of the project to have a simpler tag. And I would suspect that of the transcience of involvement in most projects, participants of the past are not going to come out of the wood work to confirm or deny their approaches from the past, I would suggest that negotiation towards a project based decision is in the end much healthier and less painful for all concerned to consider, rather than the ANI and similar places.

JarrahTree 14:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussions on here and on several affected articles' talk pages have confirmed the use of the skull image due to it being a universal symbol of death.
The banner & image, along with the articles concerned & their talk pages, aren't problematic - only one editor's repeated removal of them is. To censor an image because he dislikes it isn't reasonable. Jim Michael (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Universal? Ah that would be the entire known universe then, would it? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
"Confirmed"? No confirmation is needed: we all know it is used. It should not be, as numerous people have pointed out. You have also demonstrated absolutely no consensus whatsoever for its use on the pages where your application of the banner containing it have been challenged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Obv this would need to be cropped
Jim Michael, you keep saying that it's only one editor (well, there's three now), you keep pooh-poohing about "censorship" (we're talking about a little image, for crying out loud--you're not being oppressed), and you keep saying that Andy has nothing but "I don't like it" (which is obviously not true, as he has given his reasons here). It is time to start singing another tune. Maybe the problem is you like skulls? (See, that "IDONTLIKEIT" turns around very easily.) You also just got input from an expert on art, Ceoil, who apparently knows a thing or two about funerary art as well (and has a bunch of FAs under his belt); maybe you should ask if Ceoil has an image that might work as well. The larger question of whether every death should fall under this project (it seems like a rather ridiculous statement to me) should be answered as well. I, for one, don't see why it should be. In fact, I strongly disagree that it should be. Andy, I will be more than happy to assist in tag removal--as an editor, not an administrator, since I've already stuck a foot in this tub. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
It has usually been one editor removing them, so I'm still correct about that. Only after this discussion was well underway did 2 others back him here.
I don't have a liking for skulls; I don't own any clothes, ornaments etc. which have images of skulls on them. I add the banner to talk pages whose articles fit its criteria & would do so regardless of the image. Over 99.9% of editors haven't expressed on WP having any issue with the skull image. Objecting to the image (even when saying it's on other people's behalf) is a type of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
No-one's saying that every death should be covered by this project. For example, we have hundreds of thousands of biographies of dead people who aren't in the project. Jim Michael (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
As an alternative, something like the an image of the Angel of Grief. Its less stark, humane, etc. Obv its Christian, but to open up discussions...there are a lot of more universal symbols of death out there, and frankly the Islamic tradition is better than the Western on this as it focus on the color white, rather than black, and so is less dramatic, but more subtle, identifiable, and emotionally resonant. Anyway, IMO, the skull is a bit early teenage goth-ish. Ceoil (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Not forgetting our friends the doomsters: [3]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
That's more a symbol of bereavement or graves rather than death itself. Also, it's far less recognised than a skull. In a previous discussion, one editor suggested the grim reaper, but there was very little support for that.
I can't see how the plain skull can be viewed as teenage or to do with the goth subculture. Jim Michael (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
By the same token, the skull is more a symbol of human decomposition than of death itself. The current banner is sensationalist, basic, aggressive, and of no artistic value. Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The skull is well-recognised as a universal symbol of death, not decomposition. It's a clean, whole, normal skull. It's not smashed, bloody or deformed - hence it isn't sensationalist or aggressive. Banner images aren't required to be complicated or artistic - they should be immediately obvious. The angel's meaning is much less clear. Jim Michael (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
You haven't asked 99.9%, so let's not exaggerate. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
As I said, that's about the proportion of editors who haven't expressed any objection to the skull image; I don't claim to have surveyed them. Jim Michael (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@Drmies: Thank you. We've been canvassed told about two articles in just this discussion... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

If you change the symbol and the edit-warring behavior stops (without an ANI fight), then maybe that would be a correct decision. Does it really matter what the project symbol is? First step: Decide IF you are going to change the symbol in order to test the theory. Then decide on 'change to what'. Set a time limit for evaluation. Put that on your calendar. Re-evaluate later. Normal Op (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds eminently sensible. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
There are a few problems with that. We've already had discussions of that nature previously, in which there was nothing close to consensus for which image to use instead. Someone wanted the grim reaper, but there wasn't support for that. A different image could be objected to & removed from many talk pages, perhaps by someone who's not part of this discussion. I think the grim reaper would more likely be objected to than a skull. Anything religious could be objected to by editors who aren't of that faith. There's no evidence of the claim that people who've been recently bereaved by transport incidents or other disasters are visiting the talk pages of articles about those events & having an issue with the skull image. Jim Michael (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
So where have you looked for that evidence? What's your sample size exactly? How do you know who is visiting articles about transport incidents or other disasters? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
On the talk pages of many articles on which it's present. The large majority of objections to the banner are from one editor. I've never seen any comment anywhere on WP that's anything like: "A family member of mine was killed in this incident & seeing an image of a skull on the Death project banner for a split-second as the talk page loaded upset me". Jim Michael (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I ran this by a friend last night and their recommendation was that if indeed the edit-warring editor has a long history of reverting and refusal to discuss or come to consensus, that ANI is the right option. Their opinion was that a human skull was a universal symbol of death, and they did not recommend compromising by changing the symbol (except possibly to use a high value graphic, non-photograph instead); they felt that would be a waste of efforts. Normal Op (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Gosh, your friend is very eloquent, aren't they. Maybe you ought to persuade them to open an account and give their very clear opinion for themselves? Or maybe that would be just canvassing, haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
My friend has sworn off all online "hobbies", including Facebook. There's not a snowball's chance they'll join Wikipedia. I've tried for two years. I just happened to be talking to them on the phone about 'this conversation that was going around in circles and would not end'. Their viewpoint was a blend of mine and several of those that had already been expressed. If you think there was something wrong with asking someone else for advice and then posting it, then just delete my comments. It won't hurt my feelings. Normal Op (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I won't be deleting anything. But we generally discuss reliable sources? I think the feelings of your dear friend are about as relevant here as "my sister Dolly's lovely upside down cakes". Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I take back that last bit. I checked your contributions to this thread, Martinevans123, and they consist of snide comment after snide comment. When you start contributing to this conversation with the intention of resolving the conflict rather than goading further discord in the group, I will grant you equal respect. You're not a member of this project and your comments have been disruptive. Normal Op (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I stand by all of my contributions. All made very sincerely, I can assure you, thanks. Perhaps someone else wants to delete your anonymous friend's alleged contribution? But thanks for making your position very clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC) p.s. oh, and apologies for supporting your earlier suggestion, which I nevertheless still think "sounds eminently sensible". p.p.s. I didn't realise this Talk page was ""Members Only".
More snide comments. This discussion is not a vote and I could well have presented my friend's viewpoint as my own. No, this page isn't members-only, but the fact that your contributions have been destructive to consensus or problem-solving, rather than constructive, is why I made that comment. Normal Op (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
No, there's nothing snide there at all. And please could you explain how directly supporting your earlier suggestion amounts to being "destructive to consensus or problem-solving"? I'd appreciate your views on why having an image of a skull on the project tag is a benefit to either editors or readers. I would have thought that the meaning of the two words "Project death" was pretty clear. I'm not convinced by the glib phrase "universal symbol of death", which Jim has used 6 times and you have also used once. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
It's indicated on symbols of death, Images section, 2nd para. The wording used there is obvious and frequent ... found in many cultures and religious traditions. Jim Michael (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, Jim. I guess Glennys Howarth and Oliver Leaman ought to know what they are talking about, although we both know that WP /= RS. Also.... I searched for the word "universal" in that article.... Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
There's a skull at the top right of Death. The text under it reads: The human skull is used universally as a symbol of death. Jim Michael (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
If an image isn't worth having on this banner, why have one on any of the others? If images are being retained on many other project banners, it's not justified to remove it from this one. We should be consistent. Removing images due to their repeated removal, or by request, isn't reasonable. Jim Michael (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Other project banners exist. That's none of our concern here. Let them decide however they see fit. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: You're the one who started this thread, have you decided on a plan of action yet? Normal Op (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

No - seeing what people here think about it still hasn't led to a decision on what to do next. Previous discussions have confirmed that removal of the banner is the problem, not the use of it. Jim Michael (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
You keep making that claim; you've offered no evidence to back it up. There is none. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
You know that it's true, because you've taken part in discussions on here & on the talk pages of articles about the use of the banner & the skull image on it. You also know that there's never been anything close to consensus for removal or replacement. This is merely your latest attempt.
On the subject of evidence, do you have any to back your claim that recently bereaved people have visited the talk pages of articles about incidents in which their loved ones were killed, where they were upset at seeing the skull image on the death banner? Jim Michael (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for removal of image from project banner put on talk pages

After all the above previous section, I suggest that in good faith, the project template becomes image free.

Many cultures have a wide range of cultural taboos about death and its representation, ideally the most universal approach for the wider wikipedia community would be for the death project to simply drop any image, so that there is no possibility of offence or misunderstandings - the total lack of cross cultural understanding in the conversations above so far - it seems to have no consideration of why and how cultures other than that which they inhabit might understand the multiple cultures that have real problems with representations of death.

Also that no one editor is either a 'spokesperson' for either this project or any of its previous decisions or actions - this is a request seeking wikipedia community wide involvement where required. It is not asking any individual editor for agendas over the content of the project template - it is simply asking for removal of any image, as a means of resolving a range of misunderstandings of the usage of the project template. JarrahTree 02:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Based on that rationale, we'd remove all depictions of Muhammad, which its talk page clearly states we won't. Many times more people have a problem with images of him than of a skull. Removing a clearly applicable image based on people's objections goes against WP:CENSORED & WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
There don't appear to be any significant misunderstandings. One editor has, for years, repeatedly removed a project banner from a huge number of articles. He's done that against what he knows to be the project's scope & repeated confirmation of consensus on here & on talk pages to include it, which includes discussions which he has taken part in. He does that based on his unsupported claim that many recently bereaved people are upset by seeing it on talk pages of articles about fatal incidents. Even if he provided evidence for that (which he hasn't), its removal would be still be unjustified & it would be similar to saying that we should remove all Muhammad images from WP due to people saying that they're offended by them. Jim Michael (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
No-one here is suggesting we'll have to remove all Muhammad images just because we remove an image of a skull from the project banner. The similarity of those two actions seems a little contentious and debatable. In fact your mention of depictions of Muhammad at all, in this context, appears to me to be wholly irrelevant and looks like a straw man argument. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not saying that we should remove the Muhammad images. I'm saying that it's inconsistent to remove a relevant image based on an objection to it, but not do so in regard to other images which have been objected to. Removing the skull could give traction to editors who want other images which they dislike removed. The Muhammad example is relevant & similar because it's an example of images on WP which a minority of readers & editors want removed due to them objecting to them. The decision that those images will stay, partly on the basis of WP not being censored, should guide other similar situations. The reason for them being objected to is different, but it's broadly the same concept. Another example which is more similar to the skull image than to the Muhammad images is those of corpses in articles such as genocide. If the skull is removed, there'll be little to support keeping the Muhammad & corpse images. Being offended is no evidence for being correct. Jim Michael (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Jim you say "If the skull is removed, there'll be little to support keeping the Muhammad & corpse images." Sorry but I wholly disagree. I think they are very different situations indeed. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
The fatuousness of this slippery slope fallacy is easily demonstrated: the WikiProject Islam banner does not use an image of Mohammed, and it would no doubt be seen as disruptive to try to deploy one there; it would be an inappropriate to use such an image in that specific context. Just as we do not prohibit images of Mohammed, no-one is trying to prohibit the use of images of skulls. This too is about the inappropriate use of such an image in a specific context. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
It's known that many Muslims hate images of Muhammad being present anywhere. There isn't known to be a demographic that has a severe aversion to normal, clean, whole skulls.
As you know, a skull is a very common & well-known symbol of death, which is what makes its use on the Death banner very appropriate. Jim Michael (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Again: Jim Michael think[s] he should attempt to speak for me, nothing he says when doing so should be believed, as he lacks the ability to represent my views or actions truthfully.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:1943 Gibraltar Liberator AL523 crash#Proposed merge with Władysław Sikorski's death controversy

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:1943 Gibraltar Liberator AL523 crash#Proposed merge with Władysław Sikorski's death controversy. starship.paint (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

AfD for List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (X3)

Please check the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States. Someone has nominated three related articles. They're now going to drag in all the other "list of ___(type of death)____ articles. Normal Op (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Removing every image from horse slaughter article

Opinions are needed on the following Talk:Horse slaughter#RfC: Removing every image from horse slaughter article. Mariolovr (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggested Merge Chanki Tree / Samanea saman

Hello, There is a discussion suggesting the merging of articles relevant to this project Chankiri Tree and Samanea saman, it would be great if you could contribute your opinion at Talk:Samanea saman § Merge Discussion. Thanks, --Paul Carpenter (talk) 11:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Talking About Suicide

Hello,

We should do our best to avoid using any variation of the phrase "commit suicide" and update all instances to "die by suicide" or "died by suicide." Even this is not a perfect term and there is no perfect term, but it is a good start and scientific literature supports the use of this term or "lost life to suicide" etc (source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6563960/). Is there a way to mass-edit all pages on Wikipedia? If not, would anyone be interested in spending a few hours once in a while to help me achieve this?

Feel free to email me: luke.grosvenor@gmail.com

Thanks, Luke — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorbiesVT272 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@CorbiesVT272: I think what you're suggesting would be a site wide policy or amendment to WP:MOS. There has been some centralised discussion on the matter before that didn't appear to reach a consensus in either event. I think if there's anything that hasn't already been discussed centrally already, then it would be best to bring it up at Village Pump afresh. There are options for mass editing using bots but I severely doubt they'd be approved in this case. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Ridgefield Cemetery

Ridgefield Cemetery has been PROD'd, but the City of Ridgefield's website suggests the site has a nearly 150-year history. I'm struggling to find detailed coverage, but I've also learned of 3 alternative names for the cemetery. Any project members interested in helping with a bit of research here, or have access to archives to add some info? Feel free to hop over to the article's talk page. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Tahquitz (disambiguation)

Members of this project might be interested in knowing there is a discussion regarding the Tahquitz (disambiguation) page. The discussion is at Talk:Tahquitz (disambiguation). OvertAnalyzer (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC on how to define "suicidal ideation" and compose the lead paragraph

WP:DEATH is one of the WikiProjects listed as having interest in the article, Suicidal ideation. A request for comments (RfC) is currently underway at: RfC on how to define "suicidal ideation" and compose the lead paragraph. Your input would be very helpful. Thank you - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 16:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Mausoleums for heads of state

Crossposting this to WikiProject Architecture as well, but I feel like there could be a better way to categorize the mausoleums for heads of states. Looking at the See also sections for Washington's Tomb (United States Capitol) and Lenin's Mausoleum, both contain fairly long lists of other, similar tombs or mausoleums, and I feel like creating a dedicated category and list article for this topic could be a better way to organize these related topics. Thanks, --JJonahJackalope (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Categories: death and / or suicide

Recently an editor has been making hundreds of category changes in biographical articles in which they remove the Category:[year] deaths and replace it with Category:[year] suicides. Mykola Khvylovy is an example. Is this appropriate? Although I understand that categories should be as specific as possible, I thought that (for example) Category:1933 deaths was a standard biography category and should be there regardless of the means or cause of death. That's how I read Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#N but I could well be wrong. I don't want to approach the user about this without knowing what's correct. Thanks, HazelAB (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Death/Archive_5&oldid=1020453530"