Jump to content

Talk:Deaths in 2020

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 31.201.130.50 (talk) at 11:16, 27 March 2020 (+1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Death citations

Was skimming the 2020 death category and saw some names in there I have been unable to find some sources for. Putting the names here so editors can keep an eye out for them:

Will add in any other names if any can't be cited throughout the month so we can see which names to look out for. Rusted AutoParts 00:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added Cobert and Franzese who are dead according to tweets or blog posts in the past few hours. Vilkomir now has a source (albeit an offline one) on his page. Satisfactory for the Deaths in 2020 page? Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some kind of linking claim to a newspaper or suchlike is needed if it's offline. That's the only way it could be used as a reliable source, though a hard one for individual editors to verify if they don't have a copy of the newspaper. Ref (chew)(do) 14:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does this work for DeDe Lind? Emk9 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is not clear that this is the deceased's own site. It could be a fan site. Besides, it would be difficult to report your own death. See WP:FACEBOOK. WWGB (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could everyone please delete entries here as they are added to the page and cleared with sources? — Wyliepedia @ 01:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death reports without date

Would people please note that in cases where all available news reports only state that a person "has died," without giving a date, it can NOT be assumed that the death occurred on the date of the report? Mewulwe (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we usually add “(death announced on this date)” in those cases...if we catch it. — Wyliepedia @ 17:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coronavirus?

"Coronavirus" is correct and acceptable (broad category reference). "COVID-19" is correct and acceptable (more specific category reference). But thank goodness editors who are also readers of UK newspaper The Sun don't regale us with the journal's quite ridiculous "Snake Flu" buzzwords. Ref (chew)(do) 07:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read The Sun, but "snake flu" is relatively catchy. Thanks for sharing! Not sure if correct, but quite acceptable. For personal use, anyway; for here, I think "coronavirus" is more pronounceable in the typical reader's head than "COVID-19" (do I spell it or say it?). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coronavirus refers to a family of viruses. The term has been around since the 60s. The variant that is killing people recently is the COVID-19 variety, so that should be used. WWGB (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure people will understand it's the variant that kills people recently, regardless. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@InedibleHulk: most news broadcasts, if they don’t say it as “coronavirus”, use “co-vid nineteen” than “cee-oh-vee...”. — Wyliepedia @ 16:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Reminds people of "corvid". Nothing scarier than a dead bird with its brain "confirmed" as freakishly large in a sterile laboratory environment. Unless it's a deceptively-branded invisible Ukrainian gas that has sent at least one perfectly healthy genius to the 27 Club in recent days (and technically still shows no sign of stopping). Anyway, call it what you will, people will get it. But seriously, we're aware that "nitrous oxide" makes it sound less fun and imitable, correct? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@InedibleHulk: The Sun is notorious for choosing the lowest common denominator as a journal of the people; sadly, this nickname is completely wrong in relation to the strain of coronavirus (COVID-19) being reported on. That newspaper will never change. Ref (chew)(do) 18:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we have Sun media and snake myths in Canada, too. Different, but mostly the same. I blame humans for transmitting swine flu, bird flu and monkey pox to humans (in most cases). Whichever zoonotic origin is scapegoated this time, billions of snakes/goats/black cats being humanely gassed won't make anyone happier or healthier. Completely wrong whacking boy, but catchy name. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we are taking a poll, COVID-19 would be the correct tag. The common cold can also be a coronavirus (most of them are rhinoviruses), but you dont die from it. SARS, MERS and the other similar viruses are known by their designation, so we should do the same thing as it is the same family.Sunnydoo (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, the more specific we can get the better, as long as the naming is simple enough. I can't see a problem with referring to it as COVID-19 - half the medical world seems to be calling it that now. Ref (chew)(do) 20:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And even I grew bored with "snake flu" two weeks ago, if anyone's wondering. I now call it "CROW-na virus", in honour of Max von Sydow. Nobody's corrected me so far, so it must be accurate. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carsten Bresch

For Carsten Bresch, we have 6 March as "death announced on this date", but the article has an unsourced 1 March, added on 1 March. The Traueranzeige mentions no dates, just 98th year. While 1 March is probably correct, we should have some ref, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, it may be that an editor has just put in the first day of the month rather than put no day at all. Pretty sure the exact day is still not known or sourced reliably. Ref (chew)(do) 10:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone knowing better put in the correct date, because on 1 Mar, s/he couldn't possibly enter a later date. However, on that date, any February or before was also possible. S/he may have been a member of the faculty who posted the Anzeige, or whatever other relation. There's no hint at a family. - Is it right that with a likely date of 1 March, he has no chances to appear in the RD section? I want to get rid of the tag in the article, but would go further only if there was a chance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a cast-iron source for DoD is what you need. I can't see any at the moment. Ref (chew)(do) 13:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

Different sports have different terminologies, and there seems to be a perception among a few misguided editors that a person who plays cricket is not called a cricketer, but a cricket player. If you care to look through any Wikimedia or elsewhere, you'll find that is not the case. Just thought I should clear up any misconceptions, to set the record straight. Editrite! (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The terms are interchangeable. Steve Smith is a cricketer, Richie Benaud was a cricket player and commentator. Try Googling "cricket player" and see how many hits you get. Neither misguided nor misconceived. WWGB (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At least it’s close contextually, unlike the global divide of “soccer player/footballer” and the gridiron players. — Wyliepedia @ 02:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He's obviously commenting on the use of "cricket player" as a standalone term, when no other involvement or position (such as "coach") is involved. And if used on its own, he's perfectly correct to clear that up, as we do with "football player" and "footballer". Ref (chew)(do) 04:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's about more than a standalone term. WWGB (talk) 07:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of that particular edit then, the editor is clearly wrong to make it according to existing consensus relating to the describing of more than one role in sports such as football and cricket. Agreed. Ref (chew)(do) 09:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WWGB: What makes you such an authority on cricket? That means the vast majority of editors (that's what they call consensus) are wrong, and you're one of the few who's right. Maybe they should have checked with Google . . . oh no, wait a minute, cricket was around long before Google or television or even radio, for that matter. Oh well, back to the drawing board. Editrite! (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, back off now with the sarcasm. You don't need to be an authority on a game to know how to sensibly insert English grammar into an article of the kind we edit here. It's English language terminology and flow, not sports knowledge we are talking about in these instances. You are mistaking the consensus being referred to. Multiple roles held in sports such as football and cricket have long resulted in editors of the Deaths pages setting the referential divisions you are so against. It's not as if the reversal of your cricket edit was the first or only correction of this type made due to an existing consensus held among regular editors of the Deaths pages (not consensus of the wider nature you seem to be inferring). (By the way, trying to pick fights with individual editors never ever works in the attacker's favour.) Ref (chew)(do) 00:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will address the points you make, even though my comments were not addressed to you (as you know). It was always made clear that this is about sporting terminology, and nothing else. In an (online) encyclopedia accuracy should be paramount. You may recall the hockey/ice hockey example. Otherwise, what's the point? It's not about grammar. If you go back through the "deaths" history, cricketer is used far more than any other cricketing term and rightly so, (if you know anything about cricket) whether you like it or not. To suggest that a cricketer stops being (called) a cricketer, if they do other things in life after cricket is nonsense, and you should know better. It defies logic apart from anything else. They're either a cricketer or they're not. You can't have it both ways. By the way, I wasn't the one who raised the subject of Google, which was a pointless exercise anyway, as the game and its terminologies were invented long ago. Editrite! (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID19

So are we going to have a distinction for those who died from it on the same day, like we do for plane crash victims?

Example, March 16: “International deaths from COVID19:

  • Nicolas Alfonsi, 83, French politician, MP (1973–1988, 2001–2014) and MEP (1981–1984).
  • Hashem Bathaie Golpayegani, 78–79, Iranian ayatollah, member of the Assembly of Experts (since 2016).
  • Fariborz Raisdana, 71, Iranian economist.
  • Ahmad Taheri, Iranian futsal coach.

— Wyliepedia @ 23:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that protocol is limited to deaths from a single event, such as a plane crash or terrorist attack. WWGB (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And, anyway, if corralled into a sectioned list like event victims are, each list within our list risks becoming outlandishly longer as each day passes, according to worst case predictions. I favour keeping CoD in individual entries as per the norm. Ref (chew)(do) 23:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with outlandish length, but agree with not treating something this nebulous as a cluster. I'm happy to report that Day One since you shared that dire prediction saw zero new cases! Sadly, with an average age of 72.9, this pattern of Death in 2020 predominantly targeting those closest to it seems likely to remain "the new normal" for the foreseeable future. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you? Never mind the new cases - from Tuesday to Wednesday this week, UK deaths rose from 77 to 104 in a single day! Please don't be complacent about the threat of this virus. Ref (chew)(do) 18:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at home with the doors locked, of course. Not downplaying any threat. Just saying our new cases (of notable dead) haven't escalated daily. At least in the short-term. It's only a silver lining, not a ray of sunshine. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Your point accepted. Ref (chew)(do) 08:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikilinking it?

Probably the most famous disease in the world right now (and modern fame is certainly the most prevalent kind), I think people are familiar enough to not need such a glaring reminder anymore, even only in the first entry each day. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly should not be wikilinked by now, or at least only the top-most one should be, as is the case in any other article where multiple references are made to any one phrase or word. But if so who is going to look after the housekeeping of moving the link up the list of reverse order entries each time a new day results in a new victim? Ref (chew)(do) 11:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I suppose I am saying wikilink them all or don't wikilink any. Ref (chew)(do) 11:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't link any. Like we don't link any heart attacks, traffic collisions or strokes. Those are older concepts, but relatively unpublicized lately. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Better off with a consensus - just feels like one of those trivial technical things which could blow into an argument. Anybody else? Ref (chew)(do) 18:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I vote (I know this is not a vote, as such) to not wikilink this COD. Surely there can not be many people unaware of what this virus is by now. Apart from the fact that it will probably appear on virtually each day's entry for the foreseeable. Sadly... - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First mention on the page only, the others dont need a link which is more usual practice. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MilborneOne: : As I mentioned, then who is nominated to keep moving the link up the page, as it operates in reverse order with newest date (and link each day!) at the top? Ref (chew)(do) 20:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a huge problem its not rocket science to remove one link if you add one. MilborneOne (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I’m not going to link the first mention on a new day, then seek out those below it to delink them. Link all (unless multiples in one day) or not at all. — Wyliepedia @ 22:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither (tedious chores needn't be rocket science to suck). Besides, usual practice here has never worked like in "real articles". Wikilinks are for exceptionally obscure jobs, nationalities, genres and causes, not first in a series. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not worry about that now. When March rolls over to its own page, we can link the first occurrence of COVID-19 (probably Mohammad Mirmohammadi on 2 March), then unlink the rest. That is consistent with other articles. WWGB (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's consistent with every other addict's stance, too. No worries, next month, just one won't hurt, not a huge problem. Listen to yourselves! You two agreeable to a three-day cold turkey trial run, starting now? If you still feel the overwhelming urge to overlink by then, at least you tried. I think you can kick it, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with the @WWGB: remedy. Ref (chew)(do) 04:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to blue link every COVID-19 case? We usually save the blue links for a small subset of diseases that either dont kill a lot or dont effect a lot of folks- meaning they are usually unfamiliar to everyone but specialist doctors. I would think by now everyone on the planet would be familiar with COVID-19, so is there really any more reason to keep blue linking the deaths?Sunnydoo (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like it noted that InedibleHulk is now linking the first instance of every COD now, for example: traffic collisions and cancer. — Wyliepedia @ 03:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False. Just those three. They're common (thus special). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two were both quickly remedied. "Common COD here" for the car crash and "thanks didn't know what cancer is" for the tumor. But the commonest is resistant to the exact same rational jabs, because... InedibleHulk (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Still against the rules, still ignoring it, still no consensus nor reason offered for this. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi sources on Iranian deaths

Can we get a non-Saudi source for Hamid Kohram? Or at least a Saudi source that doesn't so blatantly hate Iran? I can Google, but I can't paste. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already did that. Ref (chew)(do) 04:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still Al Arabiya on my end. CAWylie simplified the link. But that's different. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Googling (in English) finds next to nothing else, but Tunisie Numerique copies the pertinent paragraphs, omits the taint, go for it! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Langroudi has the same problem with his citation, but a better source right there at the top in his article, go for it! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@InedibleHulk: I thought you meant the obituary itself, as written, was showing negative signs towards Iran. The obit is actually written in quite neutral language. If Al Arabiya becomes deprecated on Wikipedia, then obviously it won't be used. Ref (chew)(do) 06:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TN (in Kohram's case) doesn't call Iran a "regime" and prattle on about all the other death, immediately preceding a giant video of "religious fanatics", and stories about blame-shifting, failure and abandonment. Just the pertinent facts. I'd go for it (if I could). And no, this isn't an obituary, but yes, that "read more" crap is in the article itself (unlike the sidebar). Neither the objective source nor the enemy one verifies his age, so that's no factor. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Edgeworth, NBC News employee, has died...

Larry Edgeworth, NBC News employee, has died. Age 61. Covid-19 [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.176.46 (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done A studio audio technician for NBC News - that's going to fail basic notability. Death from COVID-19 is not a notability in itself. Ref (chew)(do) 19:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "American audio engineers" category has 756 bios (an even thousand, counting stubs). But yeah, a sample of five suggests most worked in music, film or more entertaining television. Possibly some newsies. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For contrast, "Iranian futsal coaches" has only 22 bios, but coronavirus was apparently good enough for Ahmad Taheri. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we have American sound engineer Keith Olsen here already. Mysterious "cardiac arrest". Did other stuff, too, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you were being ironic. Olsen was the record producer on many million selling albums, from the late 1960s to mid 1990s - sort of "did other stuff", if you do not look hard enough. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's (part of) the other stuff I meant. Only trying for brevity, since Edgeworth is this section's focus. I'm a Scorpions fan, I know damn well how much better Crazy World sounds than Dateline. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After some digging, it seems the closest parallel we have is Walter Balderson. And Larry Edgeworth, sir, is no Walter Balderson! So it appears Ref is right, news sound techs are doomed to obscurity. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Rogers

The usual to-ing and fro-ing over which the "rule of three" songs are to be included here. Contenders seem to be "The Gambler", "Just Dropped In", "Islands in the Stream", "Lady" and, as a rank outsider not yet listed, "Lucille". Maybe, "Ruby, Don't Take Your Love to Town" too. Do we use chart placings / Grammy Awards / sales / global recognition, or, as seems to prevail for a while at least on this page, editorial preferences. I can not remember which three won out for Michael Jackson and George Michael for example, or what criteria actually won the day back then. Can you ? The bouncing around does not do this page any real favours, sorry favors - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usually it is by consensus. There are too many charts these days to make any sense out of them. The Gambler was his signature song. Just Dropped In was a good example of his rock era recordings and was used as the theme song for The Big Lebowski/The Dude and many younger folks would know him from that. I would personally go with Lady over Islands in the Stream, but I can see where the fans of the Bee Gees and Dolly Parton would want it the other way. Island was also his only Certified Platinum record single. So those are probably his 3 best known works.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Separate List for COVID-19 Deaths?

I got to this page by Googling "celebrity deaths from coronavirus". While I'm very glad to find that there's a complete list of deaths, I would recommend that there be a separate but related page for deaths from COVID-19.

It would be best if there were some way to use this page as the "system of record" for all deaths this year, and to have the COVID-19 page just subset this page. I don't know if there's a way to do that.

Thanks, John Saunders (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the above section, which already has a similar discussion about this under way. I find it unlikely that a separate page will be created, given that the aim is to defeat this virus eventually and bring the number of deaths towards zero. Please note that confirmed deaths are already clearly marked COVID-19 at the end of each subject line. However, feel free to start this discussion. For my part, I would prefer not to see a separate article on this occasion. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 21:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest way would be to recommend a tab on the Talk page for COVID-19. When we record the deaths here, we will also change the tag on a bio from living persons to Category:2020 deaths (for this year). It then rolls to a separate page where you can see all of the deaths for this year by alphabetical order. You can check anyone's category at the very bottom of their article screen.Sunnydoo (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a page at List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Connormah (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, @Connormah: - job done and case closed here? Ref (chew)(do) 22:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Category:Deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. WWGB (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any objections to including List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in the See Also section? Rusted AutoParts 23:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could do that. It's relevant. Ref (chew)(do) 23:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. WWGB (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am good with that also. Anything to stop this disease and its mad linkage.Sunnydoo (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added the relevant page to the See Also section, so this discussion appears to be closed with a consensus. Ref (chew)(do) 15:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks: entering them into an article/list and not personally intending to write the articles

Hi. You realize that @Vanjagenije: today blew a big hole in the consensus here that any entered redlinks should stay for thirty days and only be removed if no article has been written in the meantime, or if a written article is deleted at any point within that time? The editor's rationale follows WP:WTAF, which states that at the very least an editor who adds a redlink should have a clear intention of going on to write an article about the subject him/herself. Subsequently, a large number of recently-added subjects with redlinks were removed (despite many of the subjects having corresponding articles in other languages through the Inter Language Link facility). Thoughts please. Ref (chew)(do) 19:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is not helpful. Not all of us have time to spend writing articles or even stubs on all of the subjects we come across. Even if we did, some communities here on Wiki have their own thoughts and ideas on how articles/stubs should be written for lets say Chefs. If someone who is perusing one article sees someone notable that already has mentions on Wiki like Floyd Cardoz who died today, why wouldnt they bring that information up so that someone who specializes in that area can see it and write an article. Another good example is State Politicians. We have nowhere near the totality of American politicians. Several times a month a redlink American politician will come across and RFD or one of the other editors will pick it up and write a stub/article for them. And as far as not linking other Wiki content, that is complete nonsense. I was not an early adopter of that program by any means, but it does provide a useful service to the reader (especially with a translator like Googles in Chrome). So I have come around on that and think all of the Wiki's should be linked together. I just think some people have a color phobia on here...if they see Red or Black sometimes they just completely lose their minds. Wiki by no means still has all of the stuff written that it needs to.Sunnydoo (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WTAF is merely an essay, it is neither policy nor guideline. One editor, even an admin, does not override consensus on this page when such consensus does not breach policy.WWGB (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. However, that still leaves the many links he removed missing, all but Floyd Cardoz, who got restored by someone later. WP:WTAF is an ideal, in fact, and not a standard to be met. Ref (chew)(do) 03:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored all of the deleted redlinks. Don't think I missed any? WWGB (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your word for it! (Not counting!) Ref (chew)(do) 03:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edman Ayvazyan

I may be ignorant like someone said, but on the Iranian wiki page for the artist it is stated he died of coronavirus. Since the Iranian contributors should have a higher knowledge of their language than Google Translate, I think we should think carefully about this.

As far as I understand, he was previously hospitalized for cardiovascular disease, he developed fever (sign of coronary disease, anyone?) and got tested for COVID. He was positive and then died. This happened in London. Now if you want to convince me "they tested coronary disease" like it was a sort of tampon, you are wrong. I'm not fine in insering a CoD which could be fake one way or another. My proposal is to reinstate the English article and not report a CoD. --Folengo (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You insist on publicizing what's unsourced, repeatedly pointing at a source you misread. Then after reading it, you insist what is sourced be hidden. And now you're saying heart disease can't be diagnosed, despite me linking to the tests on your Talk, but suggest tampons can. Stop trying until you've slept! I mean that nicely. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Max von Sydow's nationality

His entry keeps being reverted from "Swedish-born French" actor to just "Swedish". While I perfectly understand (possibly even more than others) von Sydow's "swedishness", this isn't a place for cinephilic debates, but one for stating factual truths. I have also been suggested to check the actor's wiki entries, all of which clearly state that he died as a (solely) French citizen. This page explicitly asks for "country of citizenship at birth and subsequent nationality". I don't even see what there is to debate, but I am not going to revert back to "Swedish-born" without support. Please let me know your thoughts. • REDGOLPE (TALK) 13:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Many reliable french sources say he was naturalized French in 2002 ([3], [4], [5]). Current source says nothing about that fact, maybe you can use a French one? (I suggest [6]). Regards, Xavier 90.6.224.88 (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer a non-French source for an issue of French nationality claims. Similar to the "skew" which inspires some to claim that a high-profile in-comer, resident in the USA, automatically has further American co-citizenry, in addition to a Dutch-British naturalization. The urge to "own" the most notable imports from overseas is extremely strong, it seems. As a Brit, I wouldn't dream of assuming that (for instance) the late American musician Julie Felix ever took out official citizenry of our realm without access to cast-iron proof of such. Ref (chew)(do) 18:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider that none of the editors who reverted back to "Swedish" contested his French nationality: that has never been up for debate. The question is if a person who dies a French after living for the majority of his life a Swede must be listed as the former, or the latter. • REDGOLPE (TALK) 19:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand (although Le Monde is renowned for its reliability). Do you prefer his Who's Who (ok, they say 2003)? I'm searching in the Journal officiel, but I'm not sure if such recent decrees are available for consultation. Regards, Xavier 90.6.224.88 (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nationality is not a moveable feast to be taken as lightly as deed poll changes to one's name. It is something granted by a country to an incoming person through legal means, and so legally one should be obliged to refer to the status of citizenship as at the time of death in its current terms. That could be the single (newer) citizenship, or else dual citizenship, or even in extreme cases a properly and legally witnessed verbal renunciation by the deceased on their death bed reverting to the former citizenship. Ref (chew)(do) 20:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is also discussion about this at Talk:Max von Sydow#Nationality. WWGB (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please add recent deaths

28 February
 Not done. None of them has an article in English Wikipedia one month after death. WWGB (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2 March
5 March
10 March
11 March
12 March
17 March
19 March
24 March
25 March
  1. ^ [7] (in Dutch)
  2. ^ [8] (in Dutch)
  3. ^ [9] (in Dutch)
  4. ^ [10] (in Dutch)
  5. ^ [11] (in Dutch)
  6. ^ [12] (in Dutch)
  7. ^ [13] (in Dutch)
  8. ^ [14] (in Dutch)
  9. ^ [15] (in Dutch)
  10. ^ [16] (in Dutch)
  11. ^ [17] (in Dutch)
  12. ^ [18] (in Dutch)
  13. ^ [19] (in Dutch)
  14. ^ [20] (in Dutch)
  15. ^ [21] (in Dutch)
  16. ^ [22] (in Dutch)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_2020&oldid=947610029"