Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death/Archive 2

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Template:Recent death

As a courtesy, this is notice of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 28#Template:Recent death. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Serial killer#African American serial killers

Psychological/medical sources are usually used to identify serial killers, with the occasional exception of law enforcement. Generally, news sources are not the best sources to use for a topic such as this, per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations. Yet, the section in question uses news sources and writers. The first source in the section already inaccurately describes two people as serial killers. The editor who added the section, however, feels that the section should stay because it is "verifiable." The question is...whether or not this editor's sources should be considered good enough simply because they are "verifiable."

Opinions are definitely needed on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Capital punishment — how to describe in article's opening sentence?

There is a dispute going on at Capital punishment over which (if any) of the following statements are appropriate for the opening sentence of the article:

  • Capital punishment, the death penalty, or execution is the killing of a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offence.
  • Capital punishment, the death penalty, or execution is the infliction of death upon a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offence.
  • Capital punishment or the death penalty is the execution of a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offence.

Is "killing" indicative of an anti-capital-punishment POV? Is "infliction of death" an inappropriate euphemism? Is defining capital punishment as "execution" a circular definition (note that Execution is a redirect to Capital punishment)?

Additional input would be welcome so that some sort of consensus can be reached. Thanks. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Defining something as the "~ing" of something else, may or may not be grammatically correct, but it doesn't sound encyclopedic. I'd go with the third. Or maybe:
1) Capital punishment, also referred to as the death penalty, is the legally sanctified sentence of execution following judicial conviction of a capital crime."
2) I am under the impression that "execution" and "capital punishment" are overlapping but not the same. There are "gang/mafia executions", "military executions", and "summary executions" (as of Prisoners of War), none of which fall under "capital punishment". Boneyard90 (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Legally "sanctioned" — not "sanctified", which has religious connotations that aren't necessarily relevant here. If people are uncomfortable with the ambiguity of "legally sanctioned", we could say "legally approved".
If a reader doesn't initially know what "execution" means, a definition depending on this term won't be sufficient. And this page currently has a redirect pointing to it from "Execution", so it seems we're accepting the possibility that some readers might not start out being completely clear about what this word means.
As for other meanings of "execution", I would say that "military" or "summary" executions most definitely do fall under the umbrella of capital punishment — involving processes that might not meet some people's standards of thoroughness or propriety, but still approved by some sort of legal system. And "execution" or "execution-style" is often used to describe murder committed in a fashion reminiscent of capital punishment procedures (e.g., a shooting at point-blank range of a bound, restrained, or cornered victim who knows what is about to happen but is powerless to resist or defend himself), but that isn't the primary meaning.
And it still isn't at all clear to me that "killing" is either unencyclopedic or tainted by anti-death-penalty bias. Police, for example, may be said to have "killed" a suspect who was fleeing or acting in a threatening manner. And I don't think there is any problem with describing the actions of soldiers in a war as "killing" the enemy. I'm not proposing to defy a clear consensus going the other way, but I still think that defining capital punishment as a variety of "killing" (the first of the three alternatives I originally listed) is firmly neutral and fully in line with WP:SPADE. Richwales (talk · contribs) 22:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
-True, "sanctioned" is the correct word. My mistake there. On your other points:
1) I steered away from the term "execution-style", as I realize these types of murders are not sanctioned, however, I would say that "gang (or mafia) executions" are sanctioned by the rules and policies set in place by their respective cultures, we might even say those respective institutions. The Italian mafia, for example, has a sometimes elaborate process that one must abide by, before the execution of another mafia member can be ordered or even condoned. Those who dispense with the process have found their own lives in jeopardy. Therefore, while an execution might conform to the standards of the sanctioning body of the mafia, it is outside the courts of law. What is "execution" in one forum is "murder" in another.
2)I believe a "summary execution" is one without a trial, without due process, and denied these steps, without the conviction of a "capital crime", can we say that a "summary execution" is "capital punishment"?
3) I have no problem with the word "kill" to describe either execution and/or capital punishment, my issue is with the wording, the use of a gerund for an object. Would you say, for example, "Dinner is the eating of food in the evening"? No, you would find another accepted noun, such as the "consumption" or something. Boneyard90 (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AFAIK, there is nothing ungrammatical about "Capital punishment is the killing of a person ...." Would you feel any better, BTW, about "Capital punishment is the intentional killing of a person ...."? If a substitute for "killing" can be identified that is not overly circuitous or euphemistic, I'd like to hear about it and would want to consider it. Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many pardons! I didn't mean to leave your reply unanswered. Life was pretty busy about the time of your last post, and I must have missed it. On to issues of discussion: (1) As far as whether the sentence you suggest is ungrammatical or not, I refer you to the page User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing, written by a member of the Wikipedia Guild of Copyeditors. He addresses the issue of grammar, appearance, and solutions. If we can agree that the wording should be replaced, we can work on a solution. (2) As for the use for the inclusion of the word "intentional": it seems unnecessary. Are there incidents of "legally sanctioned accidental killing"? Boneyard90 (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could judicial process be omitted from the lead and be used in a separate sentence? Would it help if you closed your eyes and answered the question: What is Capital Punishment? Would your answer be shorter and with fewer words in the first sentence? Just some thoughts. Thank you. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=, now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=|jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

  • {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Debate on Disembowelment

As the article Disembowelment is part of WP:Death, I thought I would mention that there is currently a debate between me and another editor who questions the validity of one of my sources and wants to delete a section of text regarding the historical use of disembowelment in Vietnam. See the section Talk:Disembowelment#Deletion of Vietnam Account. Boneyard90 (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Debate was resolved. Boneyard90 (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Animal deaths

Is there a policy on having dead animals in the articles Deaths in... and Category:.... deaths? I think it's a bit odd to have Knut (polar bear) in a list of persons in Deaths in March 2011. But maybe that's just me.Sjö (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not that I'm really a fan of the practice, but I think it's justified if the animal has notability. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Importance of Afterlife

I've just looked at the article on Afterlife, and if there are no objections, I'm going to rate it as Top importance for WP:Death. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Katyn massacre at Featured Article review

Katyn massacre is undergoing a featured article review process here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Katyn_massacre/archive1 Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clinical death importance

I'd like to rate the article on Clinical death as Top importance for WP:Death. Objections? Comments? Boneyard90 (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Boneyard90 (talk) 10:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed Top Importance articles

Done and Done. Boneyard90 (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: The Color of Death and Welcome at Wikipedia

Welcome to WikiProject Death, Timl2k4

Welcome to WP:WikiProject Death. The Singularity is near, and the Methuselah Foundation is helping in its approach, so our project might have no objects of study soon. :( As to "orange" on your user page, orange is not a colour, it is a color! :) Cheers. PPdd (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Cabal seems to have decided it's a colour. I will rebel! :) TimL (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We at Wikiproject Death are the only real Wiki cabal, other than that of the two religious "Dominionists", Pearlasia Gamboa of the theocratic Dominion of Melchizedek, and Sarah Palin of the Talk2Action Dominionism (just google "Sarah Palin Dominionism Talk2Action").

Check out this on the "True Color of Nothingness at Wikipedia". They deleted the image of Death! Time for our cabal to take some action? PPdd (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The abyss is definitely not black! It's orange, my favorite color, I swear! Put in a swatch of orange and see what happens. :-D TimL (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is an "abyss". There is no such thing as "nothing". The glass is not either half full or half empty. It is always full, half full of water, the other half full of air, or full of the void, like the empty set is full of its elements (members). PPdd (talk)
I was going to say something here, but thinking intensely about, uh, [_____] made me a bit woozy. :-) TimL (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reincarnation discussion

[Here] PPdd (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Importance Ratings

I'd be interested in learning how the Importance Scale was applied to these articles:

Choking is a fairly common and mundane way to die, whereas several of the correctional workers were murdered or assassinated with significant social impact.--JeffJ (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe I listed the List of choking deaths as Mid-importance precisely because it's a common and mundane way to die. Just because the list is short, doesn't mean it's insignificant; it more likely means that it is incomplete. On the other hand, the List of Canadian correctional workers is a very narrow field, so it is listed as Low importance in regard to the understanding of situations, processes, or concepts related to Death. I am sure that in WikiProject Canada or WikiProject Correctional Facilities that list is held in higher importance. Importance is evaluated on how the article provides a better understanding of the concept or process of death. Not many readers are, or can be, Canadians or correctional workers; however, nearly EVERYBODY can relate to the experience, possibility, or fear of choking. I try to apply the same rationale when evaluating all articles, and I try to remain consistent. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see your point on the "relatability", but I would argue that the choking article offers little to advance the reader's "understanding of situations, processes, or concepts" of the mechanism of the deaths. Conversely, I would argue that the correctional article provides the reader with a greater insight into some of the deadly situations faced by correctional workers. And there were some far-reaching social impacts from some of the correctional deaths. The best example being the 2 officers who were assassinated by the Hells Angels in Quebec as part of a plot to destabilize the provincial justice system there. Just to be clear; I'm not trying to elevate the status of the correctional workers over those listed in the choking list. I'm only trying to argue that there is (in my humble opinion) a greater educational element to the correctional article, and therefore at least an equal "importance" to an encyclopedia. But I wouldn't elevate the correctional article to MID, but instead lower the choking article to LOW. --JeffJ (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changed to Low. The lists have been somewhat difficult to rate. Generally I've evaluated lists that are more comprehensive and deal with specific methods of death as more "important" than the opposite; that is, lists for specific groups and generalized methods of death get a lower importance rating. What I try to keep in mind is not "importance in an encyclopedia", but rather the "importance in an Encyclopedia of Death". Boneyard90 (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are able to access a copy of one of the hard copy encyclopedias it would possibly help. The relevance and weight given to any particular subject in the paper encyclopedias is in itself an issue (the editors reasons and motivations for a quarter page rather than full page) - but also some topics are see also-ed to another topic the editors consider to be the more important listing. SatuSuro 01:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's an idea I might look into. Boneyard90 (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have one in hand - I plan to copy out the list articles by evaluating space and emphasis - but it might take quite some time, considering real life and some other things... SatuSuro 02:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Casey Anthony: Own article or not?

A discussion is going on at the above linked talk page about whether or not Casey Anthony should get her own article outside of the case. Some of you may want to weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I weighed in. I need to (later) edit my comment because my only real point is that if the facts regarding Casey make the article too long, then it would need to be split in two with one article focusing on the trial and one article focusing on Casey. (actually I'll make that change now w/o all the extra jink I said) --TimL (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Large number of Suicide CFD's happening

the arguments are directly relevant to this project and its aims of having clear and well defined aspects of death adequately findable on wikipedia - so this is a FYI for any remaining participants who have this page on their watch - SatuSuro 10:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Francis_Melchert-Dinkel may interest some of you.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't forget Wikiquote!

If you see any good suicide-related quotes, there's always Wikiquote:Suicide. Tisane talk/stalk 00:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cultural views

There should be an article about the different cultural views toward suicide. E.g., western culture views it as symptomatic of mental illness, as a sin, as selfishness, as cowardice, and all kinds of other negative things. In other words, there's almost no acceptance of suicide in western culture except for the terminally ill, and even then it's not always accepted. Other cultures are not so anti-suicide. I guess some of this is already covered in philosophy of suicide, but I think it needs to be covered more comprehensively, since this is pretty core to the scope of this project. Tisane talk/stalk 22:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suicide response

Template:Suicide response could probably be beefed up a bit, to at least provide a link to some more comprehensive resources, for those who don't feel like calling a hotline. Aren't there any forums like around anymore, except with less trolling? Tisane talk/stalk 16:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Animal suicide

If anyone finds info on animal suicide, we should post that. Tisane talk/stalk 16:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A consistently popular article Tisane talk/stalk 03:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suicide articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Suicide articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide by hanging

An article under the scope of this project, suicide by hanging, is up for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide by hanging. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Death and Art

I understand that portrayals of the personification of death, such as The Triumph of Death or the Grim Reaper are within the project. However, is artwork that depicts dead or dying people, such as Lamentation over the Dead Christ with Saints (Botticelli), within the scope of the project? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boneyard90 (talkcontribs) 00:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coordinates vs Lat Long in infoboxes

I'm raising this question on multiple pages as I think it is not high on many watchlists. My question is this: Do we need both coordinates and Lat/Long input lines on templates such as "{Infobox cemetery}"? Comments welcome. --S. Rich (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Killing of journalists

Would the topic of journalists killed while reporting fit under this project? There are human rights organizations that have been established to deal with this issue as well as other violations of rights journalists face. I realize that your project doesn't include "Death of...", "Assassination of ...", which are about individuals, however, the death of journalists itself, as a collective, is a phenomenon that can be studied. Crtew (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you kidding? That's totally within the project! There loads of articles that are "Death of..." "Murder of..." & etc. See the front page Wikipedia:WikiProject Death and look under "biography". Ironically, it's under the "this is what we're not..." but read the qualifiers beneath the heading. When it comes to articles on the deaths of individual journalists, feel free to tag it with the banner and assess them if you like! Boneyard90 (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Turn WikiProject Suicide into a taskforce within WikiProject Death?

I don't know how this kind of thing is usually done (if ever), but I think it'd be a good idea to redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Suicide here and create a Suicide Taskforce (as eerie as that sounds) inside WikiProject Death. Thoughts? (This place doesn't seem too active either, so if no one replies I'll go ahead and get it done, or maybe seek feedback elsewhere first.) WP Suicide has 86 articles under it and has had 2 members ever, and is currently considered inactive. It's a worthwhile idea but I think it'd be better for it to merge it here. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Agree SatuSuro 08:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Makes sense, especially if WP: Suicide is that low on articles and members. I don't think I'd have an objection. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of the members is indef banned, and I'll message the other one, User:Geniac. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Makes sense to me. Suicide is a subset of death and both are pretty quiet. --Geniac (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Agree - but also think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology should be made aware of this proposal as "Suicide" is some times a result of a mental disorder that is treatable. They may what to jump in here to (more the merrier)Moxy (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply] Some handfuls of templates still need replacing. I'll get around to them myself if they're still there tomorrow.

The task force is now here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Death/Suicide task force, the template code is right there for easy copy-pasting.

Some things still need to done, but the migration is basically complete. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good job! Your efforts are certainly appreciated! Boneyard90 (talk) 07:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree whole-heartedly ! thank you! SatuSuro 07:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

K, all banners are replaced, WP Suicide banner now redirects to the WP Death banner. There's still some pages to be tagged if yalls venture into the suicide-related categories.

I think we need a to-do list...

BTW, all talk pages in this project space, including the one for the Suicide task force, redirect here. Should we start to see more action, separate talk pages may be necessary, but for now I think we're cool with one. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I created the category Category:WikiProject Death members, if you're not in there, put yourself in there. (If you have the userbox on your page then you should be good already.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There now seems to be 2 systems - the
and - any particular reason for parallel universes? SatuSuro 12:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The participants list is still the actual list, the category is for those that want to categorize themselves or have the userbox on their page. It's not mandatory to categorize yourself there. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FA Nomination

1740 Batavia massacre, within this project's scope, has been nominated for featured article status at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1740 Batavia massacre/archive1. Any feedback would be welcome. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sinking of the RMS Titanic

I've written a new version of Sinking of the RMS Titanic, which I'm intending to nominate for Featured Article status with the aim of getting it onto the Main Page in time for the anniversary of the sinking. If you have any comments on the new version, please leave feedback at Talk:Sinking of the RMS Titanic#New version posted - feedback requested. Prioryman (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Torsten Carleman

There has been ongoing contention about whether Torsten Carleman's death from alcoholism should be discussed.

The viewpoints of editors experienced with biographies discussing causes of death would be helpful.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, and thanks for visiting WP: Death! I looked over the debate at Talk:Torsten Carleman, and left my opinions at the bottom of the page. (Additional Death editors might also want to drop in a word or two!) It is indeed contentious over there. I have also removed the WP: Death banner from the talk-page. Neither Carleman's life nor his death are within the scope of WP:Death. However, if an article such as Death of Torsten Carleman is written, it would fall within the purview of WP:Death. Good luck! Boneyard90 (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Boneyard90,
Thank you for you helpful advice. (I was exasperated with the editor trying to present a feel-good article, and needed help.)
Death is so much more varied than conception and birth. One of the most interesting dissertations in recent Swedish philosophy was on death!
Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. I'll continue to answer the IP editor's vitriolic replies, but that guy seems to have quite an axe to grind, or perhaps several. If other Death editors want to join in, feel free, but consider yourself warned. Out. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried to take a look but I simply didn't understand what's going on in there. Was there content in the article that has been removed now? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently there was a quote in the footnotes, which can be seen in this edit, and describe the extent of Carleman's drinking, is upsetting to the IP editor. As it stands, there is a one line mention of his alcoholism under Torsten Carleman#Personal life. I'm not sure if the IP is against that as well. I think he wants the article to only focus on the academic accomplishments. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is his death related to alcoholism? Do we know what he actually died of? (I'm just a tad confused here.) I do agree that the footnotes as they were were a bit long. I'll take a better look at the talk page now. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiener wrote that Carleman died of drink, and described advanced alcoholism. Feller described Carleman's antisemitism and xenophobia, specifically his advocating the shooting of Jews and foreigners, when Carleman was drinking, in a personal letter. The article no longer quotes Feller and just states that Carelman abused alcohol, according to Wiener and Feller.
Whether the IP's "Jewish chatter" and "Defamation League" referred to Wiener & Feller or to my "Wolfowitz" (which is less indicative of my religious tradition than the John Milton quotes on my user page, btw), I cannot say. The "national/ethnic" biases apparently describes "Wolfowitz"/me.
Carleman is listed in the category of alcohol-related deaths, because of Wiener; this could be removed if Wiener is not sufficiently reliable.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another source states that the immediate cause of death is jaundice, which is a liver disease often associated with chronic alcohol abuse.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suicide Method(s) Re-name

User:NotWith has moved the article Suicide methods to Suicide method with no discussion on the talk page. Shouldn't such a drastic move be discussed first? Can or should we reverse the move until a consensus is established? Boneyard90 (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think this is problematic at all. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just so long as User:NotWith followed Wikipedia:Requested moves. --JeffJ (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What are you saying? What is there to follow? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What part didn't you understand? Click on the link and read the guidelines for moving a page. --JeffJ (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He did not, as far as I can see. Therefore, I have moved it back and provided my reason on the talk page. Thanks for pointing out that page. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mohamed Bouazizi in the 2011 article

Thought you all might be interested in taking part in the Request for Comment on this subject at Talk:2011#Request_for_Comment:_Mohamed_Bouazizi_and_the_Occupy_movement_additions Wrad (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect details

Tom Ardolino is listed under "Deaths in 1955" when in fact this should be "born in 1955".

Galaxybabe (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)GalaxybabeReply[reply]

  Done - Thanks for the heads-up. Boneyard90 (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pages for assisting suicidal users

One of the three links listed here under the above heading is Wikipedia:Resources for suicidal individuals but are people aware that it comprises three external links one of which is to a 19th century letter suggesting that people should not feel guilty about suicide and goes to the extreme of: ‘Undoubtedly there are many cases of perfectly justifiable suicide--cases in which not to end life would be a mistake, sometimes almost a crime'?

Another is to a list of posts on a blog, one of which is about there being worse things than suicide. The third website is an encylopedic analysis of philosophical work relating to suicide.

None of this seems particularly appropriate for the suggested use. It seems the person who created them, back in July 2010, was banned not long afterwards. Eversync (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for bringing attention to this. I listed it for deletion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Resources for suicidal individuals. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for dealing with that. Eversync (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Major Depressive Disorder (Vincent van Gogh: "At Eternity's Gate")

I refer the group to this thread on the Talk page at Major Depressive Disorder concerning the use of Vincent van Gogh's painting "At Eternity's Gate" in that article and to this comment of mine pointing out it has no place in the article and should be removed.

The essence of the complaint is that is fully documented that van Gogh's painting is not at all, nor was ever meant to be, a portrayal of depressive disorder but is rather merely a study of an old man. For that reason alone it should be removed for reasons of encyclopaedic accuracy.

As it stands it necessarily makes a judgement about the nature of depressive disorder, that it necessarily implies despair, even that it necessarily implies suicidal ideation (because of its title and van Gogh's own well known suicide). It is very much to be regretted indeed in my opinion that a Wikipedia administrator, Casliber, a practicising psychiatrist it seems but a poor historian of art, appears to be the prime mover behind perpetuating these poor judgements.

It also mythologises Vincent van Gogh himself who took the greatest care to separate his difficulties in life from his work; the nature of whose illness is not settled but which is not certainly typical of a depressive disorder; who is not documented as suffering from suicidal depressive moods in the last months of his life when this painting was completed and whose suicide itself has in the past year been plausibly questioned by a respected source as rather a manslaughter.

I ask that the image be removed. If it is felt necessary, and I cannot imagine why it should be, that the article be illustrated by a fine art image, then I suggest the original image, Durer's Melancholia, be reinserted. Skirtopodes (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merger discussion

FYI, deathcare and death industry have been suggested to be merged. For the discussion, see Talk:Death care. (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deaths of animals and plants

The Senator (tree) appears at the Deaths in 2012 page, but is not categorized as Category:2012 deaths. We have included notable animals at the "deaths in yr x" page in the past. We have Category:Animal deaths by year, shouldnt we also have Category:Tree deaths? Other trees that could be placed in such a category: General Noble (tree) (1892), Mother of the Forest (1852), Wawona Tree (1969), Lindsey Creek tree (1905), and more likely at Category:Individual trees. Also, shouldn't the various "category:xxxx animal deaths" also appear in the category for deaths by year?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cemetery and memorial categories

It has been proposed that the categories for cemeteries and memorials be split, through the WP:CFD pages here, here, here and here. Unfortunately the only explanation I can see from the proposer is that the combination is "unnatural". I think the proposal needs to be reviewed by people who know the subject. Ephebi (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Age ranges for "murders of children" categories

I've categorised quite a few murder related articles and have been trying to find an appropriate definition for the age limits for defining "children" and categorising people as "murders of children" etc. I noticed some others previously using anything below the age of 18 for this (at least in the context of England) and it would seem all legal definitions would support this stance, as does the Wikipedia [[child] article and the United Nations. My edits were reverted so I'm wondering do we have particular unique requirements for these categories on Wikipedia or was the editor just misguided and confusing legal and biological definitions? My guess is that we do indeed use the Wikipedia / UN definition of 18 or lower if the age of majority of the country in question says so but I'd like some input before restoring the content. Anyway perhaps it would be wise if someone were to add some text teh the categories themselves giving some guidance, and it may also be worthwhile replacing the term "children" with "minors" to avoid confusion in future. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tough call. I think "minor" is a pretty neutral term. I mean, "child" might be technically correct, but it's difficult to think of a 17-year old as a "child". Like you pointed out, age of majority differs per country. In the U.S. it's 18, in Japan it's 20. So at age 19, you're an adult in the U.S., but not Japan. So, I think "child" is subjective and contextual. I think some people use "child" whenever they can for maximum dramatic effect, while terms like adolescent, youth, or teenager might be more descriptively accurate. Also, you might want to ask the reverting editor what the reason for the reversion was. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also to get the reverting editor to make comment here - as the precedent is potentially wiki wide - not just death project - there might be discussions already elsewhere on this issue and the range of cultural/national differences SatuSuro 07:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Boneyeard - the UN definition deals with the issue of countries such as Japan, as do other definitions, placing a strict limit of under 18 at the most.--Shakehandsman (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gotcha. Well, I added a descriptive paragraph to Category:English murderers of children. It's based on the American category. Maybe that will help. Boneyard90 (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I forgot to mention that the people in question are Ahmed Ali Awan, Shaied Nazir, and Sarfraz Ali. Also, the comments by the editor removing the categories aren't especially constructive [1] and I've had previous issues with them in the past.--Shakehandsman (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well thanks for fixing the Nazir redirect, it's a shame User:Youreallycan reverted it so quickly without offering any evidence.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I decided to make that a "test reversion". Let's wait a couple days and see if it engenders some dialogue. If not, then go ahead and change the others with a comment directing any interested parties to the explanation on the category page. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category Trees and Deaths by... issues

For this projects consideration - SatuSuro 00:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Better picture for death.

We need a better image for death, probably animated.--UserWOLfan112 Talk 18:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the project banner? Did you have something specific in mind? Besides "animation", which I've never seen in a project banner.Boneyard90 (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe like this image to the right? It's a diagram of the skull of Phineas Gage, who actually lived after his accident, though one wonders how.Boneyard90 (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adopting MOS on older articles

There's an ongoing RfC to discuss whether Deaths in 2012 and a large number of related articles should adopt the standards of the MOS. Previous versions, spanning back 8 years, did not do this, and we're looking for input from the community to see if adopting the conventions from the MOS would be appropriate. Thus far, we haven't gotten much input from uninvolved editors, so any involvement from the outside community would be greatly appreciated. You can find and comment on the RfC here. Thank you!   — Jess· Δ 15:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reevaluation of "Female homicides in Ciudad Juarez"

I recently edited the article Female homicides in Ciudad Juarez and would like to request a reevaluation of the article to be a part of WikiProject Death. Thank you very much! Cnovoa17 (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assessed the article as B-class. I made a few minor changes to one section, but otherwise an excellent article.Boneyard90 (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Massacre article near AfD

One editor has made sweeping deletions to the article Massacre, claiming POV and OR. A discussion was started on the Talk page. I wrote the introduction (lead), but not the other sections. Whereas the wording of the article used to be the subject of much debate, and was once nominated for deletion, it has been pretty quiet since I wrote the introduction back in September 2011. At 14,000 views per month, that means there have been about 100,000 views without complaint until this. Now another editor is talking about putting it for another deletion, apparently because the article is too much trouble. Interested editors can weigh in at Talk:Massacre. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Titanic Musicians' Memorial, Southampton

I am proposing a merger to Musicians of the RMS Titanic, even when they are two different topics. The memorial is more likely a subtopic and notable, but is the topic notable enough to be a stand-alone article? --George Ho (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scope Question

I've been assessing articles Category:Unknown-importance Death articles, and there are now a fairly large number of persistent Man-eater articles, like Gustave (crocodile) and Kirov wolf attacks. Are these within the scope of our project or not? Our project page doesn't provide much guidance on this topic. Looking for some opinions and maybe a consensus here. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to help work on natural burial

Hi, I'm concerned about the lack of quality information on the natural burial page. The reference materials were written primarily by a marketing association group and an individual promoting their business circle. There's a lot of good information that could be added. I'm not an experienced editor. I am, however, an instructor at Oregon State University in sustainable cemetery management and I tell my students to stay away from the wikipedia "natural burial" page. ("Green" is a color, for goodness sake! and not a methodology!) I'm willing to work on this if I can find a mentor to help. Thanks! Cynthiacabeal 03:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabeal (talkcontribs)

Thanks for coming to our project page. If you can improve an article, that would be great. As you probably already know, Wikipedia articles should be written in a neutral,encyclopedic style, free of point of view, with reliable sources. I'll try to help. Which article is it exactly? Is it called "natural burial"? You can start editing, and I can make corrections; or go to the article's Talk page, we can discuss and make modifications there, then copy & paste it to the main page.Boneyard90 (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Death Midwifery

I would also like to see a category for Death Midwifery in this project. Death Midwives are people who work with the Death Journeyer and their families throughout the whole of the pan-death experience (which may include not using funeral home services). CINDEA at is the website for Canadian Integrative Network for Death Education and Alternatives (CINDEA), which supports Death Midwifery as one option for a more natural and ecological approach to dying/death/grieving. CINDEA is hoping to have a Wikipedia page in the near future. Womynstar8 (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

....ummmm, what...? Tell you what, get the article on "Death midwifery" first, with reliable sources and all that, and when there are enough related articles to fill a "category", then we can talk about that. Baby steps. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Members of this project may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suicide crisis lines. LadyofShalott 02:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just went there and it's been resolved as "keep." Guyovski (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Outstanding articles

What does the list of "Outstanding articles" represent? Does it list especially high quality articles or articles that have been proposed but not yet sufficiently completed? (Feel free to delete this question and the response once I've read it as I realize it's a minor issue.) Guyovski (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible new article for discussion

See this page for a potential new article topic that could perhaps be added to the project list. If people agree that it's a valid part of this project and the discussion on the other page resolves in a certain way, I could make the undertaking as my first-ever article project. Guyovski (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion re suicide in US military

A discussion about suicides in the US military is taking place here: Talk:United_States_Armed_Forces#Suicides_among_U.S._troops_averaging_one_a_day_in_2012. Project members are requested to chip in. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)16:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New article

I just added Unification Church funeral. I hope it meets the standards of the project. I tried to follow the example of Catholic funeral although with less detail. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for writing. The article does meet the standards of inclusion for the project. I did some copyediting, and I was going to assess it, but I see you've already done that. This usually isn't encouraged because it represents a conflict of interest, but you gave it the same assessment I would have, so I suppose it's a reflection of your own sincerity. To improve the article, I would suggest a photo of a service, more relevant detail in the description of the ceremonies, and a broader array of sources: most of your current sources are published by the church itself, which represent primary sources, you want to include some secondary sources, the stuff people say about the funeral, but are not directly connected to it. Good luck. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your help.Steve Dufour (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Massacre up for deletion

The article Massacre has been nominated for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre (2nd nomination). Interested editors should weigh in. Boneyard90 (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Female suicides up for deletion

People can comment in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 15#Category:Female suicides. LadyofShalott 02:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Death of Abdulredha Buhmaid GAN

The article Death of Abdulredha Buhmaid has been nominated for Good article status. Interested editor can start review process by clicking here. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help requested at Talk:Euthanasia

At the talkpage Euthanasia there is a discussion going about avoiding prosecution in case of child euthanasia. A tandem is trying to change the wording "in the Netherlands, physicians can avoid prosecution by following well described and strict conditions when non-voluntary euthanasia is performed on infants." into "in the Netherlands, non-voluntary euthanasia can be performed on infants under well-described and strict conditions". The latter version is, in my opinion, less accurate because it is a fact that by following the guidelines, a physician is just avoiding prosecution. No way that it is legal. The tandem ignores a long standing consensus and arguments brought in my me and by my long time adversary (!). Unfortunately, by now they are getting under my skin and I am getting annoyed. So more input necessary to avoid me exploding... The Banner talk 09:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati#Inclusion of autopsy image. -- Trevj (talk) 08:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal: "Suicide by subway" replacing/embedding "Suicide on the London Underground"

See my comment there. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CfD Proposal to delete Burial by place category

It has been proposed here to delete the category that links people to their place of burial. Note that the proposer is recommending the removal of the whole tree of categories, not just the the top level categories listed. Ephebi (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I commented, but I hope I didn't go overboard. I am quite appalled at such a sweeping proposal. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Death by place categories

Normally, when the cause of death for a person is known, I add the relevant "year deaths" (e.g. Category:2012 deaths) and "cause deaths in place" (e.g. Category:Cancer deaths in England) categories to their bio article.

However, when their cause of death is not known, it seems the only appropriate location category is "Death in place", but those categories rarely have any individual bio articles in them. Recently, I added Category:Death in England, to Dinah Sheridan – one such case – and was reverted. Do we need catch all "Deaths in place" categories (note the plural Deaths) for these, or is the "Death in place" category meant for this purpose (and the reversion incorrect)? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are guidelines here. 20:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Suicide of Amanda Todd

I would like to invite some comments on the title of this article. In my opinion it should be "Death of Amanda Todd" until such time as the coroner's court rules on the cause of death (for example it might yet prove to be misadventure).

Moreover the article is essentially reporting on a current event. However it is presently in breach, rather significantly on several counts, of media guidelines on the responsible reporting of suicides published by the Canadian Pyschiatric Association and designed to prevent copycat suicides, notably on the issue of headlining the word "suicide". Since some 50% of teenagers today, judging from a UK survey, have been the victims of cyberbullying or internet harrassment, implicated in Amanda's case and the basis of literally hundeds of tribute website in her memory, that risk must be deemed substantial.

At present there are 12 Wikipedia articles entitled "Suicide of [a named individual]". Of these 9 (75%) concern teenage victims of cyberbullying or internet harrassment.

I opened a discussion at The Village Pump. JaniB (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lisa Steinberg child abuse death

I'm surprised that the Lisa Stieinberg child abuse death isn't included in the category "Child Abuse Resulting in Death."

Lisa was adopted illegally by Joel Steinberg and Hedda Nussbaum, herself a victim of long-term domestic violence. Lisa was abused over a long period before she finally died, and her case received considerable media coverage.

Please include her case in this category. (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)KIReply[reply]

Proposal for category:Deaths in each country

Following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 3#Category:Deaths by location, it seems that country sub-categories of Category:Death by country need a new "Deaths" sub-category e.g. Category:Deaths in Canada. The direct contents of Category:Death in Canada should mainly be society-related issues such as e.g. Euthanasia in Canada and Category:Capital punishment in Canada, along with burials and cemeteries; all the sub-cats of deaths by cause would go down into a new sub-cat Category:Deaths in Canada. Does this sound appropriate? – Fayenatic London 22:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reassessment of "Impalement" from Start to C??

Hi! Have reworked Impalement considerably together with User BoneYard90, and woul like a reassessment on the quality scale? Arildnordby (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have reassessed "Impalement" to Good Article

I would like to have a thorough discussion of the article's quality status. Arildnordby (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whoa, hey! You're jumping the gun a bit there! YOU can not assess the article, there's a review process. See Wikipedia:Good articles. You can then nominate it, and an independent reviewer will go over the article, and with some corrections, decide if it is acceptable for Good article status. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge discussion for John Allen Muhammad

  An article that you have been involved in editing, John Allen Muhammad , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huh? - this is a project page... sats 10:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scope addition

Have just added Ziyarat and Tombstone tourist to the scope of the project - visiting graves is part of a whole range of tourist itineraries worldwide - the graves of famous people, ancestors, and significant people in cultural contexts, makes grave visiting an important process within the understanding some cultures. It can be on special days (my user name for instance in Java), and at certain times in the calendar. If anyone can think of related terms - either to add as a redirect at Tombstone tourist (anyone for a change of name to a less culturally laden term as the article title? - if no response will delay going for a move - but I suggest cemetery tourist is a more neutral term more cross-culturally appropriate... sats 10:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about capital punishment articles

There seems to be some inconsistency in the articles on capital punishment. Some are named "List of individuals executed in XYZ State", while others are named "List of people executed in XYZ State". (See the Navbox below.) Furthermore, some get switched / moved / renamed back and forth between these two titles quite a bit. Where is the appropriate place to establish consensus so that all of the articles are handled (and named) consistently? Is this the correct Talk Page? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you are in the right place. Please answer us through the text msg center on our sites or back here.<not sure when I'll be back.> Question 3. I'd like to learn more about how to edit pages on wiki, as well as my own submissions. I wouldn't mind being mentored(the help screens and resources don't seem to help me[function,learning])As part of this project I could do some research and submit on the sandbox perhaps some help with editing and I'll be a regular contributor. Please post some links and helps that can get our questions answered. I've submitted reasonable data before and been rejected due to incorrect format discrepancies. Kingofallclergy (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfD at Definitions of Pogrom

Hi everyone, we'd be grateful for your thoughts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of Pogrom. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Planning to clean up "Gender and suicide"

Hello all. I am hoping to spend the next few weeks improving the article Gender and suicide . The page currently has some good information, however in its current state it is formatted poorly and does not address the full scope of the issue. I am planning to address some of the concerns on the talk page, such as the lack of distinction between sex and gender, while including additional material about the social causes of the male/female suicide gap. I will also be reorganizing some of the current information and will try to provide more equal representation to countries outside Western Europe, the US, and China. I am a fairly new editor, so I am definitely open to any suggestions or concerns related to my revisions. I am looking forward to working with this WikiProject!

CoeA (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information about rates of suicide among transgendered individuals should be included. LadyofShalott 21:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fort Hood Shooting casualty figure RfC

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Fort Hood shooting#Request for Comment. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which famines should be included in the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll?

There is an amicable discussion going on on the article’s talk page here on what the criteria should be for inclusion on the list and in particular what the table heading should be an whether the Great Irish Famine and a few others listed in point c should be included in the list. Additional input would be welcome.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subcategorizing Category:People executed by hanging

I believe that the category is getting too large to be useful, and I would like to see it subcategorized. Unless there are objections, I am thinking about doing it by nationality of the executed. Thoughts? Objections? --Nlu (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. The existing 5 subcats are by who executed the person, not the person's nationality. My first thought is that that way around makes sense because I think it's more important/informative to know where somebody was executed rather than were they were from. For example, to group together people who were executed by Singapore, mainly for drug trafficking. I'm welcome to be convinced otherwise, of course. --Geniac (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or both? In other words, by nationality and by nation of execution? --Nlu (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, sure, makes sense to me. --Geniac (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Commit suicide" discussion

Members of this project may wish to comment at Talk:Suicide#Revisit "Commit" language as Not Neutral. LadyofShalott 22:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_14#Category:Women_and_death

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_14#Category:Women_and_death. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Death portal image

The current logo of the Death Portal box is a cartoon skull. It looks really out of place on articles discussing such sombre topics as, say, the death of Princess Diana. Could it be replaced with something a little more serious? Like, say, a photograph of a grave, for example? (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

there was considerable discussion on the creation of the project over the design used. A photograph of a grave is dumb imho - it would be culturally bound and not universal - a skull one way or other is appropriate - if you think princess diana's demise is a sombre topic, it was nothing compared to the larger demography of death - hundreds of thousands of people who die in wars and misadventure every year... that is a lot more sombre than one english lady... - there only a few original project persons around - I would say any consensus here would require a wait for others to comment as well, any one opinion either direction is insufficient sats 14:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm ok with the cartoon skull. It's cartoon-y, but it's not over-the-top in any direction. I don't think a grave is appropriate, because images of graves are connected with religion (a tombstone of or with a cross), or are now connected to a particular culture (the Egyptian pyramids). A religion-neutral, culture-neutral grave would look like a nondescript mound of dirt, or maybe a pile of rocks. There doesn't seem to be a neutral, universal symbol of death beside the skull. Boneyard90 (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We've had a few discussions about this and I still agree that a skull is the best universal depiction of death we've come up with. I wouldn't object to a less cartoony skull. --Geniac (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could go with a less cartoon version of a skull... sats 01:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A headstone works for Judaeo-Christian-Muslim cultures, right? What other symbols are used (e.g. Buddhist, Hindu, animist, etc.)? How about a montage of them? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No not right, it doesnt - it is not a universally accepted image across the variant ways of portaying death in the world of those cultures. As for the others there is no easily accepted symbol or image... No montage, please... one image is sufficient. sats 01:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Tench Tilghman Grave Site.jpg

File:Tench Tilghman Grave Site.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

school bullying suicides related images

See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 May 20 where many of these images are up for deletion -- (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andy Warhol's imagine of Jackie Kennedy mourning at John F. Kennedy's funereal.jpg

image:Andy Warhol's imagine of Jackie Kennedy mourning at John F. Kennedy's funereal.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Filmed deaths in sports

I have heard of this category in the past, but it recently came to my attention with the Allan Simonsen (racing driver) article, which is currently on the Main Page. I have never fully understood the need for this category, and I have had a look through the previous CFDs for it which ended in no clear cut consensus. My question now, however, is what exactly is the criteria for this category? Relating specifically to Allan Simonsen, he had an accident in an auto race and died within the hour. The accident was clearly caught on television footage and private video. But, Simonsen did not die in the impact. He died in the infield care center long after he had been taken from the car, and thus was no longer on film. The accident may have been the cause of death (although there is currently no statement on the cause of death therefore this is only a presumption), there was no "filmed death". Death is a clearly defined biological function, and simply being injured is not technically "dying".

Another example: Swede Savage, suffered an accident during the Indy 500 which was caught on film. Conscious and alive when he came out of the wreck, taken to the hospital, died 33 days later, most likely due to medical complications. How exactly does this fit the criteria of "filmed death"?

To take this further, and this one may be a little in left field, but the Death of Dale Earnhardt. The accident that caused his death was filmed from outside his car, but there is no footage inside the car showing Earnhardt die. This category seems to be filled more with "filmed accidents that eventually led to death" than it does actual deaths.

I personally feel this category may need to be nominated for CFD again, but I figured I would bring this up here first. The359 (Talk) 23:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Temple of Madam Xian.jpg

image:The Temple of Madam Xian.jpg has been nominated for deletion (this is a temple honoring an dead person) -- (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Life and Death in Assisted Living - seniors

Frontline (U.S. TV series) will be running Life and Death in Assisted Living on Tuesday July 30th: Please contribute to discussion Talk:Assisted_living#Life_and_Death_in_Assisted_Living XOttawahitech (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of your project's articles has been featured

Please note that Assassination of Anwar Sadat, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 00:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI teamReply[reply]

New navbox: Template:Extinction

I just started it. The group names (Phenomena, Models, Processes, Theories and concepts) are a bit bizarre, but I didn't know how else to arrange it. Please feel free to bend it into the right shape.

I've posted this at a few other projects, so if there's anything to discuss, I'd suggest Template talk:Extinction.

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do dogs count as part of the death count?

See Talk:Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson where we are having a discussion on the issue -- (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Rupintojas.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ang Jolie Mei

Hello! Is the above submission of interest to this Wikproject? —Anne Delong (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The subject is of interest to this project, though of very minimal interest. Subject does not appear to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and the text appears to be overtly promotional. Boneyard90 (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


image:AFGonesseMemorial.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categorization of deaths in custody

We have these categories:

Note the change from prison to detention. This is a problem, unless we clearly define what is meant by "detention". Presumably the intent is not to include police custody (eg, arrested held overnight, not charged or convicted) because we list police and prison as separate categories further up the hierarchy: But (in Australia at least), "detention" is commonly used to include police lockups. Currently Category:Prisoners who died in Western Australian detention, includes Death of John Pat and Mr Ward, both of whom died in police custody, but the category hierarchy has them under Category:People who died in prison custody not Category:People who died in police custody. Actually Death of John Pat is listed under both, because I was recategorizing the article more specifically when I noticed this problem.

There's clearly a problem with the categories, but the solution is not obvious to me. The word "detention" may have different meanings in different countries, which may complicate matters. At the very least we need to define (and possibly state on the category pages) exactly what we mean by:

  • police custody
  • prison custody
  • detention

Remember also that there may detention other than "police" or "prison" (eg Australian immigration detention facilities). Mitch Ames (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World

I've created the new article about the book Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World, which discusses the subject of targeted killing.

Further suggestions for research and additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at the article's talk page, at Talk:Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Insufficient discussion

A graveyard is a cemetery  ?? It would be very interesting to see if the few watchers left here would have any thoughts on this matter - I very strongly disagree as there are many cross cultural issues where this is not the case, but would appreciate the words from others - this is added here from:

which in my opinion, if the whole talk page is read carefully, the move should be reverted.

satusuro 22:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Created Category:Targeted killing

I've gone ahead and created Category:Targeted killing, a category to encompass articles related to the topic of Targeted killing.

Suggestions for additional articles to add into the category would be appreciated, feel free to add them yourself or suggest them at Category talk:Targeted killing.


Cirt (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mummification article

I am currently undertaking a huge overhaul of the mummification article as it is, frankly, a complete disaster. Before the most recent edits there were completely out-of-place categories (Italy listed under "South America"?!), the organization was terrible, and I've had to completely re-write entire sections in order to bring everything up to standard. I have currently worked on the article from the top, and am now working on the section for Asia. I'm okay with doing most of the major work myself, but if anyone would like to make suggestions or collaborate I would be eternally grateful (pun intended). Saint Soren (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of people who were beheaded

The List of people who were beheaded currently includes not only victims of execution or other homicide by decapitation, but also people who were decapitated in air or motor vehicle accidents (such as Charles Bassett and Jochen Rindt) or posthumously (such as Joseph Haydn). My understanding is that the word "behead" normally refers specifically to executions or the like, and not to accidental decapitations or to the taking as a trophy of the head of someone who is already dead from other causes. Thus, I believe a list of the "beheaded" should include only victims of executions or other intentional homicides in which decapitation was the intended method of death or the actual cause of death. I have brought up this issue on the article's talk page (see here), and I would like to see a discussion on the issue. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I second this completely and suggest creating a listing of "people who were decapitated" separate from the beheading list. I would do so myself but I am in the midst of a huge overhaul of the mummification and mummification-related articles and have my hands quite full. -- Saint Soren (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Deceased Wikipedians

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians#Category:Deceased Wikipedians. -- Trevj (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC) -- Trevj (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suicide in Spain

This article needs cleanup and expansion and adequate explanation on the topic. --George Ho (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assassination market article - anyone want to help?

I've become interested in the assassination market article and made a couple of edits recently as a result of an in-depth Forbes article on the topic.

Interest in editing the article seems to have picked up recently, leaving it quite messy. Anyone want to help out? Jonathan Deamer (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A bottle helium and a plastic bag seems to be a advertised method in some books and this "advertisement leads to increases cases of suicides by this method. The featured article helium needs a little bit of help to get to the standard for references. I put some references for the increased number of cases on the talk page. I want to have some help from this project to improve the Hazards section of the article. Thanks.--Stone (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the article Suicide bag. - Boneyard90 (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested moves of Suicide templates

Input is appreciated here: Template talk:Suicide#Requested moves. Cheers, Manifestation 19:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Murder of Diane Maxwell

Can you put my article Murder of Diane Maxwell under this category? It seems someone forgot to place it under the scope of a WikiProject. DudeWithAFeud (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. I put that article under WikiProject Death as well as WikiProject Crime. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this WikiProject active

If this WikiProject is active, I'd like to draw your attention to Funeral, a lengthy article with many problems that is rated as High-importance. (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, this WikiProject is active. In your view, what many problems does Funeral have? I see many unsourced sections. --Geniac (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A major problem with that article is it is too big, and should be forked off on to smaller sub articles, and not try to be an answer for everything related to the term in its broadest term. Many customs related to death are included - but are not really specific to the actual thing that is a 'funeral'. Also for someone to go and tag sections about lack of sources like that is plain mis-using the tag. satusuro 05:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC: Pogrom list inclusion criteria

An RfC has been opened at Talk:Pogrom, regarding the appropriate WP:LSC for the events listed. Comments are requested with thanks. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of your project's articles has been featured

Please note that Human skeleton, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI teamReply[reply]

Suggested rename: Category:Deaths by heroin overdose to Heroin-related deaths

Many of the deaths listed as heroin overdoses are not actually heroin overdoses, they are examples of Combined drug intoxication. I see 2 options.

  • Remove names from list which are not heroin overdoses.
  • Rename Category:Deaths by heroin overdose to Category:Heroin-related deaths, which would be similar to the already existing Category:Cocaine-related deaths.

The first choice leaves a much smaller list.

The second choice would allow Philip Seymour Hoffman and River Phoenix to be placed back in this category, as well as the cocaine-related death category. I suspect all of the other current names would stay. Nereocystis (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Draugr, recently moved to Draug, should be moved back. The discussion may be found at Talk:Draug#New requested move discussion: return article to Draugr. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brain death page needs help

Would appreciate more eyes on the discussions regarding NPOV and citations on the Brain death talk page. Funcrunch (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beating Heart Cadaver page

The Beating heart cadaver page could use some additional editor input as well. Funcrunch (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC on conduct of user

An RFC has been created regarding conduct of user who has been editing pages under the scope of this WikiProject. Input requested. Funcrunch (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question on cemetery cats

Just noticed that Category:Golders Green Crematorium has just been added to Tommy Handley, seems unusual and not really a defining thing to add as a category to an individual. Is there a guideline or something that covers this ? MilborneOne (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of your project's articles has been featured

Please note that Assassination of Anwar Sadat, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI teamReply[reply]