Talk:Deaths in April 2019

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Death Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Werner Bardenhewer[edit]

(re [1]:) Werner Bardenhewer is remembered internationally as the one who helped in Africa, and that creates his notability. Please find a way to say that in Deaths in 2019. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the above on the editor's talk who changed. I redacted it now, as too personal. What's left still stands.

(re [2]): In the meantime, same editor has reverted my link "Catholic" replacing "Roman Catholic". Our article for that church is Catholic Church, and perhaps it's about time to let categories and related articles follow, instead of citing a category as a reason to mention (and without a link) what is only a redirect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was dean of St. Bonifatius, Wiesbaden, a Roman Catholic parish, which makes him Roman Catholic, as categorized in his footers. Here, we clarify distinction from the Eastern Orthodox Church. — Wylie pedia @ 11:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No need to bold, and it doesn't even belong here. The understanding of Catholic Church as the default is supported by our article name, and a link should clarify in case of doubt. - I am more worried about the removal of what makes him notable, and for which he will be remembered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simply using "Catholic" is too broad a descriptor, and whose article name? As for listing his work in Africa, there are no notable wikilinks for an organization. However, adding "humanitarian" here is completely acceptable, which I have done. — Wylie pedia @ 13:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our article name is Catholic church, not Roman Catholic Church, so I'd assume that's the default meaning. Humanitarian is good, thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would always advise against ever saying "our" article name, as it makes your perspective sound like a conflicting interest through being too close to the subject editorially. Articles are everyone's and never owned. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 12[edit]

According to his Wikipedia article, Johnny Hutchinson was 78 when he died. Which is correct? Editrite! (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering our source here (which is a blog, by the way) quotes him as saying he was 23 in August 1962, when his article would put him at 22 (with a birthday in July 1962), but dying at 80 in April 2019, who knows? — Wylie pedia @ 03:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is properly sourced; the blog is just a blog. I'd always use info sourced in an article rather than a blog any day. Ref ^(chew)(do) 05:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The death of Andrew Mallard (April 18)[edit]

While I realise that "traffic collision" is technically correct as the cause of death, it's a very broad term, whereas hit and run accident is much more specific. Is there a Wikipedia policy on this, as I notice "traffic collision" appears regularly? Editrite! (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The policy (as I've always understood it) WAS that the cause of death posted inline for each subject should be kept as short and non-specific as possible, which fits our policy on "fat source - slow loading" page problems. Until recently, when a fine can of worms was opened at Talk:Deaths in February 2019#Caroline Mwatha which will at least ensure that a rambling reason for decease exists at the end of that subject's entry, and all (it seems) because there appear to be bees in bonnets about what is a safe abortion and what is an unsafe one. I refuse to enter that conversation as I strongly suspect there is a campaigning agenda driving it. So, the short answer at the moment is - dunno. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In general, sources use a variety of terms such as "car crash" and "traffic accident", most of which redirect to traffic collision, so it was decided to adopt that as the standard term. In Mallard's case, there is also an article called hit and run, so it would also be appropriate to use that as the COD. WWGB (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed Mallard's COD to "hit-and-run", as we now have a similar, more deliberate death with Rodrigo de Lima (April 21). — Wylie pedia @ 13:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed that to Rodrigo Goiana de Lima, as the other guy isn't even retired, let alone dead. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rodrigo DE Lima link actually redirects to Rodrigo Lima, who is a totally different weight, although a similar age. From what I can see, Rodrigo Goiana de Lima is also known as Rodrigo de Lima. Hence the confusion, I presume. Editrite! (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page was at plain Rodrigo Lima till the other one died, then was moved to fit the misconceptions instead of the other way around. Never in the UFC, never "de" anything. When Antonio Nogueira goes at the same age his brother from the same town (whether "Minotouro" or "Minotauro") will be, we'll have nothing but the "light" to guide us to the one true heavyweight (well, that and the glaring scar, but only hardcore fight nerds will care to remember which "legend" was already brought back from the brink of death, way back before he was cool). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk (. . . not to a hungry cannibal!). As for the Antonio Nogueira twins, they do have different middle names. Editrite! (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 20[edit]

Is beat(en) an appropriate cause of death for Valdiram?! Editrite! (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The story seems to be that signs of a beating made police suspect a homicide, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was beaten to death, maybe just before. Two of the three reports I read explictly noted the absent cause of death, so I think we should wait (unless I'm reading outdated news). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If beating isn't the absolute CAUSE of death, it should not be included. An insert which merely describes the event is neither necessary or desirable in the subject line. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John L'Heureux[edit]

The list currently says that he died from "complications from Parkinson's disease" and gives a New York Times article that cites his wife as a source. But today The New Yorker published an essay L'Heureux wrote where he explains that his death was voluntary active euthanasia.[3] I don't know if this is a distinction that should be made in the listing or not, so I'll just leave the information here and let others decide. 47.54.58.174 (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Am I confused here, or are you saying that the deceased (no longer alive) announced the cause of his own death through an essayed premonition? Or merely that he planned - in an essay - to depart this earth via a voluntary euthanasia? We clearly have to leave it to the living to pronounce causes of death, not "claims" by the dead from beyond the grave, via a piece of literature. If I am totally missing the point (I have read all the salient points from the said essay), then please clarify your context for me (and others perhaps). Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, obviously your source will suffice. However, reading the essay in question it is clear that he did not suffer from Parkinson's disease, but a similar condition called essential tremor, which I am very familiar with, as my own father suffers from this debilitating disease. It is also clear to me that the essay is in fact, a kind of epitaph or long suicide note in which he specifies the exact day that the assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, if you like, will take place, which is the day he died (coincidentally, or not). He also mentions it being legal in California where he died, as it is not legal in many places, and being under the supervision of two doctors (the standard practice in these cases) before administering the fatal medication. Only time will tell. Editrite! (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NYT source clearly states "His wife, Joan L’Heureux, said the cause was complications of Parkinson’s disease". Whether he delivered the letter to the New Yorker prior to his death mentioning assisted suicide shouldn't matter here, until she decides otherwise or the press decides to investigate further. — Wylie pedia @ 00:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I find the replies to my comment pretty hilarious in that oh so typical Wikipedia way. John L'Heureux wrote an essay - non-fiction - in which he describes the course of his illness over the last several years, his decision to die by voluntary euthanasia, setting the date he would die (the date he actually did die), buying the drink that would cause his death (including naming the place where he bought it), and asking The New Yorker to publish the essay where he reveals all this less than a week after he died. The idea that maybe he didn't die the way he planned and was somehow by a grand cosmic coincidence actually killed directly as a result of complications due to Parkinson's on the very day he intended to die, and his wife decided not to let The New Yorker know the essay was now wrong, or decided to let them publish it as is with no note of clarification, or whatever. Yeah. Sure. Maybe that's what happened. Good job, Wikipedia editors. Good job. 47.54.58.174 (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you carry on your grand project of original research, and I at least will stick to the facts only as reported and not through some dying self-project. That essay is STILL speculative reportage from beyond the grave as far as the strict Wikipedia parameters are concerned. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref, I understand that you are enforcing Wikipedia policy on this, but that very same policy is contradictory (as per your "original research" link). On the one hand, it states that Wikipedia does not publish original THOUGHT, but on the other it says original RESEARCH, and there is a world of difference between the two. As for your "speculative reportage" assertion, if you are saying that the New Yorker did not publish the essay verbatim, that is a serious charge and one that is difficult to prove. I believe that the Boston Globe is not entirely comfortable with the official cause of death, so we will see what happens. Editrite! (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]