Talk:Deaths in 2024

Deaths needing proper citation

Via thorough browsing of the 2024 deaths category, I’ve found the following are marked as deceased and needing of proper citation. Rusted AutoParts 13:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• January 2 – Larry Sherrer, 74, American football player (Montreal Alouettes, BC Lions) and ophthalmologist (sourced on X)
• January 22 – János Toldi, 96, Hungarian Olympic sprint canoer (sourced on Facebook)
• January 25 – Rick France, 85, British speedway rider (sourced on Facebook)
• February – Trefor Goronwy, 63, English musician (This Heat) (sourced on Facebook)
• February 2 – Peter Golfinopoulos, 95–96, American artist (sourced on Instagram)
• April 7 – John Giles, 97, British Olympic shot putter (no source; IP editor proclaiming Giles was their father edited his page to indicate death)
• April 14 – Blackie Wangerin, 89, American racecar driver (sourced on Facebook)
• June 2 – Israel Even-Zahav, 77, Israeli Paralympic athlete (sourced on Facebook)
• June 7 – Dolores Cambridge, 87, Australian opera soprano (sourced on Vimeo video link of funeral)
• June 27 – Shaun Casey, 70, American model (sourced on Instagram and Facebook)
• September – Jack Zussman, 100, British crystallographer and mineralogist (sourced on X)
• October 4 – Peter Cummins, 93, Australian actor (sourced on Facebook here)
• October 7 – Robert L. Smith, 93, American politician (sourced on X)
• October 11 – Roger Browne, 94, American actor (sourced on Instagram)

Reliable source?

I ask interested editors to take a look at this source. Another editor has asserted it is a university website, and therefore acceptable as a source for a death. I maintain it is a personal blog, and is therefore unacceptable under WP:BLOGS. Here is the death where it has been used. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It may be a university appears to be the University of California, Santa Barbara, and if so it's on their web servers - but it is not an official blog sanctioned by the university, if such exists. I have marked the entry for a better source as I'm not convinced of its veracity. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Source has been replaced by a better one. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't intend to pursue this to resolution as a better cite has been found. However, I will just make the point that the hosting of personal comments by a university website does not add reliability to such comments. The comments in the professor's "blog" are unchecked and not endorsed. Anyway, enough said. WWGB (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's happened again, for what it's worth. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's helpful to examine these on a case-by-case basis. In this case it is a website maintained by Peter Woit, who is a colleague of Hamilton's at Columbia, so I'd say it's reliable. Of course it can be argued that there is no WP:DEADLINE and we should err on the side of caution and wait for a formal obituary or news obituary to be published - if they do get published, that is. Connormah (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @Connormah:, looking at things on a case by case basis is the logical approach. Unfortunately, there seems to be too many puritans on Wikipedia and the word "blog" is a dirty one to them. Now BBC News have a blog, The Guardian has a blog, and likewise many academic institutions run blogs, and they have sub pages and sites where their academics run "blogs". These are not the same thing as a random Blogger or Word Press page with an author who appears to have no direct relation to a subject. I totally understand why we deem them to be reliable, but operating a blanket ban on anything that uses the word "blog" is deeply unhelpful and is going to cause similar problems in the future. @WWGB: – I left a message regarding this on your talk page and you ignored it. I would have appreciated it had you tagged me in this conversation. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

rolling dates

Should this page be 'rolled', i.e. delete the last entry when a new one is added.

Because deaths late in a month don't get as much air-time (only a week for a death on 30-sept), which is bias. Darcourse (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The list is not based on "airtime" and never has been. The lists are also intended as a full and permanent record of notable people who have died in a particular month of a particular year, and are not a tickertape exercise. So all entries (bar redlinks proven to be non-notable after one month) are retained in perpetuity. I think you need to re-examine your perception of bias, to be honest, as the situation you quote certainly does not violate any Wikipedia recommendations on bias. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

But late red links don't get a month, only a week. Darcourse (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You are mistaken - all redlinks get a month's grace in the rolling date fashion you are proposing for all entries. Check it out sometime - myself and one other editor tend to do the lion's share of redlink removal each day, so it's a fact, my friend. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

All notable red entries get 37 days actually, unless added in December 20XX, then, at the end of the year, they roll over to the monthly page where their shelf life is even more limited. Wyliepedia @ 03:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Bias as in Bias_(statistics) Darcourse (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

As you will see from that article (and it's an article, not a Wikipedia guideline), the four main focuses are source, collection method, estimation and method of analysis. As this list is actually employing a method of display, I don't think it relates to that type of bias at all. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

In the subsection 'Interpretation', there is a link to Reporting bias, which covers this type of presentation warp. Darcourse (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

And that is also an article, not a guideline - and not even a Wikipedia essay on the subject. I see no difference. Whatever we might individually think as to bias, the purpose of this section is actually to see whether a consensus exists to change to a rolling date model, so I'll not comment further on the bias aspect. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

External links section

Some things just grow during incremental edits and sometimes get out of hand. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, has grown to 7 entries. Three seems to be a broad community acceptable number. Of course, everyone has their favorite to try to add for a forth. [[tq|The sources of the four listed below, latimes.com, nytimes.com, washingtonpost.com, and smh.com.au.}} I am pretty sure would normally be considered reliable sources. I am not sure (didn't look) about the first two of the three still on the article, theguardian.com and telegraph.co.uk.. I can not imagine that the chicagotribune.com is not reliable.

The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
• ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.

External links This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.

Second paragraph, acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

• • Please note:
• WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them

I moved the excess links here to see if there might be a discussion to add some to the article as sources or swap them out.

• Obituaries, Los Angeles Times
• The New York Times, obituaries
• The Washington Post obituaries
• The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) obituaries

Thank you, -- Otr500 (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, in my view, these links are invaluable for searching out the recently notable deceased, but they don't all report the same deaths - each obituary source differs greatly sometimes in its content and focus. Just because the "excess links" were at the bottom of the link list, it doesn't mean they are any less valuable than the ones you have left in, so if a reduction is agreed there will have to be priority choice as to which ones actually stay. For instance, it's an anecdotal fact that the New York Times researches more thoroughly and therefore includes more salient information (such as date of death and age at death), and should probably stay - but has initially been removed.

Although I am not a fan of paywalled sources, and some of the external links are exactly that, I would prefer to see the existing ones (including those you removed) left in, but not increased at any time. I think limiting the external links to those seven is the sensible way to go. I leave it to others to comment further. Thank you. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The three remaining ELs proposed by the OP are strange: two from the UK and one from Chicago. The range of ELs should have a geographic cover of English-speaking nations and not include paywalls. I don't think the long-standing arrangement of seven ELs is excessive. Removing a few lines seems more pedantic than rational. WWGB (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Otr500: This list page is maintained by several Wikignomes who have helped maintain its relevance on the overall website. If you look above, the page has been in the Top 25 Most Viewed pages every week (and higher on a recurring basis). Therefore, while no one should claim ownership, I personally think removing or changing anything consistently established on it should be discussed here before doing it in the article. This page doesn't follow standard MOS guidelines (notice the shorter references for each entry), so EL guidelines should also not be followed. Those news links are quick links for other editors to check for numerous reasons (relevance, updated obits, new entries, ages, CODs, etc.). Not to be rude, but I myself am tempted to revert your removals. Wyliepedia @ 03:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a badly ignored section (and subject) so far. I would strongly suggest that, if there are no further comments here within a few days, the removed links be restored to the total of seven on an interim basis. A swing of consensus towards restricting them to c. 3 in total would then enable a more careful selection of the three most reliable sources which should actually remain, if that be the outcome. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Reply: I have thought about this. By-the-way, I am in agreement with prudent local consensus on say the number of external links on an article that is arrived at by consensus, be it three, four, and maybe more, except when inclusion of a link violate policies and guidelines. I would like to go on about my proverbial rat killing. I have some issues though, of course and seriously, not trying to be rude:

• 1)- An editor, apparently or maybe also speaking for "several Wikignomes", that suggest that other editors be acceptable that it was in some form, maybe totally informally or maybe just happened, but somehow decided that MOS, WP:sourcing, and now the "External links" section can be summarily exempted from following policies and guidelines on a local decision.
• 2)- That "Links normally to be avoided" #1 and #6 are only a content guidelines and can be usurped.
• 3)- A site that is inaccessible to a substantial number of users (#7) might also be relevant.
• 4)- That WP:ELREG (Sites requiring registration) is only a simple suggestion, certainly exempted when a local group or project decides it is expedient. Are there exceptions, I would say there can likely be exceptions for a lot of things on Wikipedia, unless it goes against the more broad community consensus

For the record, and hopefully to prevent a really unnecessary WP:RFC, I hope some prudent thinking is at least considered. I have not looked in a while and consensus may have changed as well as the standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines. I bolded guidelines since that is a majority of what is relevant. I wasn't the one that mentioned "no one should claim ownership", and for some odd reason I would imagine that would include more than one person. There is also the external links noticeboard that can be utilized.

I agree 100% that the "External links" section is a "badly ignored section". I am straining to jump to "let's restore the contested links", because the section is "badly ignored" or they have been on the article a good while, regardless of the more broad community normal practices. When a site is included, regardless of policies and guidelines. That could give the appearance that the website or links on the page might be important, advancing advertisement, or otherwise promotional.

• • Maybe it was missed: The above mentioned WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them, so a rationale for the task used, and involving other editors by seeking actual consensus, and not feeling like a pot, tar, and feathers could be a result. Have a nice day, -- Otr500 (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I would only add to that last comment that the links you removed are not disputed as reliable sources, therefore don't fall correctly under that brief. The NUMBER of links are being disputed, but none of them are specifically being disputed as a source of reliable information. As I suggested, there is no real reason why the five links cannot be restored until such time as this matter is resolved. If a reduction to two or three is required, the ones to go could then be selected by consensus for removal. Arbitrarily removing any of the five over the others was a flawed move in the first place, as I see it. And, as I say, there has (astoundingly) been no movement on opinion or consensus for over a week, and in all it has been a good deal of time since this matter was first raised. I await your observations on what I have just written. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Roger Browne

Not questioning Roger Browne's passing as his family confirmed it on his official instagram, however how reliable is Spaghetti Western.net? The source that is supporting his entry on this page is simply a list of deceased actors, almost like a database. Just curious about what others think about the reliability of this source? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

As the Spaghetti Western Database site says in its Contribute section: "The Spaghetti Western Database is a community effort. It works a bit like the Wikipedia, which means many enthusiasts edit and improve it." So I have removed Browne from the list on that basis. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)