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
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
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
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
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
I took them out, I feel it would be a slippery slope. Where would the line be for awards? "Oh his Oscar, Tony and Emmy are here, why not this award? or this one or this one". We should just stick to the major win. Plus it's more a "oh hey this person's won all these things" note. It's not like an
EGOT.
Rusted AutoParts00:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)reply
What are you implying with that? And @
WWGB:, first sentence of the TCA page states “ The Triple Crown of Acting is a term used in the American entertainment industry to describe actors who have won a competitive Academy Award, Emmy Award, and Tony Award in the acting categories, the highest accolades recognized in American film, television and theatre respectively.” It’s not an award, it’s just “this person won all these how neat” essentially. Different story if it was an actual award like an EGOT.
Rusted AutoParts04:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Triple Crown of Acting has its own Wikipedia article which automatically means it is a notable achievement. The article refers to Plummer as one of only 24 "winners". It is MORE notable than just winning an Oscar.
WWGB (
talk)
04:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)reply
But it isn’t an award, no one is award a TCA they’re just recognized as winning three different awards. I just very strongly feel we just go with actual awards, not industry terms.
Rusted AutoParts04:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)reply
EGOT is not an "award" either, it is just a designation like TCA. I can see absolutely no reason for denying Plummer a link for being in the "Only 24 in the World".
WWGB (
talk)
04:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Because it’s not an award, for the last time. Thanks for reminding me EGOT isn’t an award, no one who had passed that achieved that had it used in their entry because it’s not an award. I can see absolutely no reason to include an industry term meant to simply describe winning multiple awards. That’s cool and all, it’s not an actual award.
Rusted AutoParts04:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)reply
@
WWGB: Oh my apologies, I thought we were serious people having a serious discussion. CA brought up a valid point, we haven’t been consistent with adding awards we should strive to be consistent of course.
Rusted AutoParts04:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)reply
At best, TCA and EGOT are interesting bits of trivia, and not something that's of strong significance, seeing as only a
handful of articles even brought up this accomplishment for Plummer. No NYT, no LA Times, Hollywood Reporter, WaPo, etc.
Rusted AutoParts05:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Marco Dimitri was a Satanist
The term "Satanism" is not about sensationalism, but Satan. The guy's article notes his group, Children of Satan, and calls him Europe's most famous Satanist. His philosophy, his TV career and his legal drama all revolved around Satan, not Stonehenge, crystals, drum circles or whatever "neo-pagan activists" are supposed to do. I summon the great and powerful
Rusted AutoParts and beseech you to self-revert.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
20:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Before I saw this, I added "neopagan" to specify his type of activism, as taken from the category given at his page. Some type should be given, if "activist" remains. Wyliepedia @
04:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Seems fine now, thanks to all who helped! I don't care if we do or don't specify "atheistic", but he was. And the lead did spell it out, briefly. The article's still pretty clear about that, though: No deadly ritual, no distressed virgins, no Devil worship.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
02:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes. A transcript of an official document is very hard to argue against. I can't believe your disbelief, to be honest. A golden egg laid, as far as I'm concerned, even if it was in December 2020 and this should have been posted to that Talk page. Others may have thoughts on this, but you're the first to question it.
Ref(chew)(do)23:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks. The "disbelief" -- rather, reluctance -- stems from two sources. One: I did not understand why the death certificate said "VOID" all over it, 100 times. Any idea why? Two: Also, I still cannot believe that no reliable sources reported his death (just The Daily Mail). He is quite infamous ... both, nationally ... and certainly in New York. Why has no one reported this? If someone could add his death to the correct page, please. Thanks.
Joseph A. Spadaro (
talk)
01:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)reply
The word "VOID" is a security feature built in to primary documents. It appears when the original is scanned or photocopied. It is intended to alert the reader that they are not seeing an original.
WWGB (
talk)
02:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)reply
His death IS on the correct page. This section is not, to be honest.
Such is the fickle unpredictability of the media. They'll happily be all over a too young pop star who has committed suicide due to pressures/social media, etc., but forget it if you are
John Palmer, 4th Earl of Selborne, for instance. We're still using a bit of a blog to support his inclusion, because no-one in journalism is particularly interested in him.
Ref(chew)(do)07:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks. Yes, it seems quite odd that no one is reporting this, other than The Daily Mail. He is/was quite the "big name", certainly in the New York area. Even if he wasn't a "big name", you'd think there'd still be an ordinary, run-of-the-mill local obituary notice. Thanks.
Joseph A. Spadaro (
talk)
15:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Mustafa Ben Halim
The lack of obituaries seems extremely suspicious, so I do think it is fake news. But where can we find a denial other than on an edit summary in the chronology? In absence of an effective denial we shouldn't have doubts about Libya Akhbar, one of the biggest outlets of the country. I know he is alive, but can someone find the denial? Even from social media of his family. --
79.24.121.9 (
talk)
17:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)reply
All I can find are two bot aggregator sites, 'FatalDeaths' and 'DeadPeople', claiming his demise. Nothing else at all. His own article is devoid of any death claims, so rest assured it's a hoax - and never try to use those two sites anywhere by the way, as all they do is suck rumours in and publish them as fact. Fiction from start to end.
Ref(chew)(do)19:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)reply
The original source was
this. You have to use his Arabic name to find something. I also believe it is a hoax, but I'd like to find the denial from his family, because we are writing the source above off, though it would be considered reliable (Libya Akhbar is a big Libyan news outlet). I've asked @
Mohamad Darilin:, but got no answer yet. --
Folengo (
talk)
16:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Request unsupported change to be reverted.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I agree that the question doesn't seem relevant, but I'm happy to answer it. I'm not family, but knew Prof Mallard and his colleagues in a professional capacity. I have tried to correct details in a way that I hope doesn't constitute a conflict of interest, but please let me know if you think I have overstepped the mark anywhere. I am keen for his article to be accurate and free from speculation, but reliable online sources are not easy to find. I have twice reverted speculative edits to his article adding death dates without verifiable sources, and now I see it's been added again with a reference to an article in The Times. This is behind a paywall, so I can't check what it actually says, but if it does state a date I assume that must also be speculation or error. I do not know the reasons behind the family and university not releasing his date of death, but I feel we should respect their wishes. Any help and advice from established Wikipedia editors would be welcome. --
94.197.159.215 (
talk)
18:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)reply
It would appear that The (paywalled) Times ePaper has the answer as far as a source goes, as that's what has now been used to move the subject back to the 25th again (I personally cannot access the information as I do not subscribe).
Ref(chew)(do)19:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)reply
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
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
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
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
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
I took them out, I feel it would be a slippery slope. Where would the line be for awards? "Oh his Oscar, Tony and Emmy are here, why not this award? or this one or this one". We should just stick to the major win. Plus it's more a "oh hey this person's won all these things" note. It's not like an
EGOT.
Rusted AutoParts00:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)reply
What are you implying with that? And @
WWGB:, first sentence of the TCA page states “ The Triple Crown of Acting is a term used in the American entertainment industry to describe actors who have won a competitive Academy Award, Emmy Award, and Tony Award in the acting categories, the highest accolades recognized in American film, television and theatre respectively.” It’s not an award, it’s just “this person won all these how neat” essentially. Different story if it was an actual award like an EGOT.
Rusted AutoParts04:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Triple Crown of Acting has its own Wikipedia article which automatically means it is a notable achievement. The article refers to Plummer as one of only 24 "winners". It is MORE notable than just winning an Oscar.
WWGB (
talk)
04:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)reply
But it isn’t an award, no one is award a TCA they’re just recognized as winning three different awards. I just very strongly feel we just go with actual awards, not industry terms.
Rusted AutoParts04:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)reply
EGOT is not an "award" either, it is just a designation like TCA. I can see absolutely no reason for denying Plummer a link for being in the "Only 24 in the World".
WWGB (
talk)
04:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Because it’s not an award, for the last time. Thanks for reminding me EGOT isn’t an award, no one who had passed that achieved that had it used in their entry because it’s not an award. I can see absolutely no reason to include an industry term meant to simply describe winning multiple awards. That’s cool and all, it’s not an actual award.
Rusted AutoParts04:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)reply
@
WWGB: Oh my apologies, I thought we were serious people having a serious discussion. CA brought up a valid point, we haven’t been consistent with adding awards we should strive to be consistent of course.
Rusted AutoParts04:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)reply
At best, TCA and EGOT are interesting bits of trivia, and not something that's of strong significance, seeing as only a
handful of articles even brought up this accomplishment for Plummer. No NYT, no LA Times, Hollywood Reporter, WaPo, etc.
Rusted AutoParts05:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Marco Dimitri was a Satanist
The term "Satanism" is not about sensationalism, but Satan. The guy's article notes his group, Children of Satan, and calls him Europe's most famous Satanist. His philosophy, his TV career and his legal drama all revolved around Satan, not Stonehenge, crystals, drum circles or whatever "neo-pagan activists" are supposed to do. I summon the great and powerful
Rusted AutoParts and beseech you to self-revert.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
20:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Before I saw this, I added "neopagan" to specify his type of activism, as taken from the category given at his page. Some type should be given, if "activist" remains. Wyliepedia @
04:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Seems fine now, thanks to all who helped! I don't care if we do or don't specify "atheistic", but he was. And the lead did spell it out, briefly. The article's still pretty clear about that, though: No deadly ritual, no distressed virgins, no Devil worship.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
02:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes. A transcript of an official document is very hard to argue against. I can't believe your disbelief, to be honest. A golden egg laid, as far as I'm concerned, even if it was in December 2020 and this should have been posted to that Talk page. Others may have thoughts on this, but you're the first to question it.
Ref(chew)(do)23:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks. The "disbelief" -- rather, reluctance -- stems from two sources. One: I did not understand why the death certificate said "VOID" all over it, 100 times. Any idea why? Two: Also, I still cannot believe that no reliable sources reported his death (just The Daily Mail). He is quite infamous ... both, nationally ... and certainly in New York. Why has no one reported this? If someone could add his death to the correct page, please. Thanks.
Joseph A. Spadaro (
talk)
01:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)reply
The word "VOID" is a security feature built in to primary documents. It appears when the original is scanned or photocopied. It is intended to alert the reader that they are not seeing an original.
WWGB (
talk)
02:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)reply
His death IS on the correct page. This section is not, to be honest.
Such is the fickle unpredictability of the media. They'll happily be all over a too young pop star who has committed suicide due to pressures/social media, etc., but forget it if you are
John Palmer, 4th Earl of Selborne, for instance. We're still using a bit of a blog to support his inclusion, because no-one in journalism is particularly interested in him.
Ref(chew)(do)07:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks. Yes, it seems quite odd that no one is reporting this, other than The Daily Mail. He is/was quite the "big name", certainly in the New York area. Even if he wasn't a "big name", you'd think there'd still be an ordinary, run-of-the-mill local obituary notice. Thanks.
Joseph A. Spadaro (
talk)
15:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Mustafa Ben Halim
The lack of obituaries seems extremely suspicious, so I do think it is fake news. But where can we find a denial other than on an edit summary in the chronology? In absence of an effective denial we shouldn't have doubts about Libya Akhbar, one of the biggest outlets of the country. I know he is alive, but can someone find the denial? Even from social media of his family. --
79.24.121.9 (
talk)
17:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)reply
All I can find are two bot aggregator sites, 'FatalDeaths' and 'DeadPeople', claiming his demise. Nothing else at all. His own article is devoid of any death claims, so rest assured it's a hoax - and never try to use those two sites anywhere by the way, as all they do is suck rumours in and publish them as fact. Fiction from start to end.
Ref(chew)(do)19:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)reply
The original source was
this. You have to use his Arabic name to find something. I also believe it is a hoax, but I'd like to find the denial from his family, because we are writing the source above off, though it would be considered reliable (Libya Akhbar is a big Libyan news outlet). I've asked @
Mohamad Darilin:, but got no answer yet. --
Folengo (
talk)
16:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Request unsupported change to be reverted.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I agree that the question doesn't seem relevant, but I'm happy to answer it. I'm not family, but knew Prof Mallard and his colleagues in a professional capacity. I have tried to correct details in a way that I hope doesn't constitute a conflict of interest, but please let me know if you think I have overstepped the mark anywhere. I am keen for his article to be accurate and free from speculation, but reliable online sources are not easy to find. I have twice reverted speculative edits to his article adding death dates without verifiable sources, and now I see it's been added again with a reference to an article in The Times. This is behind a paywall, so I can't check what it actually says, but if it does state a date I assume that must also be speculation or error. I do not know the reasons behind the family and university not releasing his date of death, but I feel we should respect their wishes. Any help and advice from established Wikipedia editors would be welcome. --
94.197.159.215 (
talk)
18:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)reply
It would appear that The (paywalled) Times ePaper has the answer as far as a source goes, as that's what has now been used to move the subject back to the 25th again (I personally cannot access the information as I do not subscribe).
Ref(chew)(do)19:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)reply