This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Am I the only one troubled/bothered that the report of his passing only comes from two FACEBOOK posts?
Granted, the two are supposedly by family members; but where is the "official" or "legal" statements/releases?
Just wondering. 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 ( talk) 07:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
If you check those "countless independent sources," you'll find they all used the two Facebook posts as their source. ALL the ones I checked (The Hollywood Reporter, MSN, Comic Book, TrekToday, YouTube, StarTrek, Malay Mail Online) ONLY sourced the Facebook posts. Only one I found -- The Obit Patrol -- didn't source Facebook, it sourced The Hollywood Reporter. None of them sourced what I would call reliable, truly independent and unbiased sources. (I don't consider immediate family and close friends to be reliable, independent,&/or unbiased sources.) Plus, I thought Wikipedia 'treated' Facebook like they do IMDb -- as a somewhat "unreliable" source. And, yes, there have been posts that have turned out not to be factual -- anybody can say/claim anything. Facebook is not, and never has been, an information clearinghouse nor fact checker.
Another red flag, at least to me, is that several of those "countless independent sources" used the EXACT SAME HEADLINE. How "independent" can they be when they can't even create THEIR OWN UNIQUE headline. Plus, a few of them printed the EXACT SAME article. I'm sorry, but I don't consider that to be "independent." To me, that's just passing the pablum on.
I'm not saying that anyone has "been fooled," I'm just saying that certain sources may not always be reliable. And I've always been suspicious when other places jump on a single source bandwagon without checking other 'places' for independent verification and mentioning those sources as well.
If the statement had been released/issued by a doctor, hospital spokesperson, mortuary spokesperson, city/county coroner, police spokesperson -- I think you get the idea -- then I would probably have no problem with the SOURCE.
And, according to most of those "countless independent sources," Homeier's passing was announced on July 2 --- a FULL WEEK after his death. Call me paranoid, but I always think that there's more to something if whatever news is released/issued more than a day or two after the fact. If the family did it to have "uninterrupted, and uninterferred with, personal and family time," that could've been stated as part of the release. I've seen/read similar such statements in other announcements.
And that's all that's been released - - - posts and statements/announcements. Not one, at least as far as I'm concerned, has been a "true" or "real" OBITUARY. Granted, not everyone has an obituary written, but most celebrities do. I just did a "'Skip Homeier' obituary" search and the only thing that turned up, besides the ones mentioned above, was "The Obit Patrol" which I also already mentioned.
Overall, my main concern is the reliability of the source. 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 ( talk) 17:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I said NOTHING about "original research" and my comments in NO WAY inferred or implied anything about "original research."
My main concern has ALWAYS BEEN about the RELIABILITY of sources and references.
And if you want to be nitpicky, using the original/first place that reports something as the reference/source IS, technically, "original research"!
To me, verifying to make sure that what reportedly happened ACTUALLY happened is NOT "original research," it's RESPONSIBLE journalism. You have more than one source that references more than one attribution. If "fact checking" does not happen, it's just not "lazy journalism" (thank you, Wyliepedia), it's not any kind of journalism. 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 ( talk) 03:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Personally I'm not happy about the obvious slant which has been introduced into the description for the above, who died on July 2, 2017, and occupies an entry in Deaths in 2017. As well as the emotive nature of the description, it is extremely " point of view" slanted; better in my eyes to work in the phrase "discredited physician" (the more true description, as he was barred from practice in that field) to replace the word "charlatan", which hardly appears anywhere as properly sourced when you carry out a Google search involving the deceased's name and that one-word description. Would like to hear from others on this - or is it just me? Ref (chew) (do) 20:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Charlatan is definitely too much. -- Folengo ( talk) 09:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
The death listing of "Joan Lee" on July 6, 2017, links to the WRONG "Joan Lee" Wikipedia entry/article.
THIS "Joan Lee" DOES NOT have her own Wikipedia entry/article. (At least not at the time I wrote this.)
The link needs to be removed OR an entry/article written about the CORRECT "Joan Lee" who was wife to Marvel Comics' " Stan Lee." 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 ( talk) 03:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Whenever I've "just simply state[d]" something, I've been jumped on for not giving details (proof) &/or not suggesting possible corrections. And when I do give the necessary data/info, I still get jumped on.
I'm from the old school where it's better to state more and hope the reader actually reads the whole thing and understands it, than to "just simply state" and have others complain about lack of data/info and misunderstand/misinterpret what they think they've read.
If that comes across as, or seems, "needlessly cranky," then so be it.
And my "Joan Lee" entry was not "a page long." And, I capitalize or italicize words for emphasis to impress a point, to avoid confusion, and to simulate actual speech (this is a basic taught in most writing classes were dialogue is used). Also, there was no "BOLDING [of] words" in this one. I've found that if no emphasis is used, things can be overlooked and misinterpreted. Obviously it worked since you commented on it.
Part of the perceived "cranky" may also be due to the fact that when something says that it is of a particular caliber and inferior quality items appear, it does 'irritate' me. It's kind of like, "Do as I say, not as I do." I find that extremely hypocritical and, yes, that irks me.
And I make no apologies when I feel that I'm trying to make something better or help something better itself. 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 ( talk) 04:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Interested editors may like to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Babiker Awadalla on whether the former Sudanese PM is alive or dead. The array of dodgy cites and dead links is problematic. Thanks, WWGB ( talk) 00:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion about which is which. Warner Bros. Cartoons is the whole collection, mainly made of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies. To choose one or the other is to ignore the other.
We shouldn't ignore Merrie Melodies because Granny got her start there, went solo there and turned heel there. We shouldn't ignore Looney Tunes because it launched Witch Hazel, continued with Witch Hazel, and ultimately finished Witch Hazel.
Warner Bros. Cartoons covers all this good stuff, and even lesser-watched Warner Bros. Animation like Duck Dodgers, where Foray was Witch Lezah. It's the diplomatic thing to do, dammit. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
If diplomacy is off the table, Merrie Melodies won three Emmys to Looney Tunes' two and has eleven nominations against ten, so it should win the war by prestige. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I fee Charlie should not be listed here on the basis that the article is predominantly about the case than it is about him. It's barely a footnote in one of the article's sections.@ Sunnydoo: stated that if a film subject can be notable than so can Charlie. That's a flawed rhetoric. Predominantly film subjects are people of note that have articles predominantly about them without it being tied into the incident that made them notable. Charlie unfortunately did not get to live a full life. But his notability is stemmed to the case about him. He is only notable via that case, and due to his age there isn't anything else to bolster individual notability. Rusted AutoParts 18:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with InedibleHulk. Once I see Case listed here, I clicked on it expecting to be redirected to a "Death of..." or similarly titled page. That happened. Ergo, it warrants listing here, as well as from the growing list of web/news coverage. I knew the situation, but not the name. It's our "job" to do that for the non-news junkie, er, hound like me. — Wylie pedia 02:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Well it seems fairly unanimous Charlie should be here. Fair enough. I'm just still a bit fuzzy on what constitutes inclusion, given there are many people solely tied to being notable for something that happened to them as opposed to being notable by themselves. Rusted AutoParts 05:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully, unlike the current flurry of disagreements being shown during the editing of the Sam Shepard article, we can trust the New York Times report which says he died on 27th ("Thursday") and not the 30th or 31st? Sam Shepard, Pulitzer-Winning Playwright and Actor, Is Dead at 73 Ref (chew) (do) 15:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The entry states: Patti Deutsch, 73, American comedian and voice actress (The Smurfs, Match Game, Tattletales), cancer. Can someone reword this? It makes it sound as if she was an actress and/or a voice actress on those TV game shows. She was a panelist on the game shows. And an actress/voice actress in other projects. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 17:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Deaths in July 2017. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Am I the only one troubled/bothered that the report of his passing only comes from two FACEBOOK posts?
Granted, the two are supposedly by family members; but where is the "official" or "legal" statements/releases?
Just wondering. 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 ( talk) 07:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
If you check those "countless independent sources," you'll find they all used the two Facebook posts as their source. ALL the ones I checked (The Hollywood Reporter, MSN, Comic Book, TrekToday, YouTube, StarTrek, Malay Mail Online) ONLY sourced the Facebook posts. Only one I found -- The Obit Patrol -- didn't source Facebook, it sourced The Hollywood Reporter. None of them sourced what I would call reliable, truly independent and unbiased sources. (I don't consider immediate family and close friends to be reliable, independent,&/or unbiased sources.) Plus, I thought Wikipedia 'treated' Facebook like they do IMDb -- as a somewhat "unreliable" source. And, yes, there have been posts that have turned out not to be factual -- anybody can say/claim anything. Facebook is not, and never has been, an information clearinghouse nor fact checker.
Another red flag, at least to me, is that several of those "countless independent sources" used the EXACT SAME HEADLINE. How "independent" can they be when they can't even create THEIR OWN UNIQUE headline. Plus, a few of them printed the EXACT SAME article. I'm sorry, but I don't consider that to be "independent." To me, that's just passing the pablum on.
I'm not saying that anyone has "been fooled," I'm just saying that certain sources may not always be reliable. And I've always been suspicious when other places jump on a single source bandwagon without checking other 'places' for independent verification and mentioning those sources as well.
If the statement had been released/issued by a doctor, hospital spokesperson, mortuary spokesperson, city/county coroner, police spokesperson -- I think you get the idea -- then I would probably have no problem with the SOURCE.
And, according to most of those "countless independent sources," Homeier's passing was announced on July 2 --- a FULL WEEK after his death. Call me paranoid, but I always think that there's more to something if whatever news is released/issued more than a day or two after the fact. If the family did it to have "uninterrupted, and uninterferred with, personal and family time," that could've been stated as part of the release. I've seen/read similar such statements in other announcements.
And that's all that's been released - - - posts and statements/announcements. Not one, at least as far as I'm concerned, has been a "true" or "real" OBITUARY. Granted, not everyone has an obituary written, but most celebrities do. I just did a "'Skip Homeier' obituary" search and the only thing that turned up, besides the ones mentioned above, was "The Obit Patrol" which I also already mentioned.
Overall, my main concern is the reliability of the source. 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 ( talk) 17:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I said NOTHING about "original research" and my comments in NO WAY inferred or implied anything about "original research."
My main concern has ALWAYS BEEN about the RELIABILITY of sources and references.
And if you want to be nitpicky, using the original/first place that reports something as the reference/source IS, technically, "original research"!
To me, verifying to make sure that what reportedly happened ACTUALLY happened is NOT "original research," it's RESPONSIBLE journalism. You have more than one source that references more than one attribution. If "fact checking" does not happen, it's just not "lazy journalism" (thank you, Wyliepedia), it's not any kind of journalism. 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 ( talk) 03:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Personally I'm not happy about the obvious slant which has been introduced into the description for the above, who died on July 2, 2017, and occupies an entry in Deaths in 2017. As well as the emotive nature of the description, it is extremely " point of view" slanted; better in my eyes to work in the phrase "discredited physician" (the more true description, as he was barred from practice in that field) to replace the word "charlatan", which hardly appears anywhere as properly sourced when you carry out a Google search involving the deceased's name and that one-word description. Would like to hear from others on this - or is it just me? Ref (chew) (do) 20:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Charlatan is definitely too much. -- Folengo ( talk) 09:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
The death listing of "Joan Lee" on July 6, 2017, links to the WRONG "Joan Lee" Wikipedia entry/article.
THIS "Joan Lee" DOES NOT have her own Wikipedia entry/article. (At least not at the time I wrote this.)
The link needs to be removed OR an entry/article written about the CORRECT "Joan Lee" who was wife to Marvel Comics' " Stan Lee." 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 ( talk) 03:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Whenever I've "just simply state[d]" something, I've been jumped on for not giving details (proof) &/or not suggesting possible corrections. And when I do give the necessary data/info, I still get jumped on.
I'm from the old school where it's better to state more and hope the reader actually reads the whole thing and understands it, than to "just simply state" and have others complain about lack of data/info and misunderstand/misinterpret what they think they've read.
If that comes across as, or seems, "needlessly cranky," then so be it.
And my "Joan Lee" entry was not "a page long." And, I capitalize or italicize words for emphasis to impress a point, to avoid confusion, and to simulate actual speech (this is a basic taught in most writing classes were dialogue is used). Also, there was no "BOLDING [of] words" in this one. I've found that if no emphasis is used, things can be overlooked and misinterpreted. Obviously it worked since you commented on it.
Part of the perceived "cranky" may also be due to the fact that when something says that it is of a particular caliber and inferior quality items appear, it does 'irritate' me. It's kind of like, "Do as I say, not as I do." I find that extremely hypocritical and, yes, that irks me.
And I make no apologies when I feel that I'm trying to make something better or help something better itself. 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 ( talk) 04:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Interested editors may like to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Babiker Awadalla on whether the former Sudanese PM is alive or dead. The array of dodgy cites and dead links is problematic. Thanks, WWGB ( talk) 00:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion about which is which. Warner Bros. Cartoons is the whole collection, mainly made of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies. To choose one or the other is to ignore the other.
We shouldn't ignore Merrie Melodies because Granny got her start there, went solo there and turned heel there. We shouldn't ignore Looney Tunes because it launched Witch Hazel, continued with Witch Hazel, and ultimately finished Witch Hazel.
Warner Bros. Cartoons covers all this good stuff, and even lesser-watched Warner Bros. Animation like Duck Dodgers, where Foray was Witch Lezah. It's the diplomatic thing to do, dammit. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
If diplomacy is off the table, Merrie Melodies won three Emmys to Looney Tunes' two and has eleven nominations against ten, so it should win the war by prestige. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I fee Charlie should not be listed here on the basis that the article is predominantly about the case than it is about him. It's barely a footnote in one of the article's sections.@ Sunnydoo: stated that if a film subject can be notable than so can Charlie. That's a flawed rhetoric. Predominantly film subjects are people of note that have articles predominantly about them without it being tied into the incident that made them notable. Charlie unfortunately did not get to live a full life. But his notability is stemmed to the case about him. He is only notable via that case, and due to his age there isn't anything else to bolster individual notability. Rusted AutoParts 18:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with InedibleHulk. Once I see Case listed here, I clicked on it expecting to be redirected to a "Death of..." or similarly titled page. That happened. Ergo, it warrants listing here, as well as from the growing list of web/news coverage. I knew the situation, but not the name. It's our "job" to do that for the non-news junkie, er, hound like me. — Wylie pedia 02:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Well it seems fairly unanimous Charlie should be here. Fair enough. I'm just still a bit fuzzy on what constitutes inclusion, given there are many people solely tied to being notable for something that happened to them as opposed to being notable by themselves. Rusted AutoParts 05:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully, unlike the current flurry of disagreements being shown during the editing of the Sam Shepard article, we can trust the New York Times report which says he died on 27th ("Thursday") and not the 30th or 31st? Sam Shepard, Pulitzer-Winning Playwright and Actor, Is Dead at 73 Ref (chew) (do) 15:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The entry states: Patti Deutsch, 73, American comedian and voice actress (The Smurfs, Match Game, Tattletales), cancer. Can someone reword this? It makes it sound as if she was an actress and/or a voice actress on those TV game shows. She was a panelist on the game shows. And an actress/voice actress in other projects. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 17:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Deaths in July 2017. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)