Talk:Deaths in August 2007
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| List | This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
Contents |
[edit] Lee Hazlewood
What are your sources for his death? You call that ([1] [2]) reliable? I found nothing on the internet about his death, only some unsourced statements. 172.178.50.39 19:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] # Gato Del Sol, 28, American racehorse, won 1982 Kentucky Derby, euthanised. [8]
This is the first time I have seen an animal listed so maybe at fault. I thought this list was for humans. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 18:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I see no problem with a horse on the list. It is still a death is 2007. Jon513 19:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- There's disagreement, but generally the line for animals is drawn for those with Wikipedia articles and those who would be known outside the area of whoever specializes in them (ie. Many people know who Koko is. Race horses have been done numerous times in the past, for example Barbaro in Deaths_in_January_2007. Canadian Paul 20:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand you. Are you saying that any animal with a wikipedia article should be listed here because it is certainly also well known even to people who don't specialize in them (that is why it has an article). Or are you saying even some animal with articles still shouldn't be listed here if they aren't famous enough? and if the second, why don't we make the same distinction with humans? Jon513 21:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry. I meant that any animal that a) has a wikipedia article or b) is famous enough that they would be known outside a specialized field should be eligible to be listed. I know at least one editor is going back and removing all Deaths in 2007 redlinks over two months old, so the subjectivity of b) will be taken care of within that time span. If in two months, no one feels that the animal is important enough for a wikipedia article, then it gets removed. Also note that any article that is deleted through AfD, whether human or animal, is removed from this list. Canadian Paul 21:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks I was unaware of previous animals listed, but as with all good research tools found something new upon following the link. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 10:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- relevant: i was scrolling down the list of recent deaths, saw a racehorse, and thought the exact same thing as edmund up there. irrelevant: by paul's logic, will Knut (polar bear) get an article upon his eventual death? DJRaveN4x 06:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks I was unaware of previous animals listed, but as with all good research tools found something new upon following the link. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 10:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry. I meant that any animal that a) has a wikipedia article or b) is famous enough that they would be known outside a specialized field should be eligible to be listed. I know at least one editor is going back and removing all Deaths in 2007 redlinks over two months old, so the subjectivity of b) will be taken care of within that time span. If in two months, no one feels that the animal is important enough for a wikipedia article, then it gets removed. Also note that any article that is deleted through AfD, whether human or animal, is removed from this list. Canadian Paul 21:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand you. Are you saying that any animal with a wikipedia article should be listed here because it is certainly also well known even to people who don't specialize in them (that is why it has an article). Or are you saying even some animal with articles still shouldn't be listed here if they aren't famous enough? and if the second, why don't we make the same distinction with humans? Jon513 21:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- There's disagreement, but generally the line for animals is drawn for those with Wikipedia articles and those who would be known outside the area of whoever specializes in them (ie. Many people know who Koko is. Race horses have been done numerous times in the past, for example Barbaro in Deaths_in_January_2007. Canadian Paul 20:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- If when Knut (polar bear) dies or is euthanised he fits the criteria of having a Wikipedia article or is famous enough to be known outside the specialized field, then yes, his death will be listed here too. We have been through this 1001 times and general opinion supports this. Tom M. 11:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lluís Maria Xirinacs
Cause of death is just speculation. There's not yet any confirmation, and other options are not discarded. Sources do not give any reference, nor any kind of data, therefore should not be taken as reliable. For more info read this discussion (In Catalan language.--Paco ✉ 15:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Asa Hilliard listed twice
...on Aug. 12 and 13. That's not anyone's fault, really... The Atlanta Journal-Constitution says he died on the 12th, but The Boston Globe says he died on the 13th. Hilliard's article, which is a mess, doesn't give any date. --zenohockey 18:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gavin Suen
Whoever put Gavin Suen there, you need a citation/reference otherwise its not notable. xero 00:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] William McAnulty, Jr.
- per WWGB's and my requests, will whoever it is kindly stop repeatedly reducing "first African American Kentucky Supreme Court Justice" to "Kentucky Supreme Court Justice". if he were just A. N. Other Kentucky Supreme Court Justice, it would be far less likely that he would meet the notability criteria for this page, whereas the fact of his being the *first black SCJ* ever in Kentucky provides (very compelling) reasons that he does indeed meet the notability criteria. Therefore this isn't some kind of irrelevant data that would best be handled in his article, but the very reason he is notable in the first place. i don't wanna have to alter this again. thank-you, tomasz. 12:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
So because he is African American makes him above everyone else? Then we should note 1st Caucasian, 1st Hispanic, 1st Middle Eastern, 1st Native American. IT'S RACIST TO SIGNAL OUT A RACE. RACIST COMMENTS NOT WELCOME HERE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.216.59.20 (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- In a word: YES. Where any member of a disadvantaged group rises up then it is notable. That applies to hispanics, "middle easterns" and native Americans too. Looks like your true "colours" are showing through. Oh, and you might like to check out the meaning of racism, not your own self-proclaimed definition. WWGB 11:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I understand what our anon. friend is saying. However, we would note the first white notable, but they will probably just be the first <full stop>. If you understand.--Counter-revolutionary 11:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- When it comes to notability, I don't see race - but I do see multiple independent news coverage commenting on someone's race. Jon513 11:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
-
My "True Colours" ? I am a "Native American" my friend, my ancestors had their land taken away from them. But I (we) do not let the past keep us down by reminding everyone every chance we get. We will not separate ourselves from the rest. We Are just Americans. Not European Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, etc. BTW, I dislike the term Native American, when my ancestors lived here long ago it was not called America. There are many definitions in the word racism, and one of them is to separate yourself from the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.216.59.20 (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
