Talk:Death

Misdiagnosed

Wondering if there is a better source for the second to last line about bringing dead organisms back to life. Also I’m not sure if the comment about science fiction is completely relevant. Abbiers (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Abbiers (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree a lot with the second sentence, so I removed it. G-Toasty (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Death/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 17:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Lets get this review done.

Sourcing

There are a lot of sources missing

• This is difficult due to there being little consensus on how to define life.
• .. of life support devices, organ transplants, and artificial pacemakers.
• Even by whole-brain criteria, the determination of brain death can be complicated.

etc....

I have concerns about a few sources as well

• Encyclopedia Brittanica and Dictionary.com are WP:Tertiary sources, not the worst thing but does need justification
• Multiple sources have clean-up tags

Copy-vios

• Earwig is clear, will do spot checks when I get to it

Images

• The human skull is used universally as a symbol of death. not cited in the body
• A flower, a skull and an hourglass stand for life not cited
• In general, please cite images if the information isn't obvious/up to interpretation. Art is very subjective and a few of these captions are getting close to 'close paraphrasing'.

Prose

• Lead as a whole needs to be tightened up. Death is a level 2 vital article and there shouldn't be 2-3 sentence paragraphs for such an important topic
• WP:LEADCITE remove the repetitive citations from the lead, this isn't a major issue but should be pointed out
• There are a large number of articles that can be linked under a 'see main article' template. e.g. Brain Death, Grief, etc. The templates are inconsistent.
• "Problems of definition" change to just 'definition'
• The concept of death is a key to human understanding of the phenomenon. what does this mean?
  • This subsection is largely unnecessary, the definition sections should be merged together. Especially since some of the headers take a less than encyclopedic tone.
• development of CPR and prompt defibrillation have rendered that definition inadequate because breathing and heartbeat can sometimes be restarted appears to be WP:OR, the source is an army manual on how to do CPR
• Please review WP:WEASEL, a lot of weasel words
• so the volcano can be considered to be dead This is WP:OR and really stretching the concept of 'dead'. The term is 'extinct' and if you want to go down the road of anthropomorphising everything, you'll need a whole other article.

---

Yah, I'm gonna call it here. The page need serious work, there are citations missing, the prose needs work, and the sections should be merged and expanded upon. I see you've made a couple of attempted to promote vital articles. I applaud the tenacity but recommend that you start on smaller articles and learn the ropes first. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 19:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bibliography verified

I have checked the edition notice/copyright page of the original version of Buried Alive: The terrifying history of our most primal fear by Bondeson, Jan. The book was published in 2001 by W. W. Norton & Company. The same is mentioned on Kirkus Reviews, Research Gate, JSTOR, and Cambridge University Press. The confusion about the publication date (2001 vs. 2002) stems from the Barnes & Noble listing which clearly mentions it as a reprint in 2002.

As such, I have removed the verification tag from the bibliography section of the article. UMStellify (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

"Not alive" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Not alive has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 4 § Not alive until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2023

the word 'taxon' is spelled wrong 61.239.74.133 (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: As you haven't specified where you are talking about, I can't be certain that I'm looking in the right place. However, under Death#Extinction in the first sentence, the word "taxa" is used and wikilinked to Taxon. "Taxa" is correct in this sentence, as it is the plural of "taxon" and the plural form should be used in that context. Tollens (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Sentence fragment in section on Natural Selection

The second sentence in this section, which begins with the word "Especially," is a sentence fragment. Because this article has some type of protection, I was unable to correct this mistake (which I would have done by replacing the preceding period with a comma and changing the capital E in especially to a lowercase. 198.168.106.100 (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Death before birth

makes no sense to put abortion here since a foetus is never alive. Something which isn't alive cannot die. 148.252.146.55 (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This is probably acceptable; most would argue that the fetus is, biologically, alive, but in the sense of death as it’s usually put an abortion might not qualify as the “death” of a conscious being. More discussion necessary. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)