Talk:Wade Belak

It's suicide, people

Page is locked and as usual overzealous editors are removing sourced info stating it's suicide, but the Toronto Sun, among other legitimate, verifiable sources, has reported his cause of death was suicide by hanging. 68.81.180.171 (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

So far, only the Toronto Sun is making that claim and I can't find a source for it being a hanging (the current version of the Toronto Sun article does not say). I do know that Fan590 refuted the suicide story shortly after the Sun first reported, so at this point, it is better that we wait until more than one source supports that claim. All other sources I can find only refer to the Toronto Sun Especially since, according to UPI, the Sun has already changed its story once. I'm not saying this source is wrong. I am only saying that we should be more responsible than the media usually is, and wait until we have more than one source confirming. Resolute 01:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

UPI and Toronto Sun both say suicide. WP:RELIABLE doesn't say anything about requiring multiple sources. Considering there's far more incorrect crap on Wikipedia than appears in the media, it seems silly to use a higher standard for deaths specifically, but people do that all the time. I've seen references revered from major papers many times in reference to recent death. Also, many times one paper just copies another, so twenty papers saying "suicide" isn't necessarily more reliable than just the Toronto Sun. 68.81.180.171 (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

CBC is reporting suicide as well.Freshfighter9^talk 02:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and 68.81, UPI did not (and still does not) say it was suicide. UPI says that the Toronto Sun says it was suicide. At the time of my post last night, the Sun was the only media outlet making that claim. Everyone else who was commenting was referring back to the Sun. Also, the fact that there are inaccuracies elsewhere in Wikipedia is a terrible argument for justifying an edit that may or may not be true here. Again, at the time of my post last night, there was one outlet saying yes, and another saying no. WP:RELIABLE may not say that multiple sources are required (which is correct), but given conflicting information, we are better off not guessing as to which of the two outlets is correct. And frankly, after the Pat Burns false death and Rick Rypien false quote incidents, I believe that trying to hold ourselves to a higher standard is the wiser plan. Wikipedia did not lose anything for waiting a couple more hours for further corroboration. Resolute 14:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It's been conflicted. Some say it was accidental, but there was an article that said for sure he died of strangulation, which later went on to call it possibly a "horrible accident". – Connormah (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it to say the police have not yet confirmed a cause of death. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Wikipedia is not a tabloid or a blog. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Because this will likely come up again, I thought I'd point out that despite most of the media saying Belak committed suicide, this is still not what the police are saying. I provide this as one reference: [1]. BashBrannigan (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As i expected, an editor has added that the police say cause of death was suicide, but the reference the editor provided was old. More recent references state the police have not declared it suicide only "not suspicious". Also the family says they believe it was accidental. A coroners report is coming out in a few weeks that should settle it. I haven't decided yet whether I'll remove it, or edit it, but Wikipedia is NOT a newspaper, but an encyclodedia and this should wait until the coroner's report. [User:BashBrannigan|BashBrannigan]] (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"an editor has added that the police say cause of death was suicide". Not true. The text says that the police treated the situation as a suicide, but also that they have not officially confirmed that it was suicide. These are the facts as they are known today, so there is nothing wrong with the article saying so. Also, even if the cause of death turns out to be something other than suicide, it could still be true (as cited sources say it is true) that the death was treated as a suicide. There is no reason to remove that claim. Furthermore, a news article published just today and added today as a citation about his step-father also says, "Police sources told the Star, among many news outlets, that the cause of the ex-NHLer’s death was suicide by hanging." So while there is no official declaration, it is true that police have said unofficially that it is suicide. This also will remain true even if the cause of death turns out to be something else. Ultimately, if the cause of death is accidental death, it will remain true that it was widely reported that it was a suicide and the police treated it as a suicide and police unofficially said it was a suicide, so the article can accurately say all three of those things right now. 99.192.50.159 (talk) 05:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong to remove my clarification phrase, but I've no interest in getting into an edit war. There is a huge difference between "police" and "police sources" and it's the latter which is the source of the suicide reports. Currently as written it's deceptive. Also, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and should be holding itself to a higher standard. It is more important that Wikipedia be accurate than up-to-date on whatever the media is reporting. The fact that the article can be corrected does not excuse inaccuracy. If the coroner rules it was not suicide that the entire section is wrong and has to be removed. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think you understand, BashBrannigan. (1) "There is a huge difference between 'police' and 'police sources'". This does not make sense. When someone says "police sources" they are saying that the sources are police. Who else could they be and still be called "police sources"? (2) "Wikipedia is not a newspaper and should be holding itself to a higher standard." You keep saying it's not a newspaper and I don't see anyone saying it is one. I have never thought it is one, so the comment is irrelevant to the issue. Also, the issue of "a higher standard" also does not make sense. Unless you are counting gossip tabloids, everyone agree that newspapers are supposed to have high standards. The news sources cited on the suicide issue are not tabloids. They are also the same media sources used in thousands of Wikipedia articles and regarded as credible sources to cite. So the issue of standards is a moot point.

(3) "If the coroner rules it was not suicide that the entire section is wrong and has to be removed." Again, you are wrong. The death was widely reported as a suicide and the police have treated the death as a suicide. Those facts will not change no matter what the coroner's report says. Take, for example, the David Carradine article. It says that his death was not a suicide, but it also still today says that his death was initially widely thought to be a suicide. Now, two years after the death was ruled to be accidental, the fact that it was initially widely thought to be suicide is still true. Two thousand years from now it will still be true. In the case of this article it is the same. Suppose we find out that Belak had a bad heart that no one knew about and died of a heart attack. That information would then need to be added to the article, but that would not mean that the claim that police treated the death as a suicide or that many news outlets reported that his death was a suicide suddenly become false. Those things will still be true and relevant to include in the article. In short, no matter what the coroner says, nothing in the article as it stands right now will need to be removed. 99.192.50.159 (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"Police sources" could be nothing more than the cop on the beat, while "Police" would mean the information came through management. When I say Wikipedia is not a newspaper, I mean that it does not have to cover every daily detail, but should be more concerned with accuracy as I already explained. Yes, if it's ruled not a suicide, much will have to go. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Death as part of a string of deaths?

Do we really need to reference the Rypien and Boogard deaths? Each death is unique in its contributing factors and relating Belak's death to an overdose and a confirmed suicide seems irrelevant. The link has only been created in the media by those with a particular agenda and thus alluding to the link seems slightly Wikipedia:NPOV 114.134.0.129 (talk)

I half agree. I think the sentence should be rewritten to indicate that his death was linked to the other two in media discussions about the role of "enforcer" in the NHL. This is a notable consequence of his death, but for the article to declare that there is a connection among the deaths is not established fact and thus a POV problem. 99.192.55.140 (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Family

The links to Belak's family (parents, children, etc.) are dead. Can anyone explain how his parents' names were "Lorraine Belak and Lionel Aadland"? If this is accurate then he and his brother adopted their mother's maiden name. Any ideas? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

About the children: (1) You will see I removed the names, but kept the birth dates. Their names are neither here nor there for the article, but how old they were when he died is relevant, so the year of birth gives that without any privacy worries. (2) Yes, the link to Belak's site no longer works, but the fact that a link goes dead is not, in general, a reason to remove text. One should have some reason to think that the information was wrong in the first place to remove it when a link goes. (3) The years of birth (and the names of the children and that they were born in Toronto) is information that appears in a lot of news stories, so could be cited with fresh links.

About the parents: I don't know what the deal on the surname is, but I do recall reading the names as listed on Belak's official page before it was removed. I don't know why he has his mother's surname, but it does seem to be the case. Here is a National Post article that also confirms those names: [2] 99.192.80.115 (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, further digging uncovered this information from The Toronto Star: [3]. It says, "Lionel Aadland, who got divorced from Belak’s mother when their sons were very young...." That does not confirm, but suggests that after the divorce the boys were given their mother's surname. But it's still possible that they were named "Belak" from birth, so this explanation should not be included in the article. It's still just speculation. 142.68.40.199 (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC) (=99.192.80.115)

And further digging resulted in information that suggests that Wade Belak's mother remarried a man named "Barry Belak", so perhaps "Belak" is neither his biological father's name nor is it his mother's maiden name. It might be his stepfather's name, which his mother, he, and his brother all adopted when she remarried. But Internet-based evidence that I could find for this is very weak, at best. Certainly nothing citable that I could find. 142.68.40.199 (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC) (=99.192.80.115)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wade Belak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110903110452/http://www.wadebelak.com:80/biography.html to http://www.wadebelak.com/biography.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wade Belak. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903110452/http://www.wadebelak.com/biography.html to http://www.wadebelak.com/biography.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)