Talk:Alfred Worden

message: In the Stamp incident section, the text states: "Worden defended himself over the stamp incident, saying that his commander had brought the stamps, not him."
In the Post-NASA section, the text states: "He sold some of the postal covers to pay debts from this unsuccessful [election] campaign."
The first statement suggests Worden had nothing to do with the stamps-in-space incident. The second states he sold some of the stamps.
This suggestion of contradiction requires clarification: Are we to infer that while Worden did not personally carry stamps on board the spacecraft he, nevertheless, benefited by selling his share of the stamps, and therefore he should not try to weasel out of his actions by saying he personally did not carry them on board? — O'Dea (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the three astronauts divided the envelopes among them. Worden didn't now about the plan, but was, of course, brought in on it. This is detailed and covered extensively in the Apollo 15 stamp controversy article. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in article 

message: There has been back and forth on the date of death, between the 17th and 18th. Here is a source analysis
*Overnight, last night, Tuesday night, 17/18
**NYT "died overnight"
**Alfred Worden's Twitter "died in his sleep last night."
**Florida Today "died Tuesday night."
**Britannica: "...died March 17/18, 2020..."
*March 18
**NASA "...passed away March 18, 2020..."
**Associated Press "died Wednesday at age 88."
**Spacefacts: "18/03/2020".
**Kennedy Space Center Blog: "Beloved Apollo astronaut Alfred “Al” Worden passed away March 18, 2020..."
*Family announcement
**collectSPACE "Worden's death was announced by his family on Wednesday morning (March 18)."
So we have three that say overnight/in his sleep and one that explicitly lists the 18th. As overnight accounts for both the end of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th, and we can't know which he passed during, we cannot say he died on the 17th. Additionally we have the fourth source that gives the 18th as the death date. I am going to switch it back to the 18th again, but I would appreciate if anyone wants to switch it to the 17th that they highlight the sources and/or policies about date of death when dying in sleep on the talk page first. Thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 06:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that hard, the statement of Worden's family on Twitter was published on the 18th quoting "died in his sleep last night." This is clearly a confusion on the media due to date of the announcement. Florida Today says "died Tuesday night".--BugWarp (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't Tuesday night, Wednesday morning, overnight all kind of the same thing when you discover someone dead the next day? There is no way to determine the time of death, so it is based off of discovery of death at that point, right? I assume the death certificate is based off of that. Legitimately asking and not trying to sound like an ass. Kees08 (Talk) 16:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

text: More sources:
*Spacefacts: "18/03/2020".
*Britannica: "...died March 17/18, 2020..."
*Kennedy Space Center: "Beloved Apollo astronaut Alfred “Al” Worden passed away March 18, 2020..." Erick Soares3 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

text: Collated the sources provided by  and . I think either 17/18 would be fine, written as MOS:DATERANGE suggests. I think 18 would be most appropriate, as the Associated Press and NASA both give that as the date. I think 17 is not appropriate, because no source directly supports it (they support overnight, e.g. 17/18, but not 17). Kees08 (Talk) 19:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Every source published have been essentially using the first twitter announcement as the source. 17th is the most appropriate because it’s the accurate date. Rusted AutoParts 19:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

text: Obviously with Twitter not being a good source we can use the Florida Today citation as it accurately represents the 17th as DOD. Rusted AutoParts 20:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The death certificate would be another source, although a medical report would also contain pertinent information. This has occurred with the Marilyn Monroe death date, which Wikipedia has correct (August 4) from the inquest but almost everyone else has wrong (search engines, public rememberances, etc.) as August 5th. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

text: There are nine sources and only one of them says "died Tuesday night." I think you are cherrypicking that source. Also, you do not know what other sites have been using as the source, unless you have some information I do not. Would you be willing to compromise with 17/18? Kees08 (Talk) 20:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It’s not “cherry-picking” when it’s reflecting what the initial death report stated. The initial report never made mention of the 18th. It was tweeted on the 18th and very clearly says “last night”. I can’t bring myself to agree with the 17/18 compromise because it would inaccurately include 18th.  Rusted AutoParts 20:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The 18th is the correct date. "Last night" does not imply that it happened before midnight. See   . – bradv🍁 21:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And as an anecdote view, several people don't think that the morning "started" before the sun haven't rised. Erick Soares3 (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

text: I support the 17/18 Date untill things are more clearly.--BugWarp (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death date 

message: I uploaded more images of Worden today to Commons, in case any are useful for the article. Kees08 (Talk) 21:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure they will be. Well, better late to have an improved article than never.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I removed the subject's full name per MOS:SURNAME. Also, I changed the section title to "Early life". --Malerooster (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to have the first and middle name in a source. Otherwise it is unsourced in the lede. Also, this is the initial mention in the body of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Its "lead" first off, not lede, which is something different. 2nd, surname doesn't mention initial mention in the body of the article, it just says after the first mention. 3rd, as an admin, you should know not to edit war over this so leave it, 4th, look at the bios of the other people linked from the LEAD, not lede, and see how their bios are written, 5th, what else? --Malerooster (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I refer you to WP:LEADELEMENTS. The text of the lede is introductory, so the first usage of the name is in the first section, not in the lead (or lede, you will find it is called either or both). Why not seek some support for your position from experienced writers? Of course the name of the person, especially middle names not commonly used, has to be verified, and the article is still subject to BLP because Worden is a recent decedent. Everything should be cited.==Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I also refer you to many FAs, including those of recent vintage, such as, to keep on the astronaut theme, Charles Duke.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the condescending attitude. SeeDavid Scott and James Irwin. I'll correct Charles Duke. --Malerooster (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As you wish. I asked the FAC nominator of that article,  for their views on this discussion, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. --Malerooster (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You have it backwards. MOS:LEAD: . If it did not appear in the body then it would be uncited, and have to be removed from the lead.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So what do you think we should do here?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The full name should appear in both the lead and the body.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: But that is not how the majority of well written bios handle it. They follow MOS:SURNAME, specifically, After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only. Can you link to a MOS that you believe supports your case here. --Malerooster (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Already did - it is quoted above. If you find an instance where someone has done that, you should remove it from the lead. WP:V:  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you really understand what is going on here, and what you said about "removing it" doesn't make sense either in this case, but thats ok. --Malerooster (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence under the "Education" section 

message: This article is upside down. What happened? How do you fix this? Esb5415 (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It fixed itself. Esb5415 (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  (CC) Tbhotch™ 01:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is upside down