Talk:Death/Archive 3

message: An abortion procedure can be experienced without a pregnancy condition, and therefore there is no death.  Such procedures are also labeled using the term 'menstrual extraction', which also should cause no death.  15:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, since an ME does cause the cessation of biological function within a human blastocyst or embryo (see menstrual extraction), that is a death.  The definition of pregnancy itself is far fuzzier than that of death; see beginning of pregnancy controversy. --BCSWowbagger 20:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  procedures and results 

message: I found this in an HTML comment:
:The following is fringe science, it needs to be rewritten to reflect that fact:  Scientific research conducted over more than a decade (90's) in hospitals among survivors of cardiac arrest have provided already strong evidence that consciousness survives the death of the physical body. The most known research in the medical community conducted by Dutch cardiologist Pim Van Lommel Lommel, Pim Van, Dr., (2001) Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands, pdf Lommel, Pim Van, Dr., (2003) A Reply to Shermer: Medical Evidence for NDEs was published by the leading medical peer-reviewed magazine The Lancet. On the other hand, worldwide research conducted by professor of psychiatry Ian Stevenson since the 60's, with over 3000 study cases, offers convincing scientific evidence for reincarnation. These studies Ian Stevenson, Prof., (1980) Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, University Press of Virginia,  Ian Stevenson, Prof., (1997) Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect, Praeger Paperback,  have been published for the academic and scientific community and the  writings are densely packed with research details and academic argument difficult for the average reader to follow.  The implications in the science paradigm and the resistance of societies toward new scientific research and discoveries related to event 'death' and the survival of consciousness are already upon debate among the academic scientific community David Fontana, Prof., Cardiff University and Liverpool John Moores University, UK, (Finland 2003) Does Mind Survive Physical Death?, pdf Neal Grossman, Prof., Indiana University and University of Illinois, United States, (2002) Who's Afraid of Life After Death? Why NDE Evidence is Ignored, published at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS).
:It is also very interesting to observe what spiritual teachers have said about death and the purpose of it. Issues such as "Where is God in the death process?" , "How can I prepare for death?"  and "How can I help someone who is dying?"  are important topics they have extensively investigated.
A summary of afterlife might also be helpful. -- Beland 07:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consciousness after death 

message: This article needs some major work as I see it, I have tagged a lot in the article what's need to be done (a bit much perhaps, but...) →AzaToth 01:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly needed (and still needs) cleaning up. You'd think an article like this looks very neat and professional. Well, i made some major structural changes; death in culture, death in populair culture, personification and such things are moved to their own articles. Also I moved a couple of sections to more appropriate places. It still needs revision, but it looks a lot better allready. Wehn all the rubish is gone, we can start building an actual article on death seen in a scientific persective. I'll continue working on this some other time.--Vincent de Ruijter 02:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of the article 

message: considering how popular this topic is its funny how stubbed it is here, maybe we just rather ignore death til it comes a knocking. but come it will. --Halaqah 21:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: considering how popular

message: Or it could be put in this article. There are at least two ways to determine death, scientifically and legally, and they aren't always the same. Plus, the legal determination of death has some interesting history.Mneumisi 23:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need Death (legal)

message: Does this article still require the request for expansion? I think it pretty much covers the subject, no? --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. 01:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand? 

message: Strange that the evolutionary purpose of death is not mentioned - to get us out of the way for the next generation. Imagine a species surviving where the older, obsolete organisms competed for resources with their offspring! Though there may be other causes for death, this cause should be detailed in some reasonable depth, including studies on how lifespan is affected by environment - like predators and lack of (I believe shorter and longer lifespans are the result in almost all cases). Death's role in natural selection is also important, as well as extinction. Richard001 06:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some great info about this in the evolution of aging and senescence articles. Gccwang 00:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution and death

message: Another area that could be dealt with here is how organisms respond to death - for example some animals go away to die, some will attack sick animals causing them to die etc. Besides the onset of death, there is also the subject of what happens to a dead organism. Their decomposition etc could be mentioned, as well as how other organisms deal with a dead one - for example disposing of it somehow (e.g. ants carrying away dead ants), avoiding it from fear of catching a disease, consuming it (e.g. scavengers) and so on. 
Carnivorous behavior could also be mentioned as a cause of death, something we humans tend to forget about. Avoiding carnivores is a part of life for most organisms out there. Looking at the article from a less anthropocentric perspective reveals a surprising amount of material that is essential to the topic of death. Richard001 07:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that some animals actually mourn the death of a loved one. Like, I remember reading that house cats can get depressed because of the death of a another cat.  "THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED!" 05:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How organisms respond to death

message: There has been a (so far empty) section created for death in non-human animals. I'd personally prefer the article to deal with death as a biological concept not focussed on any particular animal, including humans (I believe the picture of the hawk at the top sets a neutral tone early on by using an animal's death as the subject). Tucking non-human death into a small section of its own tends to make all other material focussed entirely on anthropogenic death, though the two areas overlap a lot and some material will have to be treated again in a non-human section. I'd like to hear from other editors on how they feel non-human death should be treated. Richard001 08:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Death in non-human species

message: ===Articulo Mortis Section===
Okay, I'm going to start working on this because one sentence does not a section make. Please feel free to improve the section in any way you can. Also, if you're not sure about something, post it here on the talk page and someone will get back to you on it or put it in the article if it's right. Insane99 01:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help. I'm working on the main page death now. It was a mess. Looking forward to your contributions.--Vincent de Ruijter 02:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged from [[Talk:Death in culture]]

message: Okay, I'm going to start working on this because one sentence does not a section make. Please feel free to improve the section in any way you can. Also, if you're not sure about something, post it here on the talk page and someone will get back to you on it or put it in the article if it's right. Insane99 01:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help. I'm working on the main page death now. It was a mess. Looking forward to your contributions.--Vincent de Ruijter 02:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articulo Mortis Section

message: It seems to me that we should combine the "superstitions" section with the "concsciousness after death" and "personification of death" sections. I'm going to go ahead and do it for now, but if anyone can expand one of those sections enough, by all means, go right ahead and give them their own sections. Insane99 20:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Superstitions

message: *To add to settlement of dead bodies: Funerals, mourning, death certificates, obituary, autopsy. How more primitive cultures deal with the dead and dying can also be discussed. The 1911 edition of Brittanica has some good material on this in its entry on death.
*Acts of killing - Murder, massacre, genocide. Martyrdom and human sacrifices
*Near death - Hospices, family gatherings, last words
*Adding reincarnation to afterlife section, perhaps expanding a little on current and archaic cultural\religious beliefs
*Death in child birth - miscarriages, stillbirth, infant mortality rates in different countries.
*Presumption of death of missing people
*Ethical attitudes towards death (e.g. killing animals for meat, medicine, engineered negligible senescence, abortion, euthanasia\right to die and suicide, honour in death (e.g. in war - samurai for example), death as a punishment - capital punishment, executions etc). Richard001 07:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Areas to expand

message: in the lead is the phrase "It is generally considered a permanent state..." is so equivocating as to lose the whole importance of the fact that it is final. I believe this statement is to accomodate belief of an aftelife or that or future scientific advances (e.g. cryogenics). But there must be a better way to write the lead so that it shows the severity of the subject. "is generally believed to be" just sounds like weasel words. Witty lama 03:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I've removed that sentence. Recury 19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, many "afterlife" beliefs do not have death as anything other than permanent -- you cannot "get back to your body", it's gone, remember? 74.38.33.15 08:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "is generally percieved to be a permanent state" 

message: Looking through the history a bit, I noticed that this article used to have a lot more information that has since been removed. It might have been crap for all I know, but if anyone is thinking about expanding anything it would probably worth looking at just so you don't do any work that's already been done. Recury 16:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: nice job any dates that would give a clue? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chalutz (talk • contribs) 20:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly due to branching into two articles - death in culture existed until recently and was probably created by moving much of the material there. If you look through the history it's always good to copy a link to a suitable version for so other editors can see, as edit histories can be quite difficult to browse especially when looking through a large number of edits.  Richard001 05:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page used to be longer 

message: I've made a first rough draft of Template:Death and would like some input on it's structure and possible use in this article. Delta Tango • Talk 06:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Topics that are linked to through the navigation box, should they still be linked to in the See also section? IMHO, the See also section would look much neater if it were trimmed some. The question is if it will make it harder for readers to find related topics if they look at "See also" and don't know there's a navigations box at the bottom. Delta Tango • Talk 23:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally the article should cover many of the topics currently in 'See also', or at least link to them at some point. All topics on the template should be notable enough to be mentioned in a more complete version of the article. I've started by weeding out links already prominently linked to in the article and also removed those in the template. Some more of these links can go in the template too later on. I much prefer an organized template tucked away at the bottom to the unwieldy 'See also' sections.
For reference these are the links removed:
In article:
*Life
*Afterlife
*Clinical death
*List of causes of death by rate
*Funeral
*Cremation
In template:
*Mortality
*Burial
*Immortality
*Infant mortality
*Euthanasia
*Brain death
*Autopsy
Someone good with formatting code may be able to refine the See also section so that the list is automatically formatted into 3 even length columns instead of being manually maintained. Richard001 06:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The topics in the template seem to related well enough, so I added it to each of the articles mentioned inside it. Hope I didn't step on your toes. Although you might as well add a few extra articles there from the "See also" section, such as life extension or maternal death. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Over my dead body! Kidding, adding them to the other articles makes perfect sense. Delta Tango • Talk 09:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation template/See also

message: Can't we get a better pic than the stupid one with the hawk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.11.14.84 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 30 Dec 2006  (UTC)
:Please create a new topic under a heading, as I have done for you. Also sign your name so we have some idea who we are talking to. I added the hawk picture myself as it shows a realistic depiction of death in nature. If you have any specific objections to the picture, please address them here. If you would like to propose another picture, feel free to do so. Richard001 19:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry guys I put up a picture that shows a darker side of death. Feel free to edit the caption though as it's 4 in the morning and i'm about to pass out. (it's a mass grave in Auschwitz I beleive)
Achnent 4:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The copyright status of the image you've uploaded will need to be confirmed otherwise it may be deleted in a few days. I don't really mind what goes at the top, though I'll add the hawk picture back somewhere (when there is more space to do so) as it's a nice image of predation. Regarding content, I'll try to add something on natural selection sooner or later. Richard001 09:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added the image back for now as there was nothing at the top. Hopefully the caption under it will prevent people asking why it's there. Richard001 02:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hawk picture

message: It's time to discuss the future layout of the article as it begins to grow towards a more complete state. Firstly I must mention areas of bias that are bound to creep into the article. Firstly, we have an anthropocentric bias towards simply discussing human death. Non-human death should be given considerable coverage in the article. Secondly, there tends to be a bias towards Western/developed countries. Third world and developing countries should be given consideration at all times (e.g. citing causes of death should reflect rates of death in the world primarily, not say the USA). Finally a lot of people are likely to add religious material to the page, which we must try to keep to a reasonable size as it is now. With these things in mind I'd like to propose a structure for the article to take on.
*Biology
**Death and ecology
***Predation
***Death and animal behavior (How dying animals behave, how others treat them)
***After death (Scavenging, decomposition etc)
***Fossilization
***Extinction
**Death and evolution
***Role in natural selection
***Evolutionary causes of death in higher organisms, factors affecting lifespan
**Death in medicine
***Medical definition
***Causes of death in humans (Past and present, developed vs. undeveloped countries)
****Senescence
****Autopsy
****Death in childbirth and abortion
*Cultural perspectives
**Settlement of bodies
**Grieving
**Legal aspects
***Legal entity
**Deliberate acts of killing
***Murder/manslaughter and capital punishment
***War and genocide
***Suicide, martyrdom, euthanasia, human and animal sacrifices
**Death of animals (legal status, slaughter of animals for food, loss of pets etc)
**Spirituality and superstitions
***Afterlife
***Superstitions
***Personification of death
***Glorification of and fascination with death
This is an incredibly large topic to cover and it's very important to organize the material carefully. Please put forward adjustments to the outline I've suggested above. This is just a quick draft, any input is most welcome. Richard001 09:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization of article

message: * Expand the lead to two paragraphs
* "Predation is a common cause of death for many organisms." this is a paragraph?
* Lots of  tags
* Only 3 in-line references
Automated review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**apparently
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] 
*Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: meter (A) (British: metre), realize (A) (British: realise), categorize (A) (British: categorise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization),  ageing (B) (American:  aging), programme (B) (American: program ).
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*Avoid using contractions like: don't.
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Needs a lot of work, M3tal H3ad 06:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Fail

message: You know how sometimes when an old person dies and someone will sometimes reply "she died of old age", but then its really like because of come cancer, or disease? 
What I'm trying to say is, when a person gets old, their body systems ovbiously aren't as efficent, so they are more likely to get a disease, and usually die becasue of that disease. But does anybody really die from old age? Old age would be, systems failing one after another, to the very instant of their heart no longer beating, no disease present. 
I'm not sure where my question could fit into the article, but it kinda popped into my head, and I wantd to know the answer. It could help some other article realting to death. --"THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED!" 05:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Old age' isn't really a cause of death as such, it simply means people are more likely to die. The body basically gives up repairing itself to some extent once we have passed our reproductive age, and over time we get more and more susceptible to death. It's similar to having AIDS, nobody ever dies of HIV as such, but without an immune system they become defenceless against all sorts of diseases, and will eventually succumb to one or more of those infections. Dying of old age is simply a way of saying dying of natural causes when a person is fairly old. Richard001 05:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do people really die from old age?? 

message: This is a poor choice of words in the Afterlife section. Obviously shows it was written by some sort of atheist. "Considerable" or "debatable" would fit much better, being less biased. User:69.37.41.160 22:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should put down that bible and pick up a dictionary. Ewlyahoocom 09:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with User:69 above, but for different reasons.  As it was, the text really did seem to have a stronger bias than it should have, and it was a rather clunky run-on sentence anyway.  So I took the liberty of changing the wording, but not the meaning, to make it a touch more elegant and hopefully a bit more neutral.Echo5Joker 21:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "speculative"?