Talk:Ed Schultz

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ed Schultz. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0204-FEB_MANOFMONTH
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ed Schultz. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://alb.merlinone.net/mweb/wmsql.wm.request?oneimage
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111021032825/http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=7187&NewsAreaId=2 to http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=7187&NewsAreaId=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Ed Schultz. 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/20100922213549/http://www.chicagosprogressivetalk.com/includes/news_items/2/news_items_more.php?id=8§ion_id=2 to http://www.chicagosprogressivetalk.com/includes/news_items/2/news_items_more.php?id=8§ion_id=2
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://alb.merlinone.net/mweb/wmsql.wm.request?oneimage&imageid=6275892
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130316190944/http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/Content/Detail.aspx?ReleaseID=15438&NewsAreaID=2&ClientID=7 to http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/Content/Detail.aspx?ReleaseID=15438&NewsAreaID=2&ClientID=7
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130820150641/http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/19/the-ed-show-moves-to-weekdays-at-5p-et-starting-august-26/ to http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/19/the-ed-show-moves-to-weekdays-at-5p-et-starting-august-26
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: When I studied journalism in college in 2012-2014 we were taught that we could not write “natural causes” for a death. Why? It is a weasel phrase and it is inaccurate. Journalists are supposed to find the cause of death and report on it. Why? Partly so we know that somebody actually died.
If somebody died before the average lifespan, I contend that their death is not natural causes. If Shultz would have died from natural causes he would have died in his 70s. 75 is the average lifespan for a man in the U.S. He died over a decade early for some reason. Does anyone know why?
I think every Wikipedia article that cites “natural causes” as a cause of death should be notated with something that indicates more information is needed. Does anybody agree? How could this change be made? Also, does anybody know how Schultz actually died? Jasonagastrich (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're determined to get an answer as to the exact cause of death, the primary source would be the coroner's report.  I would expect the report to say something along the lines of it being a natural death (as opposed to a suicide or homicide) with no particular expansion as to why he died.  If you think the "death" section could use copy-editing (or that the article could be restructured to put that as part of a "Biography" or "Personal life" section so there isn't undue weight in the section headings to his death), go ahead and edit it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) We are limited by what the family chooses to announce, and there is no call for us to "investigate" further. There is nothing wrong with "natural causes". A person can die of natural causes at any age. "Natural causes" usually means illness; basically it's a way of saying it was a natural death, it wasn't homicide, suicide, or accident. If the family chooses not to reveal all the details ("liver cancer", "stroke", "ruptured aneurysm", or whatever), that is their privilege. It may be too painful for them to have to explain it to the world. And as long as it was natural causes - nothing suspicious or newsworthy in itself - then it's basically none of our business. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We were told to get a copy of the death certificate. I do not think a death certificate ever says natural causes on it. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I am surprised that “natural causes” is allowed. Perhaps the human body can live for ever and perhaps death is not natural at all. Also, sometimes people die from chemotherapy and not the ailment and I think it would be wise and encyclopedic to mention chemo when that happens. Some people could continue to live without chemotherapy. Jasonagastrich (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We are not journalism. We are a tertiary source: we summarize what has been reported by reliable secondary sources. We do NOT do original research or go hunting up primary sources. If "natural causes" is good enough for the sources we draw our information from, then it is good enough for us. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your candor. I have brought this to AP’s attention along with major news networks. U.S. journalism has some serious issues nowadays and this is one of them. Jasonagastrich (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: “Natural Causes”