Talk:Death/Archive 2

message: "This number may be considerably larger, as most miscarriages are unreported; perhaps as many as 1 in 3 pregnancies end in miscarriage" 
I think this may need a citation.
:It's cited right in the same section with the link to HopeXchange's March of Dimes data summary. If you find it confusing, perhaps it would be better if the links for the two institutions are changed so that they point directly to those group's homepages, and the deeper links are moved down to each of the two bullets as citations. --216.153.178.21 13:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 in 3 pregnancies end in miscarriage 

message: I recently heard about a new technology which allowed for the deceased person's ashes to be transformed into diamonds which could afterwards be placed in pedestals and so on. Anyone heard about this?
:nope. What I heard is they're making synthetic diamond(human-made diamond). If you have these kind of questions you could go to Wikipedia:Reference desk, they'll come up with answers pretty soon. Roscoe x 19:05, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New technology 

message: *This is a very interesting topic. Although its still quite serious... Audsley
I still don't understand. 
I lost. What is life. Why are we here?
Why do we have to die, and so young. 
It's so inpossible. It's not right.
There's not point to us if we're going to die.
So quickly. So unexpoictadly.
WHat is Life? The atomos. I'm not looking for a bio. answer, or a religion answer. I'm looking for the truth. Where does somebody go for the thruth?
:I'm a religious person so here's what I feel, Life is an opportunity to make others happy(and of course yourself) with what you have, as a weak human. You ask truth to a human... while you only believe in what you believe. What's the point asking. Just cheer up... Here's a quotation for you: 
::Life is "trying things to see if they work" - Ray Bradbury
:Roscoe x 18:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I didn't catch your question in December.  If you are still here, I'll tell you how I think you can arrive at a satisfactory answer in a general, non-partisan way. Tom H. 05:25, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
The truth is not something we can describe with words. Every time we use words, we leave something out. --Eleassar777 18:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Very nice and true, Roscoe and Eleassar. Tom Haws 18:03, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
To me, the biological answer IS the answer to life.  We are here simply to BE ALIVE.  Like the song, "I was born, born, born; born to be alive!"  It's not a matter of what we do, it's a matter of not being dead while we do it. Citizen Premier 10:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  :-( 

message: I think it is important to know a list of cause of death in certain area or country. So, maybe someone could write the, say, top 10 or 20 cause of death in US or Europe or Asia. Cause beside thinking where we going after death, I'm also thinking much of how am I going to die. So I think it's kind an important topic in wikipedia, if someone would like to write about it. So if other wikipedians think it's an important topic too, I could gather data from the internet and write stub about it.Roscoe x 18:36, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of Death 

message: The section named Physiological consequences of human death may be inappropriate for some readers, and contains explicit images. I think we should add some kind of template warning about it, but I don't know any such templates. Any ideas?
:Maybe— Though I think this was discussed before. Readers know what they're looking up, it might be comon since to think when you look up 'death' it's a safe bet that there might be explicit images. It might be a good addition, but it's not EXTREMELY necessary. DaemonDivinus 00:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There you go— Warning added! :) DaemonDivinus 23:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a warning? 

message: "However, this aspect of the Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, which a living organism obviously is not."
I strongly disagree. Living organisms are not closed systems, ok, but they live in a closed universe, where resources are limited, so you cannot avoid the loss of energy and death. 
But if you offer me to live 10^60 years, I will not complain that I'm not immortal...
:You're absolutely right. Sofixit, please. -- Ec5618 13:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Law of Thermodymanics 

message: This is only really true in the US:
:Legally, a person can be pronounced dead in three different ways. By far the most common is by a medical doctor or a doctor of osteopathy. Second most common is by a coroner or a state medical examiner. The third way a person can be pronounced legal dead is by the courts; after a person has disappeared for some time, the courts will pronounce them dead so that their property can be distributed appropriately. A death certificate is a legal document which states how and when a person died, and who pronounced them dead.
e.g. in Australia, I don't think we have medical examiners, and a coroner is a judge, which renders (2) & (3) the same thing....
:Perhaps the information could be moved to something like Death in the United States or be just more isolated in a section here. Theshibboleth 09:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added a systemic bias tag 213.140.21.231 08:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that was easiest to begin with. But sure, add a new section. Gathering good stats will be difficult. How many of the deaths in souther Sudan in 2002 were due to war, famine or genocide? rossnixon
Big_killer seems to have the information you're looking for. --Jonathonjones 11:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That article seems to be a duplicate of part of this article. Perhaps they should be merged. rossnixon 22:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US-centricism 

message: I Like to add a chapter on this article. At the moment i'm reading a book about the roll that death played in Western thought. It is the book 'Death, Desire and Loss in Western Culture' by Jonathan Dollimore. It will be a small summary about christianity, Shakespeare, Marx, the Nazis, Nietzsche, postmodernism and homosexuality from the viewpoint of Dollimore with a link to a mian article on this subject. Any objections?--Daanschr 16:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a chapter to this article 

message: I think death should be discussed as a concrete concept (causes, medical definition, etc) before getting into "interpretations of death" (ie symbolic)00:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  organisation of article 

message: No mention of suicide? 129.62.32.48 22:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: suicide?

message: The article mentions biological, legal, and religious death, but what about medical death? I remember an instructor of a CPR class I took told us that a person could be medically dead, biologically dead, or both; one meant their brain wasn't working, and the other meant their heart and lungs weren't working. It looks like they were grouped together under biological death, although I honestly don't remember which is which, therefore I am refraining from adding in info about medical death.--ikiroid | (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical and Biological Death 

message: I was wondering how different animals behave when a member of their pack, even other packs, die? Do animals like monkeys have any specific thing that they do? Do they even notice/care? Username132 06:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal Behaviour 

message: I've never heard of "The 5 Stages of Dying". In my opinion, that area must either be elaborated and fixed (spelling mistakes), or removed. That's only my opinion. Dooga 06:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cut the whole section from the article because it was not cited and was incorrect.  The section refered to the K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model but contained many errors.  For example, the stages were presented as if they are sequential, which they are not.  The material is appropriate if reworked, but as it stood the article is better without it. Osmodiar 01:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The 5 stages of dying?

message: Italic textWho can't admire of the Death. The word it self brings horror and respect. Death has as much beauty as life, and there is no a second opinion about it. - Kniaz
A second opinion: Death is unnatural. We were created to live forever. Death is the final enemy, and will one day be no longer - courtesy of Almighty God. 222.152.90.253 01:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beauty of Death 

message: Just a suggestion: Rather than engaging in silly revert wars over this, why not simply state, below the uncontroversial causes of death, that X number of abortions were performed in year Y (citing the source of this statistic), that it is controversial whether abortion should be counted as a cause of death, and provide a link to the Abortion debate page?  This would be the NPOV way to go, I think.  Putting the information in the list with the uncontroversial causes of death seems biased in favor of the anti-abortion side, while omitting any mention of abortion seems biased in favor of the pro-abortion-rights side.  Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 03:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be at the top, as the list is ordered numerically. The note beside it says there are various views so adding that it is controversial isn't really saying anything new. If you can think of a better way to reword the note; that is fine, maybe it would lessen the vandalism. rossnixon 09:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are going to include electived abortion we should include spontaneous abortion as well as it is responsible for tens of millions of deaths per year.  Just because many of these fetuses are geneticaly damaged seems no reason to exclude them.  I will look for a reliable source of data this week.  Osmodiar 13:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point, Osmodiar.  If clinical abortions are going to be listed, then miscarriages (which, I suspect, far outnumber clinical abortions) should also be listed.  I still think it would be more NPOV, though, to add a note about abortions (clinical and sponteneous) below the list, indicating that counting these as "causes of death" is controversial.  Otherwise, this section of the article comes across as trying to "make a point." Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 18:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's here! (miscarriage statistics).  Citizen Premier 06:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not a bad solution. JoshuaZ 02:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I know how zygotes, embryos, and fetuses function and so do many of the people here. The facts can be interpreted either way-- that fetuses and embryos are human or not. You are contradicting yourself, by saying there's no fact to prove whether or not these are humans, and then saying in the same breath that the facts say a fetus and an embryo aren't human. Stop being dogmatic, stop deleting things before reading and contributing to the relevant discussion, and please sign your comments.--ikiroid | (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I guess I was reverting it back in based more on the reason of 70.22's edit summary than its actual content--it had a sort of attitude in it. That's what I had a problem with. We gotta discuss sensitive issues like this before doing anything drastic like removing information.  I try to leave my bias at the door when I enter wikipedia--everyone should.--ikiroid | (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Dissenting opinion? We don't decide on whether or not info should be censored based on majority, we base it on whether or not it is relevant to the topic. How about meeting everyone in the middle, and put this information under a note, like Please note that the interpretation of whether or not the following may count as human deaths varies.--ikiroid | (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good. I would suggest Please note that the interpretation of whether or not the following may count as human deaths varies and that they are not considered deaths for statistical purposes. JoshuaZ 19:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ben, these are verifiable facts, and if we took out everything that required qualifiers in Wikipedia, it would be very sparse indeed. JoshuaZ 00:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ben, the length of the qualifiers is irrelevant. Could you please explain why the fact that none of the others need qualifiers matters? JoshuaZ 03:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ben, not everything can be simply divided into facts and non-facts. This seems like a decent compromise in a less than perfect world. JoshuaZ 20:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't grant a fetus any human rights but I do know for a fact that they are living creatures made of organic matter, and as such are obviously capable of death.  You might say they're not independant organisms, but there are also many parasites which cannot survive without their hosts.  A fetus can die, and you were a fetus once, and if you had died in the womb, you'd still be dead today.  Politicallity has nothing to do with it, really.  Citizen Premier
Who, really, do you think you're kidding?  Look this up (I'll make it easy for you), and read it carefully:  fact.  That you consider it a human death does not matter.  Your belief does not make it so. The Artist Formerly Known as BenFranklin 23:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ben, that's the precisely the problem at hand, we don't know whether it is a human life that should be counted or not. Hence we should have both views there given that there is a substantial minority that considers them to be human deaths (note that I am not defending that claim and have no intention of defending that claim, it is sufficient for wikipedia purposes that many people think that way). JoshuaZ 01:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If you prefer I can directly quote from fact. "A statement of fact or a factual claim is a statement that is presented as an accurate representation of a situation, event, or condition, and that is capable of being either proved or disproved." (internal emphasis suppressed). It is a fact that there is a large minority that sees abortions and miscarriages as deaths of human beings. JoshuaZ 01:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben......you are acting like it is a fact that fetuses are not human. What makes everything that you say a fact, and everything any dissenters say an opinion? We've compromised, and added a disclaimer, now it's your turn to try to see things from our point of view. What is it you have a problem with? The source of the information?--ikiroid | (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ben, the disclaimers already state that fetus's aren't necessarily considered "human" and are rarely granted personhood.  If you feel this isn't clear enough, why not just expand the disclaimers?  Incidentally, your argument really doesn't work that well--I could say that criminals are devoid of the spark of human life, an improvable assertion, and therefore you'd have to remove all the people from the list which have committed an offense.  Or, if I were Nazi, I might claim only Aryans are human and it's not a fact that anyone else is.  These statements are similarly improvable.  Citizen Premier 07:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Additionally, the fact is that there is a very large minority which considers these to be deaths. As such it is unreasonable not to mention them with a disclaimer. JoshuaZ 13:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ben, it seem that the consensus is against you. I would in any event rather put this up for comments prior to taking it to abritration. If you  have no objections I'll add it to the appropriate page.JoshuaZ 18:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait.....you people are taking this edit war to the arbitration commitee?--ikiroid | (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Both you and Joshua are becoming way too emotional on the topic--it's seems that some 3rd party intervention is ineveitable. Someone has to keep everyone in check, and I can't do anything--you don't want to compromise at all. You have some valid points to your arguement, Ben, but I think you're taking yourself way too seriously.--ikiroid | (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm deeply sorry if I appear to be too emotional about this. I agree that Ben has raised some valid points. However, by any reasonable stretch of the imagination 9 reverts in a 36 hour period is simply a ridiculous violation of the 3 revert rule. Also, a further clarification: I didn't "threaten" Ben "privately." I simply commented on his talk page. I think peer review is massive overkill, but I would like to hear if anyone has any suggested compromise edits. Ikiroid, do you possibly have any compromise suggestions? JoshuaZ 21:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I created a seperate section called "Prebirth Deaths." Notice how I didn't say "human" or "person" anywhere, so it should fly ok for now. It seperates these statistics from the human death stats. I want you and Ben to tell me what you think of it.--ikiroid | (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, I don't like the title and I suspect that Ben will like it even less. A section heading "Prebirth Deaths" strongly implies that they are "deaths" as such. I might suggest a title of simply "Controversy" or "Defintional Controversy." In fact, the second title could possibly lead to an expanded section given how much disagreement there is theologically/philosophically and medically about what should constitute death in of itself (such as brain death, heart stoppage etc.). Thank you very much for your attempt at resolving this issue. Ben what do you think? JoshuaZ 00:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm one of the original people that wanted it in the main death "list". However, due to the revert and vandalism over this, I think having a separate section may reduce this. A good solution, I think - thanks Ikiroid. rossnixon 01:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a little akward, but if it stops the reverting, I guess I'll settle.  Citizen Premier 06:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The editing of an article in a manner contradictory to your personal beliefs does not constitute vandalism.  I hate it, too.  So, it's a good compromise.  Miss me? The Artist Formerly Known as BenFranklin 09:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: How about "Questionable Deaths?" or simply "Controversy"? JoshuaZ 17:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Controversy" sounds pretty good.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 23:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If no one objects in the next few hours, I'm going to make the edit. JoshuaZ 22:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Since when is it up for debate that an unborn baby is alive? Its brain functions; even as a zygote there are electrochemical things going on, its heart beats from an early age - how do you define alive? If you want to debate whether or not it can think for itself, fine. If you want to debate over whether or not it deserves to live, fine. If you want to debate about whether or not abortion is murder, fine. I'm not getting into that here. But the unborn baby is alive, and that's an irrefutable biological fact. The dissertation at the begining of the "Fetal deaths" section is completely unnecessary. Don't give an Ameriflag 06:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The dissertation is a leftover from when abortions were listed under "causes of death". Now that they have been moved to a sub-heading; perhaps those comments can be removed. rossnixon 11:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion as a cause of death 

message: I'm going to take the bit about wacky funerals out of this article unless someone disagrees. If anything, this should be on a funeral page.
: Removed.--Happylobster 12:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunter Thomson and wacky funerals 

message: There was a comment about body cooling at 1.5°F/Hr.  This is only true for a specific conditions.  A dead body in an environment that is, say, 110°F will actually warm up.
Anon user 00:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Body cooling

message: pseudoscientific nonsense should have some sort of a disclaimer, rather than randomly segwaying from a medical POV to religious one, and back again, perhaps it could be moved to some sort of "religious objections to medical/scientific definition of death" or for the sake of rationality, just remove the entire section--205.188.116.130 22:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been some discussion of this already. See the above section entitled "Abortion as a cause of death." The consensus/compromise at this point seems to be to keep the section and rename it "Controversy." As for rationality. Wikipedia is not about rationalism, but it NPOV. Please read WP:NPOV. This means we sometimes need to include views which we disagree with. JoshuaZ 22:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer "Fetal Deaths" to "Controversy". Controversy describes thoughts about the deaths rather than the deaths themselves. So yes, use a medical description as a heading. rossnixon 05:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually a large fraction in the medical community would not consider them to be "death" per se. I therefore think "controversy" is a more neutral title. JoshuaZ 05:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A very, very large percent of wikipedia articles and sub-sections are controversial--if we named this one "controversy" why not name all the ones about the debated Godhood of Jesus "controversy" and all the ones about the potential risks of the atkins diet "controversy" and so on.  Sorry, it seems rather silly.
However, I'm open to considering terms other than "death:"  "fetal termination?"  Something like that?  Citizen Premier 01:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "prebirth deaths"?? 

message: Since we have a whole other article on personification of death, should we maybe reduce the list of examples here and have the full list over there? JoshuaZ 20:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, be bold, dude.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 02:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of popular personifications of death. 

message: In the section named "when death is imminent" there are some symptoms listed. I just want to know WHAT causes those symptoms. 
1) Do they come from nowhere? can they hit ANY human? or they are caused for previous system failures?
2) how long does it take this "shut down" process? 1 month, 1 year? 
3) can't these symptoms be confused with other ones? eg. lethargy PTSD
i ask this because i have been through some of those symptoms
Don't worry, this is refering to when death is hours away.  You can have many of these symptoms and simply be sick, and you can have some and be totally normal (such as lethargy).  Citizen Premier 03:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLEASE HELP

message: Since there seems to be a consensus to have the section now, and the main disagreement seems to be the title, would anyone object to a straw poll to determine between "Controversial deaths" "Prenatal deaths" "Deaths just like any other but those evil feminazis won't let us say so because they want to keep commiting genocide" and "Not at all deaths, just globs of tissue and anyone who says otherwise is a misogynist pig who wants to a control woman's fundamental right to control her own body?" (and for the humor impaired, yes the last two are jokes). JoshuaZ 02:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice rant! (I agree). Oh and a vote would be fine. I think I had Fetal Deaths as a previous heading. Prenatal might be too hard-hitting, as the natal part never gets to happen. rossnixon 09:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm giving a sly 'up-to-something' grin as I write this, but after reading the thrilling keyboard-orchestrated arguments over this here subject, I as an outsider up till now reckon that the "Controversial deaths" title does the job, seeing that the controvosy seems to rest in whether this is death as defined in the top paragraphes or merely detritus from a medical procedure. Mainly, though, I comment because I think someone said above about mentioning the number of fertilised, yet never implanted, embryii that are left over from IVF. Nowadays, of course, they may fulfill a purpose as the objects of stem-cell research, but back in 1986, I don't think any of my 5-or-so eggmates would've seen much else than the incinerator. Lady BlahDeBlah 21:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title for controversial section 

message: I don't want to burst any bubbles here, but this article is in need of serious copy editing.  I don't mean changing the substance (you've all argued through a lot of that already), but parts of it just read like, well, linguistic death.  And this, "irreversible mortality", has got to go.  Any objections to me taking a linguistic/grammatic/syntactic swipe at it?  •Jim62sch• 20:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy Edit

message: *The theory of "Total Extinction" of life in a permanent way when the event 'death' occurs, or Materialistic theory (monist);
reworded as:
*The theory of "Total Extinction," the cessation of all stimuli, experienced after death: the Materialistic theory (monist); 
Dear user Citizen Premier,
Your rewording effort is clearly understood and appreciated. However, it is not correct from a neutral point of view, as I will try to explain in brief words.
The section regards the issue of the three main theories, or hypothesis as you expressed (scientific terminology), of the individual(s) himself/herself in our societies towards 'death', meaning towards what may be or not after "physical death". Any of these three concepts affects the way the individual, and also in a collective way called 'society', regards and acts on his own present physical life.
When you reworded "the cessation of all stimuli, experienced after death" you are describing the knowledge acquired by biology and medicine, science fields, of the death of the physical or biological body. Biological or medical scientific knowledge is not being questioned, as it describes what happens with death: all phisiological or vital functions of this body cease.
On the other hand, Science is a tool through which we, as whole, gather knowlegde and act upon the physical or material world. Empirical science does not make belief statements but hypothesis and collects evidences and facts, when possible, to support or not those hypothesis; or as Professor Neal Grossman as expressed, far better than my own words:
:"experience taught me that it is important to distinguish between (a) materialism as an empirical hypothesis about the nature of the world, which is amenable to evidence one way or the other (this is the hallmark of a scientific hypothesis—that evidence is relevant for its truth or falsity) and (b) materialism as an ideology, or paradigm, about how things "must" be, which is impervious to evidence (this is the hallmark of an unscientific hypothesis—that evidence is not relevant for its truth)."
Now, the Materialistic theory is NOT the theory of Science, but the ideological view of the individual, scientist or not, towards life and death issues and, as it was written in first place, that view is:
The theory of "Total Extinction" of life in a permanent way when the event 'death' occurs. (which I will rewrite for clarity as The theory of "Total Extinction" of life in a permanent way when the cessation of all stimuli at the physical death occurs); or as Professor Neal Grossman pointed out:
:"For him, materialism is the fundamental paradigm in terms of which everything else is explained, but which is not itself open to doubt. I shall coin the term "fundamaterialist" to refer to those who believe that materialism is a necessary truth, not amenable to empirical evidence. I call it fundamaterialism to make explicit comparison with fundamentalism in religion."
Please "make no mistake": there are no concessions; as this knowledge, presented here, is only the tip of the 'Iceberg' , already in motion, that is meant to shape the entire face of the whole wide world in times to come. Best regards, --62.169.95.157 19:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, chap, but I really don't know what you're talking about.  Even if you totally reject the theory that there are no experiences after death, you can't ignore the fact that many people believe that to be true.  The section I was editing (which I think probably belongs as a part of the "Consciousness after death" section) was only listing beliefs, not claiming any of them to be true.  Citizen Premier 01:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science (materialism as empirical) vs. Fundamentalism (materialism as ideology) 

message: All this experience here as this article: the editions sourced in medical and academic publications, plus the editions based upon logical and empirical thought, and the type of reactions they encountered; all these have proven the words that a great philosopher once stated:
Another adopts an attitude of skepticism as soon as he discovers that it contains something which he has not previously read, heard, or originated in his own thought. He would probably resent as extremely unjustified the accusation that his mental attitude is the acme of self-satisfaction and intolerance; such is nevertheless the case; and thus he shuts his mind to any truth which may possibly be hidden in that which he off-hand rejects.
Here ends my contributions, as there is no place to concessions to anyone who refuses to use-open his/her own mind. No hard feelings, thank you to all for the time and attention that you have devoted to my editions. P.S. Please keep at least this in mind: there are those who have already advanced far beyond the present level of consciousness, soon will come the time each one us, beginning in the western world, will have to make the choice: to adapt and evolve or else "crystallize"; this is my belief... --62.169.118.212 04:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who was the philosopher?  Also, , his observation is a reflection of his own mental attitude and feeling of superiority, and shows an intolerance for those who refuse to be willing sponges, sopping up "new theories" without comment or thought.  •Jim62sch• 09:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I once read a great essay by a famous sceptic, who reminded us that in order to be a sceptic we often have to trust experts, unless there is a significant weight of evidence against them.  That's what science is all about, anyways: you can't just pull a new theory out of your hair, you've got to defend it and explain it and show how it works better (or at least as good) as the old theory.  Until then, the old theory stays.  Cheers, Citizen Premier 23:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  state of mind 

message: This article needs to renamed "Death in Humans" for obvious reasons.  •Jim62sch• 09:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  JoshuaZ 12:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's still some content in here that applies to death in general, but I certainly agree that we should split it up.  Citizen Premier 23:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: Is the dying person aware of his/her imminent death? Here I am not talking about the accidental deaths, but the so-called normal deaths. When I read a series of articles on deaths available at various website, I have noticed that the dying persons do become aware of his death. But I am a bit too skeptical about it. Will somebody please clear my doubts? I don't want any answer from the religius angle, but an answer which is scientific and rational.MANOJTV 08:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Signs of death

message: Shouldn't we include a section on how an awareness of death effects life and refer to the vast philosophical inquiries that have been undertaken in reflecting on death?  This article seems to overemphasize the scientific and ignore the emotional and philosophical.
:If you can add it with credible sources, go ahead. --208.41.98.142 17:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Awareness of Death

message: Revision as of 04:56, 29 May 2006 added a figure that 2.2 million people die from adverse reactions to perscription drugs.  I find many things wrong with this.  
1. The source is clearly biased and of questionable validity.  
2. It seems to imply that medicine is bad which is at the very least a controversial POV.
3. If the figure is accurate and verifiable, it should be included in the table with a proper citation.
Sbenton 05:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing the link. Besides being clearly biased from the start, everything I can find on Null indicates quackery at work, and until someone can provide peer reviews and reasonable consensus for the paper or the books it's apparently based on, it shouldn't go back. It falls under Undue Weight and is therefore in violation of Wikipedia policy. --208.41.98.142 17:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Death By Medicine

message: Bias is shown for oxygen trophic organisms. O2 metabolism is not a "vital function" of vast species (Families even) of prokaryotic organisms. The definiton of cell death itself seems to be obsessed with metabolism as main distinction between life and death, however stasis of metabolism can exist within a cell for long periods of time and the cell is certainly not dead, just in an arrested state awaiting proper conditions for metabolism to continue.
The main point is that cell death should be better defined to all classifications of life on Earth, whether they are single celled or communal. 
Respond and give feedback.
----
The whole article, as currently written, should simply be renamed to "Death in humans". It's a good example of lurking "human-centric bias". It says virtually nothing about how creatures other than humans die, and what modalities are common to them all, if any. --Smithfarm 15:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cell Death Section?!