Talk:Death/Archive 3

RfC - Abortion and Miscarriages listed as human deaths
This has been an ongoing dispute (see above). Previously, under the section regarding causes of human deaths, abortions and miscarriages were added. These were then moved to a 'prenatal deaths' section, which was then re-named 'prenatal statistics' and recently details were added to be clear that these are nowhere officially considered human deaths. Currently the dispute is between a small number of editors. The main points being.

1) Are abortions and miscarriages deaths?

2) If so, can they be considered human deaths?

3) The article deals primarily with human death - if it is not agreed that they are human deaths, should they appear in the topic at all? 13:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Responses
Doing a statistic on "miscarriages" is impossible. What do we include? Early embryo death? Ectopic pregnancies? Teratomas? While the ethical/ideological consideration of these events as "human deaths" is a matter of POV, the number reported in the article is highly debatable and should be omitted. A n d r e a s   (T) 16:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

While anything that touches on the abortion debate is likely to be heated, Wikipedia must rely on published sources. If no country lists abortions and miscarriages as deaths then that topic would seem to fall outside the scope of this article. The only exception I can imagine is in murder trials where the murderer of a pregnant woman is sometimes charged with an additional homicide. I do not know whether such convictions (excuse the pun) survive on appeal. Durova 16:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep the following definition of Abortion in mind when considering if this is a form of "human death", or not. Quote:An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in, or caused by, its death.End Quote rossnixon 02:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Oklahoma Criminal Law passed in 2005, the fetus is a human. Most refs to this are slow loading PDF files, so no ref added here yet. rossnixon 09:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Oklahoma Criminal Law? - this is a worldwide wikipedia, not Oklahoma.gov/wiki It seems that everyone, except ross, does not think these should be included - I will remove them, unless more people deem it right to include it here... --Cooper-42 11:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You have to give valid reasons why the information is either inappropriate or incorrect before it is removed. Oh, and Texas and California law is similar. I'm sure I could find similar law from other countries too if I looked; perhaps catholic and moslem majority countries. There was no consensus to remove the section. I will put it back, but change the heading back to "Statistics" temporarily.! rossnixon 01:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally believe this should be titled something that leaves out the word "death." It needs to assume some sort of middle ground, such as a title like "Dispute" or "Controversy." Let's not forget that an individual does not always have the capacity to write in a neutral tone, so what is best for this article's section probably won't be decided by one person.


 * With response to Rossnixon, as I understand it, the controversy is if or when embryos and fetuses are human, or to what degree. If someone does not consider the embryo fully human, or without a soul, then its death would be less than that of a person. The whole controversy is really when the baby becomes a proper person. Is it at the moment of conception? The moment the brain begins to function independently? The moment it breathes? Does it matter? Should we treat it equally anyway? Is the mother's future worth more than the baby's? The way I see it, even hinting at any type of answer to these questions violate's wikipedia's NPOV, but ignoring them and removing the content makes the issue seem dismissable (hence, pro-choice), so it still has to be kept in. But advertising it makes it pro-life.


 * My idea is that we give a range for the statistics based on multiple sources. Using some sort of pro-whatever site probably isn't the best idea, government statistics would be best. After all, propoganda is published, but we don't use it as a reference for statistics. I suspect that the numbers would be skewed, and vary depending on how many miscarriages/abortions/epotopic preganancies are considered a death in that particular group. If you look on wikipedia at articles on languages where the number of speakers is contested, they list a range and multiple sources which cover either extreme. I think this would be a good idea.


 * And with regards to vocabulary, it must be stressed that different people consider fetal and embryonic death different things, sometimes human, and sometimes not.


 * You can't have "a degree of being human". "Human" is a species designation!

As far as sources go, these have been checked out as acceptably neutral to all sides. rossnixon 01:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope this helps. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. I wouldn't really call this an RFC. You can file a proper article RFC if you want to, but they are frequently a pain in the ass and a source of angry resignations and civility blocks. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I came to this article through the RfC page and this RfC seems as "proper" as any other. On further consideration I suppose it might be worthwhile to have a section on the subject, if people are willing to source it, and move some of the material from this talk page into that section: no country keeps statistics on this - there are difficulties in definition - yet in certain places (with citations) the murder of a pregnant woman can be prosecuted as two murders. That seems fair and NPOV. Durova 12:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a fundamental tension between this article being, as it claims in the first sentence, about the biological process of death, and about the role of death in cultures. If we define the scope of this article to be the biological process and cultural implications of that process, then the relevant question is whether the a fetus ceasing to be alive qualifies as biological death. The answer to this is, in my view, obvious. A fetus is a biological human entity, and it dies just as any other biological human entity dies. When a sperm dies, it dies. When a skin cell dies, it dies. When tissues in a gangrenous limb die, they die. The article addresses human cell death, and cells are hardly persons (according to most people, at least), so it would seem odd to argue that the death of other non-personal human entities, such as (according to some) fetuses, should be excluded. The issue of when a fetus becomes a person is irrelevant. If we are indifferent to issues of personhood, then a fetal death is biologically like the death of any other thing human, be it sperm, infant, or adult. Statistics on fetal deaths are thus perfectly appropriate to feature in the article. The cultural implications of death, however, are based on the death of an individual, a person. Since different cultures and subcultures construe personhood differently, then this should be noted if the article is to be based on the biological death of persons, rather than simply the biological death of human entities.--Atemperman 00:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I applaud this perceptive reading. Durova 15:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been in enough editorial disputes already this month, so I'm not going to get heavily involved here. I would just like to point out that, since the passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the murder of a woman/mother and her fetus is legally a double homicide throughout the United States of America. Which is a somewhat more globally significant entity than the great state of Oklahoma. Also, Atemperman, it would be utterly impossible to find a biologist who calls sperm "human." Fetuses, person or not, are members of species homo sapiens, meeting all the biological critera for both life and membership within the species. Sperm are just cells, which have the potential to do half the work of forming a new human. And a skin cell, in and of itself, is no more human than a slab of galena.--BCSWowbagger 03:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me give a try answering point to point here. Just MHO

1) Are abortions and miscarriages deaths? No. An answer based on and justified by the wikipedia article on Birth and the undisputed fact that death cannot occur before birth. If somebody has a different answer, (s)he should consider modifying the Birth article first. Sorry, if I did add to the trouble here :)

2) If so, can they be considered human deaths?

Unfortunately the "If so" in the question does not conclusively decide whether they can be; and I believe that to be the fallacy in the motion here. I mean, the answer to the first question by itself does not imply the answer for this. An abortion is an explicit action that affects the normal course which if uninhibited would result in the event of Birth. So that makes the question prone to context sensitivity.

3) The article deals primarily with human death - if it is not agreed that they are human deaths, should they appear in the topic at all?

Ideally no(atleast based on the first question). But alternatively, one feels it may not be wrong to provide verified figures of clinical abortions etc in the section describing the figures against various causes of death. The reader can compare the figures and make own understandings about the impact of these debated actions. However it would be wrong to insert the section there just to imply that abortion falls under death. --Su30 14:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest to everyone here, having seen this on RfC, that you won't answer this question until the abortion question is answered. It relies on wether or not the unborn child is considered alive or not. (If they're alive, they have to die to stop being alive. If they were never alive, they couldn't have died.) I'd suggest avoiding the issue alltogether. There's already enough coverage of the social debate on wikipedia, it doesn't need to spread to this article. However, I would have to say that if it were birth/death ratios, you wouldn't include the prenatal statistics. Again, all that's going to be accomplished by this discussion is to continue the Abortion debate. I suggest directing the reader there, they can settle it in their minds until the social debate is settled. Kevin_b_er 15:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: "the undisputed fact that death cannot occur before birth." I dispute it.  Somewhere between one-third and two-thirds of Americans dispute it (I don't know about worldwide); see pro-life, pro-choice, or abortion debate.  Most importantly, it is false.  Read almost any dictionary's definition of "life."  Furthermore, the Birth article at no point makes any claims about the nature of death death.  Furthermore, even if it did, citing an uncited Wikipedia article is not evidence.  --BCSWowbagger 01:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks, you mean to say this approx 1/3 to 2/3 is Pro-life. Well, Pro-life(i dont mean the Church) primarily is opposed to intented destruction of embryo but it does not attempt to(or need to) challenge the meanings already attributed to words like death. They equates the destruction of an embryo to taking away a born life and personally I see a point and yeah that is a big debate. Like Kevin_b_er above, I too feel the debate need not be taken to this article and instead the article can limit to mentioning the existance of the debate and linking to it. Also with respect to figures, since the WHO report table does not provide figures for Homicide, may be the figures for Clinical Abortion also need not be provided; but those for Miscarriage(if can be sourced correctly) can be. --Su30 08:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "it does not attempt to(or need to) challenge the meanings already attributed to words like death." No.  But you are.  Death is the cessation of life.  Pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception.  Pro-lifers believe abortion causes death.  It is a debate; that's why the stats in this article are kept separate from the main stats.  This content is fully appropriate to the article, partly because disinclusion is just going to cause NPOV disputes from now to eternity, whereas we have a decent balance right now.   I will accept consensus decision; however, you really have to get your facts straight, Su.  There is no debate over whether fetal death is a death.  The abortion argument, which more-or-less evenly divides the United States, at least, concerns whether fetal death is human death.  While placing these "prenatal deaths" in a separate section is a justified acknowledgement of the controversy, removing all reference to that debate would be POV, and I further argue that reducing it to only a link to abortion debate (a link with no statistics, no less!) would also be inappropriate.  --BCSWowbagger 20:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My last was not a minor edit. Misclicked.  Apologies. --BCSWowbagger 20:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The ethical debate regarding abortion has no relevence to this article. Miscarriage and abortion are significant factors causing death and should be included. Pendragon39 03:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

From the RFC: The debate regarding abortion as death vs. medical procedure should be mentioned. The statistics should not be included as "Leading causes of human death," as that is a POV. JBKramer 18:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The debate should not be mentioned, only linked to. It is not POV to include causes of human death in Death. rossnixon 00:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This will be my last comment here - however, it is patently obvious that rossnixon is evangelizing his POV on this article, not attempting to inform. JBKramer 15:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How these statistics affect the abortion debate is not the concern of this article. Factual information related to causes of death should not be censored! Pendragon39 00:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the debate about whether a human fetus undergoes death is based on false premesis. First, I contend that the single prerequisite for death the death of any being is life. It is obvious that functions of life (cell division, metabolism) occur in human fetuses. I do not think that anyone seriously believes that life does not begin before birth. I also contend that life does not begin at conception. Rather, life continues from parent (in the case of sexually reproductive life forms, parents) to child and has no beginning, so to speak. The real issue as far as the abortion ethic debate is concerned is when does the recipient of life become a distinct 'person', entitled to human rights. I contend that this debate is irrelevant to the subject of death - that one does not need to be a person to be dead. (Note also that death is increasingly becoming separated from the cessation of personhood, cf T. Schiavo.)

Consider a zygote, the earliest manifestation of human life post-conception. The zygote typically develops into a blastula, which attaches to the uterus, and then develops into an embryo and then fetus. At any of these stages, these cells may be expelled from the mother, which qualifies as an abortion under Wikipedia's presently accepted definition. In comman parlance, these cells would be considered dead, meaning having died, or having undergone the process of death. It does not matter that they have not achieved legal personhood. In fact, cells presently serving a purpose in your body, (see epithelium, a vital componenent of a major human organ), are referred to in this encylopedia as being dead, impyling that they were once living.

So much of this article is devoted to define death as an infintesimal instant in the course of existence. I contend that this is largly inconsistent with the broader usage of the English language. For most of us, death, be it human or not, is a process, the process of the end of life (or transition from animation to inanimation), end of life being in itself a POV. In fact, most religious tradtions define death as a transition and not as a terminus. I believe all of this should be expanded upon in this article, and perhaps the present majority of this article moved to death (legal state) or something like that. There appears to be little scientific consensus on what death really is yet, and the humanities bring much light to shed on the topic. --Mm35173 05:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph of this article describes this page as "Death, discussed in a strictly scientific way". The debate on abortion and "prenatal death" is by default cultural, hardly scientific, and is not relevant to the topic. The people who are pushing to display abortion statistic are obviously politicizing the abortion debate with their own POV, some of them even state this bias in their own BIO. Why should this info be kept here?68.162.247.49 05:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for barging in on this discussion, but upon reading all of this, it seems as if there's one issue that's causing conflict here. Death can have multiple definitions, biological and social being two of them. From a biological point of view, you could say that life is self-perpetuating. At no point in human development is there ever a stage where a group of cells would not be considered alive. Therefore, by a biological definition, abortion, or miscarriage, or the cessation of metabolic activity by a sperm/egg would be considered death. Obviously though, this definition does not work in this context.

The problem, I think, is that when defining abortion as death, we don't mean death in the biological sense, we mean death in some other sense (social/legal?). In this context, death is not the cessation of metabolic activity of a group of cells, but rather, the end of the individual. This then becomes a purely philosophical question, as to when a group of cells truly becomes an individual. Is it before birth, at some point when a fetus has the potential to become an individual, or would it even be after birth at some point in time, as cruel as that may sound?

However, defining the birth of an individual as starting at some explicit developmental stage seems foolish, as the concept of an individual itself is not something as explicit and tangible as say, whether or not you have a notochord.

p.s. sorry if I didn't do something right, this is my first real contribution to Wiki. Corvus.ag

procedures and results
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) beadtot


 * 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)

Consciousness after death
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  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  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  .
 * 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)

Whenever a living organism dies, its physiological 'shade' or image is perpetuated in animal memory --  perhaps with intent to replicate. The same is surely true if a human fetus dies resulting from an abortion. 04:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC) beadtot

There is no evidence for conciousness after death because nobody who has "come back from the dead" had truly died. Brain death had not set in. Any experiences that occur during flatline events (near death experiences) are not valid data for proof of life after death for that reason. They are merely the result of the chemistry of an oxygen-starved, but still living, brain. The question of life after death is one that cannot be answered by current medical science and can only be debated from a philosophical point of view. While near death experiences may or may not be evidence for a conciousness that can survive the destruction of the physical body, the fact remains that nobody who has been truly dead has ever been in a position to talk about it as death is, by definition, irreversible.

The Odor of death
I am mainly wanting to ask opinions, "Does a human being approaching death from a cancer illness have a death odor before their death"
 * As far as I have experienced and read, cancer does not have a discernable odor other than effects it may have on tissues that may be experienced by the observer. That is, necrosis or some other effect that may be evident to the observer, but not the cancer itself.  Also, people in advanced stages of any disease are less likely to be properly cared for in most ways, including bathing and other forms of santition.  So, any odor from a person suffering a terminal cancer is most likely a form of body funk or tissue necrosis.  Echo5Joker  0122 CST

Quality of the article
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...) → A z a  Toth 01:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

More Vandalism
More vandalism.....AGAIN this time its some sexual nonsense. reverted. seen on November 17, 2006 18:12 EST.  .--User:tingalex

"Life is the permanent end of the death of a biological organism" - something wrong here?

considering how popular
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)

Need Death (legal)
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)

Expand?
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)

Evolution and death
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)


 * There is some great info about this in the evolution of aging and senescence articles. Gccwang 00:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How organisms respond to death
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)


 * 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. &quot;THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED!&quot; 05:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Death in non-human species
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)

Merge
I feel that these two articles are so small that they could for now be better merged, is a section about death in culture gets too big, then they could eventually split. → Aza Toth 02:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think death in culture needs its own article - this is a scientific one and death in culture can cover a huge range of topics specific to humans, just as this one can cover much more material than it currently has. Though they both need a lot of expanding, I don't think merging them is the best option. Compare say merging creationism into evolution - they're too different for the subject matter to mix fluidly into a single article. Richard001 05:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, they should be merged. This article is not merely a scientific one, just as the evolution article is not; it covers all aspects of evolution including its cultural impact. Recury 19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, they should be merged. Death and the perception of death are too intertwined to be separated. Coemg e nus 21:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Recury 16:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the merge taking those arguments into account, though I think the death in culture section may begin to dwarf the scientific material - perhaps in future the article could be split off again with a smaller death in culture section here. Issues like abortion and such deserve to be dealt with in greater detail, but there are so many aspects of death in culture it will certainly make a long article by itself when complete. Anyway, that's not terribly important for now as the main concern is bulking up on the many areas missing and improving the quality of the article.

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)
 * 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)

Superstitions
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)

Areas to expand

 * 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)

The top should probably be expanded somewhat too. Insane99 00:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"is generally percieved to be a permanent state"
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)
 * Agreed, I've removed that sentence. Recury 19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

This page used to be longer
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)


 * 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).


 * 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)

Navigation template/See also
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)


 * 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)


 * 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: In template:
 * Life
 * Afterlife
 * Clinical death
 * List of causes of death by rate
 * Funeral
 * Cremation
 * 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) What's with the hawk?
 * 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)


 * Over my dead body! Kidding, adding them to the other articles makes perfect sense. Delta Tango • Talk 09:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hawk picture
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Yeah i've been trying to find the copy right but the site was deleted. :/ Any help would be great trying to get this copyright! Anyways, I find predation and Death to be completely different subjects. Although I will admit they tie together well, and please by all means add something about natural selection. Achnent 1:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The Hawk picture is a fetured picture, and describes death in a natural way. → Aza Toth 12:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

External links tidy up
Since we've got the external links marked in the article it seems appropriate to have a section for discussing problems with it. I've removed quite a few of the links myself, though it still requires further cleanup.

One issue I'm concerned about it how should we treat religious links. I've removed one recently, though there are still several more there. I'm not sure if we should even have any on this page (perhaps leaving it to somewhere like afterlife to handle such links), though some may argue that would violate NPOV. Given that the afterlife is only a small part of the treatment of human death, it certainly shouldn't be given much space in the article, including external links. Perhaps a single page discussing how different religions treat death would be an appropriate compromise. Richard001 02:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

For reference - external links

 * Freeview Video 'Defying Death' by the Vega Science Trust and the BBC/OU (RealMedia)
 * Odds of dying from various injuries or accidents Source: National Safety Council, United States, 2001
 * Causes of Death 1916 See how the medical profession categorized causes of death a century ago.
 * George Wald: The Origin of Death A biologist explains life and death in different kinds of organisms in relation to evolution.

Religious

 * Why is there death and suffering? From a creationist point of view.
 * Dying, Yamaraja and Yamadutas + terminal restlessness (Vedic/Hindu view)
 * Death & Dying in Islam Muslim attitudes towards death.
 * The Jewish Way in Death and Mourning By Maurice Lamm

Removed

 * A mythological view of the Morrigan, the Celtic goddess of death
 * A minor religious view - we could have thousands of links like this.


 * The Rosicrucian Method of Caring for the Dead An esoteric point of view.
 * Not sure if this one is religious or psuedoscience. Either way it's not notable enough for any mention.


 * Grief and Bereavement Resources
 * Commercial site (spam)


 * International Scientific Research into 'the Survival after physical death', overview of research fields, academic documents and publications, science labs and organizations, etc, etc.
 * Though this link claims to be scientific it seems to be mainly religious, with some highly questionable claims and very fringe 'science' - removed.

Organization of article
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)

GA Fail

 * Expand the lead to two paragraphs
 * "Predation is a common cause of death for many organisms." this is a paragraph?
 * Lots of Fact 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. 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)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * Per 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 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 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.[?]

Do people really die from old age??
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. --&quot;THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED!&quot; 05:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * '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)

Non-neutral statement
I object to the following statement in the article:

"Eventually it is likely that the criterion for death will be the permanent and irreversible loss of cognitive function, as evidenced by the death of the cerebral cortex."

This is neither an objective fact nor sourced in any way. It may well be a correct opinion, but it is still an opinion. It is followed by several additional sentences that, while not so obviously objectionable, still seem to be advocating a less conservative outlook on the biological or legal definition of death.

12.210.206.127 06:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Should it be removed, or just changed from 'likely' to 'possible'? I think that whole section might have to be chopped down a bit as other areas are added. Richard001 01:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed it from 'likely' to 'possible'. While I believe that to be the most probable definition of the end of a useful human being, there is too much debate to say that it is likely.  Anything is 'possible', but saying that anything is currently 'likely' indicates a degree of faith, either in science or in something else, that is unwarranted.  Echo5Joker 0134 CST

"speculative"?
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)
 * You should put down that bible and pick up a dictionary. Ewlyahoocom 09:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)