Talk:Edward L. Doheny

"Died of old age"?
Good grief... there is no such cause of death - plus the man was not even eighty years old! I changed it to "died of unspecified causes". If anyone knows of a specified cause, by all means do correct it. But "old age" is NOT a disease and is certainly not a CAUSE of death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.66.190 (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * People do die of old age, and living to even 40 years was an accomplishment if you go back before modern medicine. For the time period, living to 79 was a real accomplishment, it wasn't that long ago that the average life expectancy for a male was 72 years. Saying "unspecified causes" indicates more than one cause, and that it may be secretive. I think died of old age is respectful and accurate enough. Mukanil (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually the time of his death was about the time they stopped using "old age" on death certificates. --76.115.67.114 (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I noticed that Mukanil (talk) has not been around since 2011. The original poster is correct. Saying that somebody dies of "old age" is a great inaccuracy. One's age does not cause death. Difficulties that may appear as the body ages cause death, but one's chronological age does not cause death. Taram (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "and living to even 40 years was an accomplishment if you go back before modern medicine" -- what does "modern medicine" mean? Living to 40 wasn't even a big feat in Medieval times. Don't confuse the average lifespan with how long people actually lived after reaching a certain age. Before 'modern medicine' it was common for babies to die in childbirth or infancy, which skewed the average.


 * Agree with the OP - "old age" isn't a cause of death, although the immune system does weaken with age. By itself it's not a cause of death. ELD wasn't 80 when he died; others live much longer.Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Wilmington Oil Field
The Los Angeles City Oil Field is located directly northwest of downtown Los Angeles and is about 15 miles north of the much larger and more important Wilmington Oil Field, located in the Los Angeles-Long Beach harbor area. There is no geographic or geologic connection between the two, other than they are both in the Los Angeles Basin. - WMThomas (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Philanthropy
Um, how does building a mansion as a wedding gift for your son or transporting a friend's brother in your yacht for medical treatment qualify as philanthropy?? It is generally agreed-upon that philanthropy is monetary, and benefits the needy or the general public (not friends and relatives!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.182.91 (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't. I moved the Greystone out of "Philanthropy" and into "Family". The yacht story, in my opinion, could be deleted.  At the least should be moved.  > Best O Fortuna (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's ridiculous this section even exists. Thank the Randites.

Greystone Mansion?
Should the Greystone Mansion be mentioned in the article? It was one of Doheny's homes. --76.115.67.114 (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is already in there. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(How do I start a new topic?). The US Geological Survey was established in 1879. Doheny must have been with one of the predecessor Surveys. Dan Milton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.211.134 (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Dan, Here are the steps you take:
 * 1) Join Wikipedia and get a User name in order to sound like a credible editor on the subject. When just your location IP appears (and the one you used shows you are in Japan), anything you write looks suspiscious.
 * 2)Study the subject and find resources by other authors who specifically indicate something (i.e., in your case that would be that Edward Doheny was either definitely or definitely not in the survey you mention).
 * 3) Take the Wikipedia Adventure at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure to learn to start using Wikipedia without your edit being removed immediately for a reason such as the entry appearing to be an unsourced opinion. I hope this helps you get started as a Wikipedia editor!
 * Taram (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Edward L. Doheny. 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/20100428140459/http://www.lamountains.com:80/parks.asp?parkid=14 to http://www.lamountains.com/parks.asp?parkid=14

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Edward L. Doheny. 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/20100419030813/http://www.dohenyfoundation.org/about/about.htm to http://www.dohenyfoundation.org/about/about.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051129044021/http://www.usc.edu/isd/archives/la/historic/edward_doheny.html to http://www.usc.edu/isd/archives/la/historic/edward_doheny.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lamountains.com/parks.asp?parkid=14

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) 00:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edward L. Doheny. 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/20070203003216/http://www.usc.edu/libraries/locations/doheny/ to http://www.usc.edu/libraries/locations/doheny/

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) 08:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edward L. Doheny. 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/20150215205111/http://www.doheny.org/about-doheny.html to http://www.doheny.org/about-doheny.html

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) 02:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Legal outcome is unusual enough that it needs additional clarification and specifics
At the date and time I'm typing this, this article states that its subject was acquitted twice on Teapot Dome bribery-charges. STRICTLY speaking, that's impossible. An acquitted person can't be retried, and that's in the Constitution of the U.S.A., Fifth Amendment. But sometimes a person acquitted in State court can be tried in Federal court for precisely the same ACTION. But it's never precisely the same CRIME. For instance, those acquitted by State court of murdering for a racist motive might face hate-crime charges in Federal court. More recently there have been some moves to overturn an acquittal if the jury was bribed, the rationale being that if the Prosecution had NO possibility of securing a conviction (because the jury was bribed) then there never really was any jeopardy. There was, in effect, never a "trial" at all, if its outcome was fixed. A "trial", this theory asserts, is when an UNBIASED jury (not a bribed one) decides the facts. But the strategies by which end-runs around the Double Jeopardy clause are executed are complicated enough that when an article asserts that someone was paradoxically acquitted twice for the same crime, the article should explain just exactly what happened rather than leave readers like me scratching their heads and wondering how in the face of the Double Jeopardy clause someone got acquitted for the same offense twice.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson