Talk:Richard Honeck

Dead?
Is there any indication that Richard Honeck is now dead? If not, is it correct to state "(1877-after 1963)" after his name at the beginning of the article, since this seems to imply that he did die, albeit at an unknown time after 1963?

True, it would be surprising for him to be still alive, at 130 years of age, but that's a conclusion reached through OR. If his being dead is not documentable, shouldn't he be seen as still alive; and the article come under the restrictions for biographies of living persons?

David Olivier 08:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Were he still alive at 130,that fact would be considerably more notable than the prison sentence he served, given the maximum recorded human lifespan of 122, and one would think we'd have heard about it. To suggest he's dead is surely no more ridiculous than to suggest Ambrose Bierce is now deceased. Furthermore, to suggest he died "After 1963" does not, grammatically, rule out a date of death later than 2007. But if you feel really strongly on the subject, you could replace the "After 1963" with "?". Mikedash 09:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No one said it was ridiculous to suggest that he is now dead. I myself believe he probably is, for precisely the reasons you give. However, there is no documented certainty here.


 * You say that suggesting he died "After 1963" does not "grammatically" rule out a date of death later than 2007. But it does, quite grammatically, since the past tense implies that an event has already happened; and since we are in 2007, if his death remains to occur, it cannot be said that he died after 1963 (unless time is circular; perhaps that is what you are implying?). Furthermore, is there proof that every human being will die some day? As long as he is not dead, documentedwise, it is OR at best to state that he is dead, or that he will die sooner or later.


 * True, if he was still alive, that would be very notable. But do we have documented evidence that he is not very notable?


 * No, I don't feel strongly on the issue. I never heard of the guy before this morning. I'm just poking fun at Wikipedia, lightly, and out of a strong dislike for Wikipedia's absurd reliance on "verifiability" (a misnomer if anything is) vs. truth.


 * David Olivier 13:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm with you on that last point, at least. Mikedash 14:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, Wikipedia would not want to meet me in a dark alley. However, I do have reference for Ambrose Bierce being stuck in a time loop ;-)  Nice work Mike, keep 'em coming. Cygnis insignis 18:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If anybody wants to follow up on it, there is at least a reasonable possibility that this is him in SSDI: Gene Nygaard 04:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * RICHARD HONECK 05 Jan 1879  Jan 1977 97479 (Sutherlin, Douglas, OR) (none specified) 552-72-0929 California


 * Thanks. Can't do it from here in the UK, but even though the DOB looks wrong, the newspapers of 1899 could well have fouled up that bit of information, so it sounds a good possibility. The death certificate should give a place of birth. If you're right, that's one long-lived prisoner.Mikedash 08:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)