Talk:Death/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

1 in 3 pregnancies end in miscarriage

"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)

National bias

This section

In western law, a person can be pronounced dead in three different ways. By far the most common is pronouncement by a medical doctor. The second most common is pronouncement by a coroner or a state medical examiner. The third way a person can be pronounced legally 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.

seems very US-centric. "State medical examiner" is an American title, and "the courts will pronounce them dead" etc, which certainly true in the US, is expressed as universal truth.

New technology

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)

A note: ashes almost by definition contain no or very little carbon. One would have to use a special reducing crematorium, and either collect some of the pyrolysis products during cremation or try to avoid the more mineralized portions of a charred corpse...probably the former for CVD processes, and the latter for more traditional "bomb" processes. So many old folks have titanium implants of one sort or another, I think it would be easier just to make jewelry from those, if you're so inclined...Polyparadigm 23:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was bored.... Cool page though. :)

:-(

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)

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)

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)

You are here because you are and, when you are dead you are still here, you are just dead. Dead means you don't think about stuff, you can't move, and your body ceases to grow anything. Beleiving that there is something else and, that that something lives on is just silly and typical of a selfish lonely species like humans. This, right now, is it , SO GO DO SOMETHING.

Epikur said once: Death is none of our buisness, because death is a absolute lack of consciousness, but as we all know, e need our senses see if something is bad or good. So the Death can't be bad nor good. Also isn't our death important for us, because the whole time we exist, our death doesn't and the moment we die, we don't live anymore. So as long as we live we don't die, and as showed, the death isn't bad and cant be feared as bad. would we live eternal, Life would be less worth. it's just a opinion of a greek mate, but in my opinion it's a good one, if you dont wanna get mad, sometimes one have to forget about the "conditio humana" or he will end in absurdity, seeing that human desires (the seek for a sense) and his life (the non-existense of a meaning) create absolute confusion. i'll stop at this point, good evening Asesino Asesino 21:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

So really, why do we have to die? I don’t understand the concept of death. The thinking mind is always alive, so is death when you quit thinking? I am not sure why we have to die and why it is inevitable, but that is the way it is and there isn’t anything we can do about it. Or is there?

I plan to find out. What can be done to live forever? What is the possibility of circumventing death? I know it is impossible, so I have a theory. Go love. The healer of all things is love. Really, can you think of a time when laughter made you sick? Can you think of a time when you were with that special someone, and actually in love unlike ¾ of marriages in this country, that you didn’t feel just amazing? The point I’m getting at is love can be a replacement for anything you lack, whether it be a house, money, or another loved one. It can also be a replacement for god, or your religion. The whole concept of religion, as I understand it, is strife to please a god or gods so they will allow you passage into an afterlife filled with joy. And really isn’t joy a form of love?

So take this and hold it, remember it and think about its meaning when you are down or depressed about death. Thank you. bryce 5-2-06 11:14am (PST)

For all of you wondering about the reasons for death, there is a big, hot discussion in evolutionary genetics about all that, they just haven't been telling you about it. For starters try "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, but from what I remember, the book does require basic knowledge of the evolutionary theory. Honestly, I feel like I've gotten reasonable, non-confusing (overall scientific) answers regarding life, it's cessation and continuance from evolutionary theories and studies, and those answers have been far more satisfying than other 'alternatives'. I highly recommend any interested persons to dig it up a bit themselves at the nearest college library. More interesting topics related to life, etc, are aging (look into telomeres) and cancers (cancers are immortal as long as nutrition is provided, and they are, more or less, highly mutated versions of your normal cells). If you are interested in the social/ human aspect of death, there are topics about suicide in both psychological and sociological details, and, though I havent' looked into it, though there must be stuff about it, discussions on human reactions to the death of humans and other animals. Happy researching--hope you keep yourself busy. :) --Rotary 06:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Cause of Death

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)

Saying that "brain activity is a necessary condition to legal personhood, and, perhaps with the exception of the fetus, it is a sufficient condition for legal personhood" is incredibly biased! Also listing abortions as a cause of death assumes that everyone agrees that a fetus is a person. I would like to see the author's personal politics seperated from this article. The study of death is like any other science and must be objective. JinarMarie 11:17, 27 July 2005

Reexistance

I was thinking of creating an article with this name, but I think it may constitute original research, what do you guys think... here is a draft:

When you die, following the philosophy of materialism, all perception ceases. As time can no longer be perceived the universe can collapse or spawn new universes. Trillions or more years can pass and at some point a universe similar or even identical to the one you died in reemerges; "you" (a genetic twin) is born to live a life of free will and this pattern continues for eternity.

This hypothesis relies on a specific assumption:

The universe is cyclical in some fashion, meaning the universe will be created, exist and collapse to be recreated or give rise to new universes. As a result there is no meaningful beginning or end to time, although its possible that time from our perspective could be dependant on this instance of a universe.

"You" has no connection to this instance of you. This is not reincarnation; merely another instance of your existence. From the perspective of the person dying there may be some near-death experiences as the brain shuts down, then nothingness, which transitions to the blackness of the mother's womb.

- Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion this is a speculation that does not belong into Wikipedia. It could be included however, in the context of an article about some religious group or similar, if that is their belief. Sorry. --Eleassar777 12:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No problemo, I appreciate your honesty, I may put the question to the village pump at some point. But I would say in its defense it is an attempt at a scientific hypothesis of death, rather than a belief, even though I acknowledge it probably cannot be tested. However more to the point... even though I did originate this idea and title, I think its safe to assume there are many people out there who have also thought up something similar to this. So despite not being a religion I'd say our opinions/beliefs on death are as valid and as the next man. As notable, well... its not my fault atheists don't make a habit of collecting money to build monuments and spread their beliefs. ;"P What could be notable is an article on "Atheist's beliefs of death", where Reexistance would be one option? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you should put your question to the Village pump, to prove this is not just trolling. I am not going to discuss this anymore. Read also wikipedia:Importance, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. No offense. --Eleassar777 17:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I surmised as much... hence the posting to the talk section instead of just creating the article. Will do. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Eleassar777 could use a chill pill. I'd be hesitant to call this original research without a good bit of research into science fiction. Attempt a posting on the science fiction newsgroup asking for similarities? --Alterego 17:47, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Good suggestion, I put it on alt.atheism to cover all the bases and will await possible references. Thanks! - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here is some responses I got so far from alt.atheism:

The idea of a cyclic universe is actually becoming quite mainstream - here is just one example from a google

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/steinhardt.html

If it is the case that the universe is constantly reborn in an infinite cycle then a consequence of this is that all possibilities become inevitable - including the possibility that a future universe will follow an identical course to the one we are in now. In this scenario an identical version of you and me will re-occur an infinite number of times - but before you rejoice in this atheistic concept of life after death there are other consequnces - all possible histories will happen an infinite number of times including a life were you win the lottery, but also including a life were you die in agony of some horrific disease at an early age

- torch

Nietschze suggested something like this. He concluded that if the universe is somehow eternal (e.g. repeating random but finite combinations of events), then we must repeat our lives eternally.

- Kermit

- Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Found it, its called Eternal return. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:35, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it might be appropriate to add a short subsection in the "definition" section linking to Terri Schiavo and mentioning the relationship between these definitions and the abortion debate. Or it might not be appropriate...any thoughts?--Polyparadigm 23:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i always thought this was a possibility also

If one cannot exist 2 places at once then one cannot share ones conciousness with another human being. But what happens when ones conciousness ceases to exist,then couldnt one easily spawn conciousness again in another body. But then we would have to understand more about the seperation of conciousness through quantum mechanics to be able to answer this. wtf is whoever wrote that babblin about.

abortion

Under cause of death in the United States, it lists 1,293,000 abortions. Are these actually counted as fatalities by the United States government? Also, what about when a few eggs are matched up with sperm and then only the healthiest one is placed into a woman's uterus, does this count as an abortion? Humorusly, why can't ejaculation be counted into this?

We need a note on this fact, and a debate on whether or not the death of a fetus counts as human. By the way, I'm not trying to offend anyone, but this is an encyclopedia and we need to discuss thought freely. Citizen Premier 10:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

These definitions may involve concepts of different levels of life such as fertilisation, embryonic development, infant, etc, but I don't see any logical reason why a fetus is not a human. Whether any human is a sophisticated form of sentient being is a somewhat different matter. Shawnc 08:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully I have solved this problem. I took out the note, and changed the heading to "human and non-human" deaths (as opposed to the "top 10" being just human). Then I added animal deaths. Now people in favour of abortion rights can say: yes, human (murders, death penalty) and non-human (abortion, roadkill, hunting, lab experiments) and people against abortion can say: yes, human (murders, death penalty, abortion) and non-human (roadkill, hunting, lab experiments). So everyone will be happy (I hope). I also included miscarriages (medically, spontaneous abortion), because we're talking about death, not making a moral judgement about it, so all should be included.

The animal deaths are not meant to be making a moral or political judgement, either. They are included because they are indeed deaths. If we can add a larger number of causes of deaths, hopefully it will become less politically charged, since it will become clearer we're talking about many facets of death rather than making a moral judgement.

It would be good if someone had world statistics; they would look a lot different than U.S. stats.24.64.223.203 00:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any point in adding US death at all. That information is relevant under US demographics section but not under Death. The section listing abortion figures is completely POV and I have deleted it. Logically speaking if fetus is a human, then abortion is currently legalized murder and the America is a country which allows for murder. That is a political message and has nothing to do with the subject matter. 68.163.103.9 23:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Citizen Premier is there any reason to keep US abortion rates under the definition of "death" at all? As you have stated this is an encyclopedia and info appearing on this page should be considered relevant "facts". It has not been established as a fact that fetuses are humans, and even if that fact were established these figures are still irrelevant to the subject of death which applies to every animal on this planet. The place for this information is under the term "abortion". Why would you revert the page so to prolong the political controversy on this entry?68.163.103.9 04:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with CP's reversion. Everyone knows that fetuses are human, therefore these are examples of human death. Leave the facts in, but leave the political discussion for another article. RossNixon 10:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the main purpose of the "Cause of death" section is to give people an idea of how people die. If we could replace these statistics with global instead of U.S. that would be nice, but if we can't find any reliable source then U.S. should stay. Also, and if you define fetuses as "people"--it's important that the article not state if they are or aren't, that's a matter of values--then intentional abortion would be of interest to you. Incidentally, does anyone have a statistic for non-intentional abortions, i.e. miscarriages? Citizen Premier 03:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Until someone finds the statistics for unintentional abortions, it seems biased to have just that figure for intentional abortions included. How would people here feel about taking the abortion figure out until then? --Allen 05:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Leave it in. And if anyone finds a good source for a good estimate of miscarriages, then it would seem to belong here also. RossNixon 11:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I know the first person to leave a note in this section sort of asked this, but I'm still not clear on it: does this number include prevented implantations? Or death of extra zygotes created during in vitro fertilization? The note on the article itself may be intended to make this clear, but to me it doesn't. --Allen 17:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Rossnixon seems to keep readding the "National Right To Life" link as a source even as other users remove it. The source (even if you just go by the name of the link) seems very biased. If someone added "National Right to Choice" or "National Right to Family Planning" links as sources for abortion statistics, I would question those sources also. Does anybody have a better link with more accurate numbers? ~a

I changed it once to: MMWR Abortion Surveillence Summary 2002 but Rossnixon reverted. I do belive the CDC source is even cited by the anti-abortion sites as their source. Unfortunately, the metodology of the CDC report is such that it requires careful reading to see that they are claiming about 1.2 million per year, as the most obvious number in the report is 850,000 per year. Osmodiar 00:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

i think abortion in this article is the attempts by some to "shock" and make a political statement concerning the number of abortions....this is ridiculous, whoever put it there cannot even begin to argue that it wasnt for shock value. give us all a break here. abortion has no place in this article, go try and convert others to your belief that you can decide what they do with their body, elsewhere. -Mac

I suppose based on the definitions of "Death" presented by this article it's very fair to argue that abortion is a form of "death." The reason I think it should be changed, is that, despite your personal views, the court system in the United States has set the clear precedence that they are not humans. Also, considering your source for the statistic is clearly a biased, politically minded group, I think it's completely ridiculous to leave it in there. Especially considering abortion is nowhere to be found on the Health & Human Services webpage. No neutral report would list abortion as the leading cause of death in the United States. - User:Anonymous 06:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It's simple. This is about human deaths. To exclude abortion would be to genuflect to political correctness or censorship. This is a simple NPOV list. It does not make any moral or political statements. ^ross ^nixon 10:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

no it would not reflect political correctness or censorship, it goes without saying that the intention of this section of the article is to give the reader the leading cause of death of GROWN HUMANS. zero questions about that, w/e ur religious beliefs about when a fetus is human and i do want to make cleari respect your beliefs , but in this case, it is a violation of NPOV becuase abortion is recognized as a controversil issue, and its input here is controversial and not needed, and not recognized by a majoirty of people, therefore, it is to be removed, and do not readd it. respectfully, -Mac wanted to add, putting abortion in here would be to classify it as murder, which is not a fact agreed upon by everyone, thus it has no place here-Mac

What is a "grown human"? People keep growing till they are about 18 years old. Also, encyclopedias do not omit things just because they are controversial, nor do they need to be recognized by a majority. WP policy encourages minority viewpoints to be included. If you have neen around WP for a while you will discover this. Putting statistics back. ^ross ^nixon 09:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Puting it in the list only means it's a cause of death, not murder. The title is "causes of death." Sheesh, what's the big deal anyways, there's even a disclaimer on it, saying that it's not necessarily the same sort of death as the others. DARE to let information be available! Citizen Premier 23:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

i will not pursue this any longer as you insist on putting your personal beliefs and trying to establish it as fact. it is not right that abortion is in here, even with the "disclaimer", and very little will hide to reasonable ppl that it is politically dirven. oh well.

A lot of people don't consider embryos human, since they show no brain function. This is where the debate is, because if you destroy something w/o a working brain, it isn't considered living in the first place.--ikiroid | (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW A embryo becomes a fetus when its brain begins to function.--ikiroid | (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ikiroid, I did not know that, and it is interesting--perhaps a different term needs to be used besides fetus. But your statement about brain function makes no sense--plants, fungi, and bacteria all live without brains, and yet obviously they still die. Citizen Premier 01:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't clarify, I meant that the whole idea of it having a soul that dies is debated, since there is no functioning brain. If it doesn't have a brain, how do you know it has a soul, one on the same level of humans, not just plants or fungi? Just playing devil's advocate...--ikiroid | (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not really the issue here; a lot of people don't believe in souls, and many people believe all forms of life have souls. Such a metaphysical debate shouldn't hold much ground on wikipedia. Citizen Premier 06:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is POV to say that abortion is death. Jonathan235 22:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Add a warning?

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)

There you go— Warning added! :) DaemonDivinus 23:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Second Law of Thermodymanics

"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)

What does the Second Law of Thermodynamics have to do with death? It seems widely off-topic.

US-centricism

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)

I just added a systemic bias tag 213.140.21.231 08:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Related to these issues, why do we have the US death stats at all? If we should have any really it should be world-wide estimates. JoshuaZ 01:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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? ^ross ^nixon

Big_killer seems to have the information you're looking for. --Jonathonjones 11:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That article seems to be a duplicate of part of this article. Perhaps they should be merged. ^ross ^nixon 22:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding a chapter to this article

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)

The book is too complicated and to much a POV, so i will not write the article. To give some highlights:

Western culture has a tradition of death obsession.

Socrates desired death, because: the truth is contaminated by the imperfection of the body. 'A true philosopher desires death.' This was the beginning of a long tradition. Christianity sees the material world as contaminated, because of the change which leads to death.

Gregory: 'The very sweetness of their life is the formenting of their grief. For as long as men, these mortal and perishable creatures, exist and look upon the tombs of those from whom they came into being, they have grief inseparably joined to their lives even if they take little notice of it.'

Shakespeare: 'Desire is death.'

Richard Wagner: 'The genuine longing for death, for absolute unconsciousness, total non-existence. Freedom from all dreams is our final salvation.'

Analysis of Dollimore (if i summarize it correctly): He sees a conection between desire and death. Eliot: 'Desire itself is movement, not in itself desirable.' The very nature of desire is what prevents its fulfilment, what makes it impossible. This contradiction becomes profoundly important in the formation of identity and gender in western culture.

Dollimore argues that Marx and social-darwinists wanted to control change. Marx wanted a better future and social-darwinists wanted to prevend the destruction of civilization. They deny death according to Dollimore. They are talking about future and past without mentioning death. Their ideas led to a so called social death during the regimes of Stalin and Hitler. Is this analysis too subjective?

It isn't very clear. I should work on this text to make it clear. I am afraid that others will delete it after i worked on it for a long time.--Daanschr 09:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

organisation of article

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)

suicide?

No mention of suicide? 129.62.32.48 22:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC) There's a statistic of suicides in America, and a link to the main article. Citizen Premier 06:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Medical and Biological Death

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)

Never mind, it's mentioned later in the article.--ikiroid | (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Animal Behaviour

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)

Elephants do. BenFrankIin 05:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The 5 stages of dying?

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)

I cut the whole section from the article because it was not cited and was incorrect. The section refered to the Kübler-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)

Beauty of Death

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)

A third opinion: Death IS natural. I believe that death should be treated as such; as an inevitability. I don't believe that death we were created to live forever. If you look around, you see death in almost every aspect of this universe. Stars die, planets die, all sort of flora and fauna die, and, quite possibly most of all, scientists believe the universe will implode in many billions of years.

Opinions irrelavent: Whether or not death is beautiful has nothing to do with whether it is "natural." Further, there is no need for nature to be seen as good or morally justified or corrupt and evil: pain is natural and so is maternal love. Arguing from opposing positions default of the false dichotomy or illusory duality "natural vs. unnatural" is inane. Apart from beliefs of faith or our personal feelings what evidence do we have that there is actually a binary composition to the universe, that all is reducible to "natural" and "unnatural" components? It is a simpleton way to argue the justification of one's view of what's good and right based on it being "natural" when anything we can see here and now has its ultimate aetiology in "nature."

Abortion as a cause of death

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)

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. ^ross ^nixon 09:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

It's here![1] (miscarriage statistics). Citizen Premier 06:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a bad solution. JoshuaZ 02:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's continue along this line of reasoning. Let's include births prevented by contraception. Then let's include deaths caused by their parents never engaging in coitus at all.

Better yet, let's stick to the realm of fact rather that belief. Whether or not a fetus is a person is a belief, because you cannot, no matter how hard you believe it, prove it. It is not a proveable fact.

Facts are not controversial. They are fact. If it seems like fact gives unfair advatage to the pro-choice side, it's because fact is on their side. If it's any consolation, the fact system is on the right(wing) side on the evolution debate. And though I believe in the theory of evolution, I cannot factually prove it.^{The preceding unsigned comment was posted by User:70.22.155.40 (Talk)} BenFrankIin

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)

In general, abortion is not listed for census purposes and pop stat purposes as "death." It is therefore unreasonable to list them as deaths here. Note that I'm what is generally called pro-life and even I think it shouldn't be in. JoshuaZ 02:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

When did I say a fetus and embryo are'nt human? I said it was not a fact that they are. My opinion has nothing to do with it. No one's should.

The only items included in reference materials should be provable. The onus of proof lies with the contributor of said item.

The only thing I'm being dogmatic about is accuracy. BenFrankIin 05:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

While it is may not be a fact that fetuses are fully human, it is a fact that some people consider them human. Their placement on the list explains this in great detail and notes dissenting opinion, i.e. your opinion. Don't you think it's better to discuss the issue rather than just deleting the whole thing? Expand the disclaimer if you feel it isn't satisfactory. I'm not going to say any more because I'm finding this very frustrating. Citizen Premier 09:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

A list of statistics is not an appropriate forum for dissenting opinion analysis. BenFrankIin 10:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Why not just limit statistics to verifiable facts which do not neccessitate qualfiers? BenFrankIin 23:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

You'll note that none of the legitimate inclusions in Causes of Death need qualifiers. You may also note that the qualifiers take up more text space in that section than all of the other items combined. BenFrankIin 03:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

The fact that such lengthy explanation of such dubious (at best) "facts" (which they are'nt) is some indication of how absurd it is to try and include these in this section.

The causes of death don't need qualifiers because they are proper facts. The Artist Formerly Known as BenFranklin 18:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

If it cannot be divided into the fact side of the equation, it does not belong here.

Why should the accuracy of the article be compromised? I think Wikipedia is a wonderful idea, and a valuable resource, but it's credibility is undermined by instances just such as these. No credible statistician in the world, save for those with an admittedly pro-life political agenda, would include abortion statistics or miscarriage statistics in a compilation of causes of death. Don't believe me? Go check it out.

Regardless of your personal views on abortion, you should be ashamed of yourself to allow personal socio-political views sully the potential of Wikipedia. If fact is'nt what you care about, then you should'nt be "contributing" to this particular segment. There are plenty of other venues in which to voice your opinion. And if it is'nt a fact, that's all you have: an opinion. No matter how you try to frame it. The Artist Formerly Known as BenFranklin 23:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Want the stats in? Tell me it is fact that they are human deaths. You know that that is how simple it would be. The problem is that you cannot. Especially without tipping your hand as to your violation of the NPOV mandate. The Artist Formerly Known as BenFranklin 00:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

You did not actually look up fact, did you? The Artist Formerly Known as BenFranklin 01:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Joshua, The emphasis in that quote, which exactly what I was alluding to, is, "...that is capable of being proved or disproved." Abortion is not capable at this point in time of being proved or disproved as a death, otherwise there would be no debate. I do not debate that there is a debate. Facts about the debate to not belong precategorized as fact.

ikiroid, abortions include both embryos and fetuses. There is some debate about whether embryos in particular, and even lowly zygotes comprise a human being. Until this debate is concluded, aborted zygotes, embros, and fetuses, cannot in good conscience be summarily labeled as bona fide factual deaths (see above). The disclamer is not a compromise, it is a thinly veiled exit clause to excuse the politicisation of what should be a NPOV article. The Artist Formerly Known as BenFranklin 03:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

What do you say we get an arbitrator involved? The Artist Formerly Known as BenFranklin 17:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Done. (The majority of 5 zealots in a room does not a public consensus make) The Artist Formerly Known as BenFranklin 18:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait.....you people are taking this edit war to the arbitration commitee?--ikiroid | (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

My first step is to reccomend it be peer reviewed. I am sorry to even bring it to this but JohuaZ continues to threaten me privately with blocking for violation of the 3 Revert Rule.The Artist Formerly Known as BenFranklin 19:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. ^ross ^nixon 01:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Well....."Prebirth Deaths" is pro-life, yet changing it to a header like "Controversial Statstics" implies that we don't have a source, and "Pro-Life Statistics" implies a hostility by pro-choice editors to isolate the pro-life opinion. If anyone has a better idea about the title, feel free to place it in.--The i kiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 17:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

How about "Questionable Deaths?" or simply "Controversy"? JoshuaZ 17:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"Controversy" sounds pretty good.--The i kiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 23:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If no one objects in the next few hours, I'm going to make the edit. JoshuaZ 22:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. ^ross ^nixon 11:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hunter Thomson and wacky funerals

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)

Body cooling

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)

Asia celebrates

Add that in some Asian countries, the anniversary of a public figure's death is celebrated as well as that of his birth...

Also note that those definitions of death are for the US courts and not necessarily universal.

A late answer

I knoaz it's kind of late for an comment(Look up to the "Beuty of Death"), but Death is another nessecary thing for all living things. Death isn't an immortal enemy, it's just another help ,if you wish to call it so. Just comment if you thing differently. Kniaz March 31, 2006 5:11 pm

"prebirth deaths"??

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)

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)

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. ^ross ^nixon 05:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

List of popular personifications of death.

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)

Sure, be bold, dude.--The i kiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说話し parlar) 02:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP

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)

Title for controversial section

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)

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. ^ross ^nixon 09:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Copy Edit

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)

Science (materialism as empirical) vs. Fundamentalism (materialism as ideology)

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' [2], 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)

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)

Current views toward the event 'death'

As this was shaping up into an edit war, I removed the entire section pending sourcing per WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. I take no sides in this dispute, but suggest you have your discussion here, in a civil fashion, achieve a consensus, and find some decent sources before attempting to re-add. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You say 'edit war' and it is your point of view, not mine. If you remove the section because of sourcing it, then all sections of the article would have to suffer the same fate (except one that is sourced). Or do you apply two different measures, according to your own interest? What is presented in the section describes the three perspectives in society from the required neutral point of view of an encyclopedia. --62.169.118.212 21:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You are accusing the wrong editor of an NPOV violation. You might want to retract your statement: BTW, your edit summary left much to be desired, and certainly isn't going to promote any AGF for your arguments, especially given that it was your first Wiki edit (at least on the English wiki). Você compreende? Jim62sch 22:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you might want to check the links above, and the part in my post where I state clearly find sources. Also note that this is not a POV, this is a message from an administrator. Then reconsider before you revert my actions again. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my less polite words at the edit summary which is not a correct attitude. Thank you JoshuaZ for showing it to me. I am well acquainted with the policies. However, editions are to be discussed first, and I never before run away from any discussion, neither from this one. On the other hand, what it appears to be is that you use your level, as "administrator", not to mediate but to request unreasonable "source" upon a text which provides an evident logical classification of the subject in question, as it shows up in the society that you and me, and all of us reading this text, belong to. Is this data less fit to an encyclopedia because a scientist or a scholar perhaps never wrote it before? In that case, a great part of the 1,089,349 articles at Wikipedia would have to be erased as this portion was. However, there was once a great philosopher who wrote it before it was so evident as today in our society... --62.169.118.212 22:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Please see No original research: All content other than the glaringly obvious and undisputed is to be sourced from a verifiable source: Wikipedia is not about truth but about verifiability. The article is tagged for cleanup. You are correct; much of it is unsourced and sources should be found or the content removed, and the cleanup tag will hopefully accelerate this process. This particular section was, according to my observations and experience, starting to become grounds for an edit war. I have performed my administrative responsibility by moving the dispute from the article to the talk page. Discuss, find sources, and gain consensus before re-inserting it into the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I would not object to the permanent removal of this section since 1) there are in fact many different views on this, too many to number and 2) it is arguablly irrelevant to subject of the article. JoshuaZ 21:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I donnot agree: this article is about the subject 'death' and the issue presented here is 'death' as seen by our society. Currently the article presents the 'biology' and 'medicine' perspectives of how death steps occurs; however, to all of them has to be granted a fair representation in the article, as it is clearly defined in the Wikipedia policies. --62.169.118.212 22:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something: the three "current" definitions have been with us for millennia, so the point of mentioning them is unclear. Also, the section on reincarnation is incorrect, thus sourcing is not merely necessary to disprove NOR, but would remove the inaccuracies. Jim62sch 22:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the fact of being with 'us' form millenia does not make it irrelevant, on the contrary, it becomes more evident and needed to be stated as 'we' acquire deeper knowledge regarding it and when, at the same time, in current-day society - to which this encyclopedia "belongs" - life and death based issues are more than ever the main theme, along whith sexuality, upon the front line of the "global village" (in hospitals, courts of law, news, debates, legislative processes, referenda, in our own families, ...). Aren't these, along with the need to express all points of view in a fair and neutral way, reasons enough to present it in the article? --62.169.118.212 22:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - Regarding the issue of rebirth (commonly refered as reincarnation), my purposal is, if you accept it: let's go one step at the time (as it occured also with the article reincarnation and many others) and first solve the main issue related to " Current views toward the event 'death' ": a subject which any of us can understand that is not an easy issue to deal with. --62.169.118.212 23:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct, although one really needs to prove that "current" views are substantially and substantively different from views held for millennia, otherwise I just cannot see a reason for the section. In fact, any differences in views of death, are not the theological/spiritual/religious views per se, but rather the views represented by cases of PVS, or assisted suicide, etc.

But, as KC said, consensus needs to be reached by the different editors working on this article for inclusion of the topic, and it needs to be sourced (as does much of the article itself).

One suggestion, do some work on sourcing for the section, while the article itself is cleaned up and sourced. (If you look up my user page and look at the articles I've listed, you'll see I'm quite keen on sourcing -- in fact, looking at those articles might give you an idea of what KC and I are talking about). Jim62sch 09:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

state of mind

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)

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)

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)

Rename

This article needs to renamed "Death in Humans" for obvious reasons. Jim62sch 09:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. JoshuaZ 12:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

The introduction of this important article ist empty (as of 27 April 2006)

Has some of you readers and writers and observers noticed, that the current "definition" of the term "death" is empty ? You might fill it with whatever stuff you have at hand. Since saying that "Death is the ending of physical life" is an empty statement. We could replace it by "Death is the opposite of life", and it would not make a substantial difference. A definition needs more than to say that "Death := Ending of life". What an interesting definition in a Wikipedia article ! Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (27042006)

I agree with an earlier user, religion (such as Christianity) on Death should be drastically shortened and put only in the "superstitions" section. JayKeaton 14:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I edited it a bit, and now the current introduction to the article reads:

Death is the cessastion of life. This article discusses death in the biological sense of the term, and its place in various cultures.

I added the last clause because the latter half of the article focuses on how Death is viewed in cultures, so it should probably be added. Also, I don't think the phrase "This article discusses..." is very encylopedic. Perhaps "defines" should be used instead of "discusses," in order to make this page sound more like an encyclopedic entry, not an open-floor science discussion. The phrase "This article" implies there are many more articles about the process and perception about death, when in reality the only other article that covers this is Death (personification). All of the other articles with "Death" in the title refer to fictional characters, cultural memes, songs, etc. Any ideas on a better intro? I'd be bold and fix it, but I can't think of any ideas at the moment.--The i kiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 00:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Signs of death

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)

Settlement of dead bodies

Since this section tries to cover what happens to dead bodies after people die, I was thinking of adding a small section on donation to science. There are many bodies that either end up in a vat of formalin, to be examined by anatomy students, or given the development of plastination, end up in some museum exhibit. What do people think?? -- 27th May 2006

Awareness of Death

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)

Death By Medicine

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)

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)

There is no need for referencing

Throughout this Wikipedia article on the topic death I found the following header:

I think that these should be deleted, since no encyclopedia gives a reference in each of its sections. An encyclopedia like the Wikipedia is a reference itself, and the contributors of each section will certainly know that. I hold these headings for a gimmick. References, if they are necessary at all, are normally given at the end of an article. But in the case of this article, I do not see any missing references. So I will soon delete these gimmicks if not someone else is doing it first. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (03072006)

"PreNatal Death" Weasel Section

I've removed the "prenatal death" weasel section as, yet again, somebody has "sourced" statistical pre-birth death data in a section otherwise comprised of official statistics, using statistics from non-official or private organizations. Prior to re-introducing the section, please discuss it and, more importantly, your sources, on the talk page. --208.41.98.142 14:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your deletion. This section has developed with much discussion. ^ross ^nixon 02:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Very well, but it's still weasely. I would suggest that the first and last sentences be combined to cite the sources immediately in place of "some people", for example as:

There are private companies and institutions such as HopeXChange and The Alan Guttmacher Institute which track death statistics involving embryos and fetuses:
...

--208.41.98.142 12:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You suggestion seems fine to me. As long as there is no undue emphasis that these are private companies. As long as they are reputable, that is all that is required for sources. ^ross ^nixon 01:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Update made. I only mention "private" because, AFAIK, no government agency considers fetuses/embryos in "official" statistics for deaths in thier respective jurisdictions. --68.169.60.30 20:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

At minimum this section needs to have a note that many poeple do not count these as death. JoshuaZ 00:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed 'death' from title and wording, and added that it is debateable that these statistics are 'deaths' - with link to abortion debate. Calling the section 'prenatal deaths' and using deaths to describe the statistics is POV - this keeps the section more neutral, and sends people off to the wiki article to deal with the debate --83.67.12.30 01:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is incontrovertible that these are deaths. It is only the 'significance' of these deaths that is open for debate (in another article). I will check and fix the recent edit(s). ^ross ^nixon 01:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No it is not incontrovertible that they are deaths per se. The current version is fine, it doesn't go make any comment about whether they are deaths or not but does mention them. JoshuaZ 01:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going by the definition of death in this article. What definition are you using? ^ross ^nixon 02:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You're forgetting that it's under the 'human deaths' section - and it is NOT incontrovertible that these are human deaths as it is debateable that prenatal beings are human. The change makes this controversy clear, is neutral, and refers readers to the right place for this debate. --62.6.139.11 12:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please supply evidence that they are not human. And what process makes them human some time later? ^ross ^nixon 01:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't need to evidence that they are or are not human. All that matters is that there is controversy over the matter. Anything less is not keeping in WP:NPOV. To be blunt Ross, I'm much closer to what one would call pro-life than pro-choice and I think that keeping it in the current form is simply not neutral by any stretch of the imagination. JoshuaZ 01:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

To me it is scientifically neutral. Please show that a controversy exists regarding whether the embryo/foetus is homo-sapien, or not; and undergoes some type of speciation as it grows. Sure, like any good creationist I believe in limited speciation, so roll on the evidence for it in this case.

You are playing with semantics Ross. The issue is not the species but human in the sense of 1) deserving all rights as a born human(of which there is much controversy) or 2) bothered to be counted as humans for death stats(in which case almost no one counts them). JoshuaZ 03:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue *is* the species. The article is about "human death". What rights various humans deserve is a different issue. ^ross ^nixon 01:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Note 2 "bothered to be counted" and note that almost no one counts them. Indeed, even given this much room to it might arguably be a problem of pov due to undue weight, and yet we are including this as a possible compromise. Calling them deaths is massively POV. JoshuaZ 01:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Prenatal statistics are not regularly included in mortality statistics for humans. Neither the WHO, nor the UN count these staistics as human deaths. You will not easily find them in any mortality index. That the only sources are private institutions indicates that clearly.

Clearly there IS controversy as to including these as human deaths. Indeed, the professional stance is not to include them in general cause of death for humans. Refering to the debate and calling the values displayed statistics is the most neutral postion that can be taken. --62.6.139.11 11:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Just to further my point above. Do doctors write out death certificates for abortions or miscarriages? They are not registered as deaths - they are not considered by any country's law to be human deaths. The WHO database for registered deaths[3] only referes to abortion if the mother has died in the process. Prenatal staistics are not legally considered to be deaths - anywhere. Why should a wiki article contradict that?--62.6.139.11 11:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The exclusion of these stats from various agencies figures is likely to be 'politically motivated'. Also, the figures were low until abortion became popular in the 1970s, so no one thought to include them. Whether abortion is legal or not; whether death certificates are issued or not, does NOT alter the fact that these are "human deaths". ^ross ^nixon 01:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ross, please don't be absured. Even in your version you call them statistics. JoshuaZ 01:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are death stats. Why is this absurd? And regarding your earlier edit summary stating that no one else agrees with me - you are the only "named" user who has argued over this section of the article in recent months. Who agrees with you? ^ross ^nixon 02:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, Ross, anons count towards consensus. And you may want to look at User:Tawkerbot2. JoshuaZ 02:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you on about, Ross? "the figures were low until abortion became popular in the 1970s, so no one thought to include them" - if that was the case, wouldn't someone have 'thought to include them' by now?

Think of it this way - how can a death be officially registered for someone that hasn't been officially born? Embryos and fetuses are, nowhere, officially, in law, recognised as humans, abortions or miscarriages are not officially considered deaths, human or not, anywhere. Even with the current disclaimer, I think it is wrong and POV to even have them listed at all under the human deaths section, or even on the section of deaths at all. I suggest this be put up to a wider review somewhere, with the view of remiving all mentions of abortions and miscarriages from the article on death.--Cooper-42 12:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Cell Death Section?!

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)