Talk:Al Plastino

Edit just now

The previous editor's edit misattributed the source of the birthplace information, which came from the Newsday obit, not Plastino's official site. Also — and I'm not saying the guideline doesn't exist, but just that I can't find it — I couldn't find anything about not citing birth and death dates in the lead at WP:MOS nor in a search, using that page's search box, for "birth date," which produced some results but nothing pertinent. The MOS is very widespread so I may have missed it. If that editor or another could point us to it, that would be helpful and collegial. With thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about "set guidelines", neither MOSBIO nor MOSNUM cover sourcing them, but, if there's no mention of birth/death dates in the article body, I always source them after the opening parentheses. This keeps that date stretch clean. Some don't like having re-usage of the dates in the article, so I use years in the body, instead. I think it's more about appearance than a guideline. — Wyliepedia 08:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Error in the cause of death

I just posted a correction to the cause of death. Mark Evanier, who I believe would count as a reliable source on Wikipedia (see references and I think whatever working group for comics reporting exists on WP can vouch for his notability and reliability has posted an update here.

http://www.newsfromme.com/2014/02/27/lets-correct-wikipedia-on-something/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRTroy (talk • contribs) 12:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Mark Evanier doesn't appear to have acutally read the Wikipedia article. If he had, he would have known that this sentence of his is incorrect:

Many published news sources said that the prolific veteran comic book artist and cartoonist Al Plastino died from Prostate Cancer so that is what got reported on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia does not say that. No cause of death is given. It is extremely irresponsible to make a statement as he did without checking what the article actually says.

As to "many" published news sources stating his death was from prostate cancer: This article cites The New York Times, the New York Post and Newsday. Like this Wikipedia article, none of them give a cause of death, from prostate cancer or anything else..--Tenebrae (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, while I'm sure the grieving family wants to assign a cause, claiming that a flu vaccine caused Guillain–Barré is fringe science. The daughter is quoted as saying he died of Guillain–Barré , and normally that's enough. But because she also makes a fringe claim that it was caused by a flu vaccine, that makes the entire statement suspect.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

First off, you are actually incorrect in that there are some newspaper articles, even quoted in the source, saying he died of Prostate Cancer.

But more importantly, GBS is known to be caused by flu vaccines, this isn't "fringe science", it's actual science. Please read the description of the disease itself. In fact, the CDC flu shots always have a warning about GBS like here: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/flushot.htm. JRT (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow. That's not what it says. The CDC does not say flu vaccines give you Guillain–Barré. All it says is that people who have had Guillan Barre should be cautious about beign vaccinated. Read:

People with a history of Guillain–Barré Syndrome (a severe paralytic illness, also called GBS) that occurred after receiving influenza vaccine and who are not at risk for severe illness from influenza should generally not receive vaccine. Tell your doctor if you ever had Guillain-Barré Syndrome. Your doctor will help you decide whether the vaccine is recommended for you.

This personal campaign by a subject's family and friends to blame a vaccine goes too far when they deliberately misrepresent the CDC. You're claiming causation when the CDC refers to something occurring after a vaccine was given — not that the vaccine caused it.

And please show me any cite here that says he died of prostate cancer. Because none of them do. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

And by the way, the article states quite clearly that he had Guillain–Barré. Not a single person is denying that. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Plastino's family and friends are tag-teaming to perpetuate their edit-warring. This is disgraceful. To try to push a fringe view that flu vaccines cause GBS is irresponsible. If this were true, why isn't there an epidemic of GBS? Do you think vaccines cause autism as well? This evident desire to use Wikipedia to help the family score a big lawsuit settlement is shameful. No disinterested, unbiased source claims the vaccine killed him. Only the family, which has something to gain. Shameful.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Calm down. First of all, assume good faith. You seem to be getting really angry over a minor edit. Can you point to me any link that says his family is suing? Also, even going to the WP article itself, GBS may be linked to vaccines, as there ARE scientific studies that link the disease. Believe it or not, there are rare diseases that are linked to drugs and vaccienes, such as Reye's Syndrome. I've asked others from WP:Comics to be involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRTroy (talk • contribs) 21:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

First, people can file a lawsuit anytime, and waiting until after published sources spread the unverified claim that the vaccine killed him is a strategy. Second, no source other than the family itself claims the vaccine caused the GBS. I defy the family to find a doctor to confirm that definitively. Maryann Plastino is not a doctor and she is not a disinterested, unbiased party, and her efforts to blame a vaccine without proof is shameful. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

On a second issue, you have to give cites if you claim that anyone is erroneously giving prostate cancer as a cause of death. Who is supposedly saying this? Not The New York Times, the New York Post or Newsday, all of which are cited here. But because you and the others are tag-teaming, I can't even go in to put a "cite" tag on this claim. Yet you're violating WP:VERIFY. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If it cannot be sourced that the flu vaccine caused the ailment, it should not be in the article, it's libelous at best. I understand trying to assign blame, but it needs evidence, not conjecture.DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 21:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Tenebrae and DWB, there needs to be explicit verification from a reliable source free of synthesis. However if Mark Evanier's blog is consider reliable (I don't think I do) then a counter-point can be included per WP:DUE, though these would have to framed as his personal opinion and not fact to avoid WP:PSCI.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, who is "tag teaming". I'm the only person making edits, check the logs. One person tried to correct it without a source, then I used a source. You reacted hostile to the correct, first chastising Evanier when he's probably just perplexing having to deal with the problems WP:Notability and WP:Verify can cause when you want to fix mistakes. You seem to be escalating this way too quickly--why didn't you try to get the WP:Comics group involved first, assuming I'm a vandal. There's no evidence there's "tag teaming" of the article in the logs--if you saw dozens of IP users and/or dozens of users, then you should worry. I'll leave the part alone. But in the future, rather than assume a hostile tone and quickly revert, why not try civil discussion first instead. I am certainly not trying to cause a problem, but even WP's own article makes a valid claim that GBS can be caused by vaccines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillain%E2%80%93Barr%C3%A9_syndrome#cite_note-14. I think we could have worked through this if you had not be so confrontational with your comments. JRT (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Redlink editors have made that edit since yesterday. And tag teams traditionally have two people, not "dozens". --Tenebrae (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Again, misrepresentation: The Wikipedia article you cite does not say vaccines cause GBS! In fact, it says the opposite: "[E]pidemiological studies since [1977] have demonstrated either an extremely small increased risk following immunization (under one additional case per million vaccinations) or no increased risk." And you're surprised someone might take what you call a "confrontational" tone? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, there are several sources. Take this source from the National Institute of Health: Guillain-Barré syndrome can affect anybody. It can strike at any age and both sexes are equally prone to the disorder. The syndrome is rare, however, afflicting only about one person in 100,000. Usually Guillain-Barré occurs a few days or weeks after the patient has had symptoms of a respiratory or gastrointestinal viral infection. Occasionally surgery will trigger the syndrome. In rare instances vaccinations may increase the risk of GBS. http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/gbs/detail_gbs.htm If you read enough, there is a link to vaccinations causing GBS. This is not "fringe science". I can get other links for you, but GBS being linked to vaccinations is noted and part of the diseases description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRTroy (talk • contribs) 22:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You know what, I have caught you in misrepresentations of what Wikipedia and CDC says, and I'm not going to chase down your other claims to see what they misrepresent. I think the quote about what the studies over the course of the last 36 years conclude makes my point better than I could. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Whatever's going on here, whether the claims added are fact or fiction, they cannot be added without citing what Wikipedia defines as a "reliable source"—having said that, it's unlikely that many non-Wikipedians are in the least bit aware of that, so effort should be made to ensure the new editor(s) do. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Exactly. And I might note JohnRTroy, Mark Evanier may be a reliable source on Comics, that does not make him a reliable source on causes of death. And blogs, except from recognized subject matter exports, are usually not reliable sources, particularly on BLPs. (The exception is blogs published by a magazine newspaper or similar organization, and subject to the same editorial control as the rest of their publications.) DES ^(talk) 23:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Tenebrae and the others are correct. While citing Mark Evanier's site would certainly be acceptable if he were merely relating the cause of death as given by the family if that cause of death were uncontroversial, it is not acceptable if the cause of death involves citing a mechanism that is not accepted by the scientific/medical establishment, and/or is considered pseudoscience.

If the notion that vaccinations cause GBS is indeed accepted by a consensus of the medical establishment (that is, it's been confirmed sufficiently through peer review that it is regarded as a fact), then there should be sufficient sources for this, in which case Tenebrae's concerns would be unfounded. However, JRT has at least twice cited sources that do not say what he claims they do. Tenebrae addressed his citation of the WP article on GBS, and I will address his citation of NIH. JRT cites the passage of the NIH webpage he linked to that says "In rare instances vaccinations may increase the risk of GBS." But for a thing to increase the risk of an illness is not the same thing as saying that it causes it. HIV, for example, does not cause death. Rather, it compromises the immune system, which then leads to opportunistic infections that cause death. This underlines the complexity of the interactivity of different agents on the body. But the bottom line is, if vaccinations cause GBS, then it should be easy to cite sources that clearly state this. The NIH webpage does not. Without such sources, that claim will not go into the article.

I see no reason why the passage cannot state that sources that reported the cause of death as prostate cancer were wrong ([1][2][3]). But it needs to be clarified whether A. it is accepted among the scientific establishment that flu vaccines cause GBS, and B. GBS is fatal in itself, or merely leads to life-threatening complications, as the Lead section of the GBS article states. Nightscream (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

GBS has a low mortality rate, so people do die from the disease, since it can affect the Autotomous Nervous system. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18443311, http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/175/Supplement_1/S151.full.pdf. So it is a fatal disease, and there are reports of it, though most people who get it eventually make a full or partial recovery. I think it's reasonable to take the word that Plastino's death was caused by the disease. JRT (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

In my own family, a great-uncle died from cancer. Family lore blames this on exposure to radiation during his service onboard one of the earliest nuclear submarines in the US Navy. No one has medical proof of this but it is received wisdom within my family. The Plastino family may certainly state their beliefs that a vaccine caused Al Plastino's death but Wikipedia is not the place for it per WP:SOAPBOX. What is stated on the death certificate? I rather doubt it mentions a vaccination. Mtminchi08 (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Absent something definitive, like a report quoting his doctor or the death certificate, we don't know what the official cause of death was. At least one reliable source, PBS Newshour, says prostate cancer. The daughter says GBS but she also says GBS caused by a vaccine, so unless she states that she is quoting the death certificate, she is not a credible source — and not disinterested or unbiased, since a claim of vaccine-created GBS can be the basis for a lawsuit. Given such conflicting reports and uncertainty, the safest, most conservative and most accurate thing for an encyclopedia to do is not state a cause of death at all. It is in no way required, and it is clearly a contentious issue. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that GBS caused his death, as long as we omit the mention of a vaccine. Nightscream (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion on rewording personal life

While I don't personally feel the personal life section implies prostrate cancer contributed to his death (although I'm unclear whether it's even been firmly ruled out), how about we reword it? I'm not sure that the section is that well written anyway as it seems a bit odd to me that the section is written from the viewpoint of his death. This may be what you expect in a newspaper bio released to coincide with his death, but it's not IMO the best way to handle a general encyclopaedia bio. I guess this happend because the sources and section only came after the death, but it doesn't mean we can't do better. If we rewrite the section, particularly since we even have sources from before his death mentioning his protrate cancer it would only be natural to mention that before we mention his death and in a seperate sentence. Hopefully that will reduce concerns. A better more chronological wording would be something like 1) Where he lived 2) His wife 3) His children 4) Prostate cancer 5) His death. Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Nightscream (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Per the second NIH link that JRT provided, which clearly indicates that GBS can be fatal, I don't think there's anything wrong with mentioning that it was the cause of the death, since his daughter indicated as much, as long as we omit any mention of vaccines. Nightscream (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree with Nightscream, yet she's not just saying GBS was the cause of death — she's saying GBS from a vaccine was the cause of death. I'm not sure we can pick and choose which part of a sentence to believe. Either the whole thing would be credible or none of it is.

And since the only citation to any GBS claim is to Evanier, the reader would be going to the footnoted source with a misleading WP:FRINGE claim, as well Evanier's irrelevant and inaccurate claim that Wikipedia says Plastino died of prostate cancer.

As well, I'm not sure that with a 91-year-old, as opposed to, say, Philip Seymour Hoffman, that it's necessary to give a cause of death at all, especially under these contentious circumstances. We're not required to, anyway. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, according to the CDC link cited above, the flu vaccine can cause Guillain-Barre syndrome, but only does so in at most 2 people per million vaccinated. So while unlikely, it is possible (though of course prostate cancer is much more so). Jinkinson talk to me 19:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I will not edit the article myself, but in response to this recent comment, I think because GBS is a possible (even if it's very rare) occurrence to the flu shots (there would not be a warning label on the shot if it wasn't), its a plausible cause of death, and would not be in the category of Fringe science. I think the main concern is the source. The biggest problem is the fact that Plastino is not as public a figure as other famous people and a lot of times the mass media gets things wrong, and Evanier is, at least in my opinion, a reliable source for comics information, particularly since he's quoted a few other times in this article as well as hundreds of other articles featuring comics professionals. He's also been outspoken against pseudo-science in the past. My personal opinion is that we should give him the benefit of the doubt here and assume he did speak to Plastino's daughter, and that the daughter had no agenda involved. If we're going to leave the reference to GBS intact, I think we should bring back the blog entry as a reference. We don't have to say he died of GBS, but the reference is needed if we're going to include it. The only other solution would be to remove it, which leaves the article potentially incorrect and giving the implication that he died of Prostate Cancer. Not actually stating the confirmed cause of death is a good idea. Again, I'll leave it up to you guys to decide. JRT (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"I think we should ... assume"? That's not how Wikipedia or even basic research works. Assuming anything is personal POV. I reiterate my disagreement. Evanier is not a journalist and didn't vet her fringe science claim — and yes, it's fringe science since. Responding to the first editor above, where does the CDC say "at most 2 people per million."? The confluence of studies since 1977, according to the book JRT cited at the GBS article, says "either an extremely small increased risk following immunization (under one additional case per million vaccinations) or no increased risk." Under one per million or no risk. And again: She's not just saying GBS was the cause of death — she's saying GBS from a vaccine was the cause of death. We can't POV pick and choose which part of a sentence to believe. Either the whole thing is credible or none of it is.

The article, by not giving a cause of death that can be evidenced with absolute certainly, is written conservatively and correctly. Another editor feels we should make a minor chronological change, which I also am for.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what I meant by assumption. First off, Evanier might even count as a journalist, since he wrote for Comics Buyers Guide, and there does appear to be consensus that he is considered a credible resource where reporting on comics and television professionals is. My "assumption" is meant that as editors, we try to make judgements on whether or not the source is credible through research and consensus, and that, based on all the quotes given to his blog in Comics, he acts as a credible resource, at least when covering people in the industry. Based on the arguments above here and on other pages, I think Evanier has proved merit in that regard. I also think that if he says he talked to X professional or Y relative, he's telling the truth. So I think we can agree on that. If we can't, then that leads to considering all his other work potentially unreliable and removable, including the quotes in this article.

So, considering that, let's assume as fact he did speak to Plastino's daughter. Why is that post not considered a reliable source of simply getting a quote from the Plastino family regardless of whether or not his daughter is correct in her statement. Even if you don't believe she is telling the truth, why can't we leave in the fact that he had GBS (as it is written now, or was under the lock, where we don't say he died of it) and simply provide a reference to that blog. Wikipedia is NPOV, which means we aren't supposed to judge if a person's opinion is correct--if the opinion is reported, it usually can be quoted. If the quote in the article said something like "Mark Evanier reports that Mary Plastino says he died of GBS", why would we want to censor that quote? Controversial statements get reported in article all the time. It would not damage the credibility of this article to report that. My personal concern is that this appears to be an attempt to set the record straight about the death that was allegedly reported inaccurately, especially if we don't confirm the cause of death in the statement.

You said we shouldn't "cherry pick" Mary's statement, but, in my opinion, by omitting this article from Evanier we're basically saying we don't trust that he's reporting what has been reported to him, and I think that opens up a can of worms where we no longer trust him to be a source, which is potentially has a lot of effect on all Comics articles. In addition, I fear that this is not based on the blog itself, but because you personally doubt that GBS can be caused by Influenza vaccines. However, there's enough reported evidence that it can. The CDC lists all side effect from Vaccines and they do list GBS as a credible (but rare) side effect from Influenza--and I doubt they or the FDA would put this warning on them based on fringe science. You and I will probably disagree on that--Maybe we should ask people from whatever Wikipedia Project involves medicine to provide opinions, as it seems nobody in this topic is an expert. But, regardless of all that, what would be the harm to the article to put the reference in there, especially if the article itself is not written to confirm it, only that he had it.

I understand the need to be careful with sources, etc. I just fear by challenging on this fact, we're lessening the credibility of Evanier as a source, which could damage several articles, and in an area where an expert like him is more likely to get facts right than a mainstream newspaper journalist with only a passing interest in the subject. Regarding the article itself, I'd either remove references to both illnesses, or keep them both in there and add the reference for GBS. JRT (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This issue raises problems with source reliability, but I think they're soluble. That the family reports diagnoses is reliable, I'd suggest, and for this purpose so is the source. If we want to support a claim that this particular case of GBS may have been caused by this particular flu vaccine (which isn't mainstream though the idea that older flu vaccines did very occasionally do so is accepted) we'd need authoritative medical opinion, based on evidence, rather than a comics expert. I also wouldn't think this specific causal claim worth reporting here, even as a claim, without such medical opinion. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. We've accepted the family's claims that he had prostate cancer and GBS. That's already in the article. But without more credible sourcing than a daughter who wants to blame a vaccine for her father's death, whether for a future lawsuit or any other agenda, we cannot credibly say what this 91-year-old died of.

To JRT: I've already explained what the harm would be of adding a comic-book authority citation for a non-vetted fringe-science claim. And i don't believe you understand how WP:RS works. Read WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which states (emphasis added), "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." Not using Evanier to support a medical claim has no bearing whatsoever on citing him for comic-book history and related topics. This is a couple of times now you've tried to use the fear appeal of "oh, if we don't him here that calls him into question for all his cites in WikiProject Comics!" It absolutely does not. Enough, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

So, Richard Keatinge, I'm unclear, so do you think we can reference the blog where we indicate he had GBS? I'm not talking about stating that he died from the vaccine, but do you think we should attribute the blog for the statement saying he had GBS? Because unless there's another reference, there should be a link to that article indicating that he had GBS. JRT (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Why are you so determined to include the cite Maryann Plastino wants even when we have actual newspaper cite obviating the need for it? We're not hear to shill for the family. The article cites an actual, major newspaper saying he had GBS. I've placed the footnote just now right at the mention of GBS rather than just at the end of the next sentence. We have a real newspaper and a real journalist citing GBS. We don't need a comic-book blogger to say the same thing. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In other words, is there solely a problem referencing the entry for the purposes of confirming that he had GBS, and for no other reason? JRT (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems fine to me. I just suggest that we should avoid the claim of causality. I'd probably say that "the family report that he was suffering from prostate cancer and GBS" or something like that. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll put the citation reference in, without changing the WP article itself. JRT (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No, because as I say above, we already have a real journalistic source saying it. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I am trying to build consensus by asking other people--neither you or I are in charge of the article, and I am sincerely asking other people--at least one other person disagrees with your opinion. Secondly, I didn't see the reference because it's locked and I did not see the reference. But at least in my opinion it is hypocritical to complain about using Evanier as a source when reference 13 also has him providing an obituary. Thirdly, I see nothing about adding a additional reference that would harm the integrity of the article in its context. But I'm not going to edit it now. JRT (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You don't see anything wrong? How about WP:OVERCITING? How about WP:CONTEXTMATTERS? How about the fact the reference contains a fringe-science claim?

I respect Richard Keatinge's contributions, but he appeared to be responding to a fallacy that you gave him, which is the suggestion that the article was not "confirming that he had GBS" when the article in fact did. And please: "I didn't see the reference because it's locked"?? "Locked" doesn't mean you can't look at the article. The reference has been there practically from the day Plastino died. Let's try to keep this on an honest keel, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I was simply concerned about quoting a footnoted source next to the statement he had GBS. That's all. JRT (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the proposal that warrants so much discussion? JRT performed this edit which changed:

Plastino had been suffering from prostate cancer and Guillain-Barré syndrome

to

Erroneously reported to have died from prostate cancer, it was later reported by MaryAnn that he actually died of Guillain-Barré syndrome [ref newsfromme.com with long quote from daughter].

That proposal has serious problems. The current wording is fine as it provides an accurate summary of what is known, and it is unlikely that any claims about precisely what caused the death of someone aged 91 are accurate, unless the cause was something external like a car accident. Has a suitable scientific analysis of the cause of death been performed? Another problem is that the daughter is not a reliable source for the cause of death. If it were WP:DUE, the daughter's opinion could be noted, but it is not DUE. There is no need to authoritatively state the cause of death, which just as well because there is no suitable source. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I was and am no longer advocating that we change the statement in Wikipedia. In today's discussion I was simply suggesting that we perhaps keep the reference to that blog entry by Evanier since I feel a quote from the daughter was notable, especially since we felt it was okay to use him as a source (Al Plastino RIP), as I stated above. With the note about Newsday I withdraw. JRT (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I think you accidentally deleted my last message.

Tenebrae: Normally I'd agree with Nightscream, yet she's not just saying GBS was the cause of death — she's saying GBS from a vaccine was the cause of death.
I don't think there's anything wrong with relating the portions of the claim in the cited source that are allowable under WP:IRS and WP:FRINGE. We can mention GBS as the cause, but not the vaccine connection if that is not accepted by the scientific community. The fact that the controversial latter claim may be unacceptable, doesn't mean that that we have to ignore the uncontroversial former claim as well. Ultimately, I'm not going to challenge a consensus to omit any cause of death; What's more important as I see it is that any fringe claim, if determined as such, is kept out of it.

Jinkinson: To be fair, according to the CDC link cited above, the flu vaccine can cause Guillain-Barre syndrome, but only does so in at most 2 people per million vaccinated.
Actually, it does not say that. It says "There is a small possibility that influenza vaccine could be associated with Guillain-Barré syndrome..." Associated. Not caused by. This is extremely important, because correlation does not imply causation. The fact that they use the word "associated", as well as the equivocating qualifier "small possibility that...", would seem to indicate that a causal relationship has not been confirmed to any accepted degree.

JRT: I think because GBS is a possible (even if it's very rare) occurrence to the flu shots (there would not be a warning label on the shot if it wasn't), its a plausible cause of death, and would not be in the category of Fringe science.
Only if it has been indicated to be plausible by the scientific community. If it hasn't been, then stating it as such as indeed fringe science.

Evanier is credible to the extent that we can conclude provisionally that Plastino's daughter did actually contact him, and did say what Evanier has related that she said. But he is not credible to the extent that we can accept that claim in matters of science. Nightscream (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

So just so I'm clear Nightscream, you'd feel comfortable rating that blog entry as a potential source, but as long as the article itself did not make that same conclusion, right? JRT (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm a fan of Nightscream's work, but this is a non-issue since the GBS passage already has a reliable-source journalistic citation. The SPA JRT is attempting to shoehorn inappropriate WP:OVERCITING as a favor the family. Trying to use Wikipedia to help a family air its personal grievances and fringe science claim is completely wrong. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I think it's still important to hear from your peers on this issue. You are making an assumption that there is a deliberate attempt to game the system, and assuming the family has "grievances" (nothing in the quote even indicates that). The reason why I advocate for the quote is, like Nightscream says, Evanier is considered a reliable source for getting a quote from a family member in his industries (and is used in many WP article), and there's a apparently disputed claim from another source (USA Today) saying he died of the Prostate Cancer, so I think it's a good thing for the article to have a record of statement by a family member. If it was the LA Times that got the quote and the newspaper made no other comment, would that statement it be challenged as well? I am not advocating changing the text of the WP article at all, I'm not even advocating putting back the source in the article, but I want to get an idea from others what they think and if they agree with your statements. If, based on their responses, I feel strongly that you're wrong, I might request an RFC about it, but we're not even at that level, I'm simply soliciting other opinions right now. We should not be afraid to discuss this amongst ourselves. JRT (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

JRT, I'm saying that I don't have a problem with the article stating he died of GBS, as long as it does not state that the GBS was caused by a flu vaccine. The family and Evanier are reliable for the former, but not the latter. Nightscream (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Whereas I, with all respect to Night, don't believe we can pick and choose which half of the quote to believe. And as at least one other editor says above, we don't need to include a cause of death for a 91-year-old. As for the prostate cancer, the article doesn't say he died from that and we don't cite the LA Times. 1) We don't required to state cause of death; 2) that he had prostate cancer and GBS is already cited; 3) we don't a need to deny something that article doesn't say; 4) we don't need an additional cite to say he had GBS. So, yes, trying to shoehorn in the Evanier cite is wrong on several levels. It's a backdoor way of allowing the family to air its grievances and make a fringe-science claim without it being in the actual article. I personally find it shameful to see anyone try to use Wikipedia in that way. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally, for me, the question is not if the Plastino quote is objectively believable from a scientific sense, that's not for WP to judge, I think the question was can we assume that Evanier got an accurate quote, which apparently based on his past track record is accurate. As long as the article itself doesn't advocate she was correct in her assumption, I don't see it violating WP:FRINGE. I just worry that you're letting your own beliefs on what you find "shameful" to influence censoring information out of an article needlessly. JRT (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"Censoring" what information exactly? Tell me. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless—everything has been said above. There is no scientific analysis of the cause of death so there can be no meaningful statement on that. Further, there is no need for this article to make a pronouncement, and the current text is fine. There is also no need to respond to every point made on this talk page—just let JRT have the final word. Johnuniq (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 March 2014

Details of Al Plastino's death need to be corrected. See http://www.newsfromme.com/2014/02/27/lets-correct-wikipedia-on-something/

In summary, Mark Evanier of www.newsfromme.com, states the following:

"Many published news sources said that the prolific veteran comic book artist and cartoonist Al Plastino died from Prostate Cancer so that is what got reported on Wikipedia. I have been in touch today with Mr. Plastino's daughter, MaryAnn Plastino Charles, and she says that's not so. She writes…

…some of the news stories were incorrect about my father's death. He did not die from Prostate Cancer. He was in good health up until receiving a flu shot and developed Guillan Barre Syndrome which paralyzed and killed him very quickly. Please edit out the Prostate Cancer."

Please correct the entry on Wikipedia. Thanks.

198.134.52.72 (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually the cause of his death has been added, there's a dispute about it being linked to the application of the flu shot. It's being discussed. JRT (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Once again, not true. The article does not state a cause of death. Read it for yourself:

At the time of his death on November 25, 2013,[13] at Brookhaven Hospital in Patchogue, New York,[1][14] Plastino had been suffering from prostate cancer[9] and Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Not a word of that says what caused his death.

I would ask the anon IP or MaryAnn Plastino Charles to cite any of the "many published sources" that claim Plastino died of prostate cancer. Where are all these supposed articles? Because neither The New York Times, the New York Post nor Newsday say such a thing. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, a google news search shows many sources, including PBS, got it wrong. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=Al+Plastino+Prostate&oq=Al+Plastino+Prostate#authuser=0&gl=us&hl=en&q=Al+Plastino+Prostate. I think MAP's statement is meant to say it was wrongly reported in many news outlets and not on Wikipedia itself. JRT (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

There are a few sources that say he died from prostate cancer ([4][5][6]), though the rest merely mention that he died following a battle with prostate cancer, which is not the same thing. But in any event, what difference does it make if other sources got it wrong? The only relevant issue here is whether the Wikipedia article did. It does not state that prostate cancer caused his death. So what's the problem? Nightscream (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The only "problem" was I am pointing out that the statement from Plastino's daughter was not an attack on Wikipedia, but a statement about what happened elsewhere. I am responding to Tenebrae's comments, which seem to imply that statement was an attack against the article, rather than a wish to correct misinformation that spread through the Internet. JRT (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, you did a bit more than merely point out what happened elsewhere; you edited this article so that it says he died from GBS. Nothing wrong with relating the family's statement that he did not died from prostate cancer, but the mortality of GBS needs to be clarified, per my arguments above at the bottom of the previous section. Nightscream (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 March 2014

Please remove the category "People of Italian descent" since this is neither discuseed nor sourced in the article currently. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Malerooster (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point: "Plastino" could be Spanish or any number of ethnicities. The article is fully protected till March 8, but without sourcing, "People of Italian descent" should not be a category. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

World War II service

Although Plastino served in the Army during World War II era, there are no reliable sources found as of yet state that he was in a war zone during the war. More specifically, the sources do not establish defining role in World War II. Accordingly, "Category:United States army personnel of World War II" was removed until a defining role is established. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)