Talk:Death/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Is it really necessary

To pollute this article with the bogus environmentalist claim that humans are precipitating a mass-extinction? This canard has been debunked so many times and it soils this article with political agendas. --82.43.47.6 (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Also habitat destruction is not a cause of death. This is more environmental propaganda. Habitat destruction can cause malnutrition or vulnerability to predation, but it does not cause death. 86.132.78.239 (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about the role of the health care provider

I would very much like to add a section about the role of the health care provider. There are two excellent research articles In Search of a Good Death: Observations of Patients, Families, and Providers. Annals of Internal Medicine 2000 and "On Saying Goodbye: Acknowledging the End of the Patient–Physician Relationship with Patients Who Are Near Death. Annals of Internal Medicine 2005. That are instructive to health care providers about addressing the emotional needs of the patient and family. Questions:

• Where should this section go? Under 'Customs and superstitions'?
• What should the section title be, 'Role of the health care provider'?

Considering these articles were only studied in a western health care setting, I would start the section with a note to this effect. Badgettrg 11:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good addition. I would put it under the medicine section as opposed to cultural. I'll add a medicine subsection since there isn't one as yet - if you look to the top of the page you'll see a to do list I have drafted which gives some outline as to how the article might look when complete. There is also a related section on euthanasia under culture, located here because it is also a philosophical and political issue. Richard001 06:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to place the text at User:Badgettrg/death into the Medicine subsection following causes of death / autopsy. Could someone please comment whether they think this is appropriate? Thanks - Badgettrg 23:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed for berlin wall picture

No proof that it is what it claims. The link goes off to some page that deals nothing with the picutre. Remove it or provide proof.

-G

The image of Peter Fechter is used on the pages Berlin Wall and Peter Fechter's own article, as well as many other websites. I'm not familiar with the incident myself having just read about Fechter now, but I can see no reason to doubt the veracity of the image. The placement of the image is rather arbitrary though, once we have a section on warfare it can be moved there.

Also, please sign your posts so we know who you are. We often have trolls making posts similar to yours; signing your name properly is a good way to avoid any such suspicion. Richard001 22:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this right?

The second sentence says something along that death comes to all multicellular organisms. Is this suggesting that there are some single cell organisms. Or is it that this doesn't technically count as death?

Microorganisms don't have any aging mechanism that I know of, though they're likely to die for one reason or other sooner or later. Richard001 06:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Most micro-organisms reproduce by binary fission - just as human cells do. Therefore, you can argue that unless a significant mutation occurs, the same organisms will live for ever, depending of course upon your definitions of "live", "significant" and "forever" - of of "life" for that matter. Basically, it's such a can of worms that glossing over it in the article is probably the course of wisdom! (Dlh-stablelights 12:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

I disagree. Death is the ultimate fate for every life form. From the smallest bacterium to the giant sequoia to us, nothing lives forever, death will come one way or another. Even if you do not consider binary fission death, there is no doubt that external causes can result in "death" for a microbe. (also, we can only survive as long as the conditions for life are met on Earth.) Fusion7 17:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Cessation vs. end

I disagree that "cessation of life in a biological organism" is a good description of death. Cease mean stop, while end means termination. That which ceases can resume, while that which ends is finished. Permanence is a key aspect of the concept of death, and cessation does not adequately capture that. It is too easily confused with simple cessation of vital functions. Additionally, the words "life in a biological organism" imply vitalism. I therefore suggest the wording, "Death is the end of the life of a biological organism," or something similar. Cryobiologist 06:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Death VS Moment of Death

Science debates how to identify death, or in other words how to define death for the purpose of our human perception and identification. The definition of death is philosophical, it is simply that which will never be restored to anything we can call life, whereas life has yet to be separately defined. What is unclear is how science can find the Moment of death, and for that a definition is required, that will guarantee that prior to that moment and after that moment, what science has to say will match what the philosophers said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death#Definition

--Ohadaloni 20:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Can death be defined as "permanent end"? Is it permanent?

I'd like to question the latter edit of changing "cessation" into "permanent end". I can agree on "cessation" but are we sure that death is actually permanent? Is death defined as a permanent end of biological life? 84.216.55.146 11:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest people watch this first: http://www.veoh.com/videos/v245370EZTb9tQJ?searchId=42375096801581832&rank=1

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Permanence does not imply irreversibility. This is actually a major issue in the ethics of death in medicine. In medicine the permanence of death is often a direct result of a decision to permanently stop treating the patient, as occurs in "no code" status and organ donation after cardiac death (DCD). So permanence can be the result of social factors, not just biology, but it is still permanent. I will expand on this issue, with references, in the Definition of Death part of the article in coming days. Cryobiologist 19:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what I wondered about, when are you truly 100% dead? We used to think it's when your heart stops, cardiac arrest, but even someone with no blood pressure's brain still functions until either they are resuscitated or their brain ceases. But is that really the end, either? Is it possible, or will it ever be possible to "jump start" someone's brain like a car and get their blood flowing again? In that case would you have brought the person back to life, or would they not have been considered dead, since they were at a point where they could be resuscitated? The snare 18:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Snare, after a few minutes of no oxygen a persons brain cells start to irreversibly go bye bye. I dont think that you would want to be alive after you lose your cognition, you probably would'nt want to do much of anything. I think that a person with no physical signs of life would in fact be considered "clinically dead" and if they were resuscitated they were never truly dead, just clinically dead. True "death" as we all are acutely aware of is in deed physically permanent. Anything more than that is hearsay. As far as how long a brain can go without O2 is an interesting topic and who knows what future possibilities medicine holds in store for us. So to finally answer your question, I guess you are permanently dead when no one can or is willing to resuscitate you. Anthony 00:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The term information theoretic death is beginning to creep into medicine to describe death that is absolutely irreversible by any technology. The brain does not function when there is no blood pressure, but nor do cells "go bye bye" in a few minutes either. The brain just sits quietly accumulating damage that requires increasingly sophisticated technology to reverse with a good prognosis. From what is now known about cerebral ischemia, information-theoretic death probably doesn't occur until a long time after clinical death. An article in Newsweek recently dealth with this issue. Cryobiologist 16:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link CryoBio, pretty interesting stuff. I always hoped that when I died it would at least be in a warm setting (I hate the cold). But now I hope it occurs outside in the winter. Of course that is as long as I don't die of some kind of head trauma. Anthony 22:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean the brain doesn't function with no blood pressure? The first steps of CPR are to check the person's breath and heart beat, then when there is none, perform it. If the brain ceased operation right after the heart stops, then wouldn't you already be irreversibly "dead", and CPR or a defibrillator would be pointless? The snare 09:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Snare, he didn't say when your heart stops your brain instantly decomposes. All he said was the brain doesn't "function" without BP. If left alone then ofcourse you die. If you are revived in time then you don't. Bringing ones body temp down apparently keeps the programmed destruction of your brain cells at bay. Thus giving you a bit longer to be revived with minimal brain damage. Anthony 23:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

But I've heard that brain cessation constitutes irreversible and permanent death. Once it stops functioning so do you, unless there's some way to get it started again. If it stops right after your blood pressure stops then you'd already be beyond help. I didn't know the brain ceases after cardiac arrest, I thought it's during a code blue that people have their near death experiences. And that the heart couldn't function without the brain, and needs it be get the heart started again. The snare (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Necropsy

"A necropsy is the term for a post-mortem examination performed on an animal or inanimate object. "

Maybe I'm a bit of a thickie, but I don't see how one could perform a post-mortem examination of say, a rock. Metalrobot 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I just pasted that from the autopsy article without reading it over. It should only apply to animals, I've made the correction. Thanks. Richard001 23:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not only animals die

The first sentence reads "Death is the permanent end of the life of a biological organism." The whole of the rest of the article acts as if the only biological organisms are animals. The vast majority of the article deals with human death. I suspect a large proportion of the article should be diverted into a new article called Human death or something similar, and the remained needs attention from somebody more expert that me in non-animal biology. Kevin McE 19:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There used to be an article called death in culture, but it was merged into this one, that that's why human death is covered here. When most people come here they would probably expect something that deals with human death, though it is difficult to cover all aspects of human death without the majority of the article being about death in human culture. I've mentioned in the to do list that splitting the article up is a possibility, and human death is an option we could look at. I do feel the culture section especially is disproportionately long, though I think it's better to wait until more medical and biological aspects have been covered before deciding what to do with it.

Your point about plants is a very good one. A lot of the aspects discussed apply to plants equally well, though most of the images and examples refer specifically to animals. While we're here we also shouldn't forget other forms of life such as fungi, protists and of course the bacteria and archaea from which all life evolved. Richard001 22:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That is why in my comments here I deliberately did not refer to plants, but to non-animal biological organisms. I struggle to find more than a couple of sentences that could be applied to non-animal death, and while a visitor to this page should "expect something that deals with human death", the reader with a wider interest should be able to expect something that does not deal almost exclusively with human death. Sections such as "Causes of death" do not even specify the type of organism whose death causes they are describing: they should either do that or treat of the causes of all. One would not want Wikipedia to appear speciesist, or even kingdomist. Kevin McE 06:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we'll have to live with a certain level of speciesism, but it can certainly be improved upon. One of the difficult things is trying to break the article into suitable categories, but many aspects of human and non-human death overlap. Perhaps a second 'causes' section under biology and then a 'causes of human death' under medicine would be appropriate. Establishing causes for non-human species in a quantitative way will be rather difficult though, especially as it would differ from species to species as well. I've added the problem to the to do list for now anyway.

It's funny - if you look in the Britannica article on death you'll actually find it doesn't cover non-human death even in passing, it merely looks at human death in terms of culture and medicine.

Note: Reading through the biology section I feel it all applies equally well to all organsims (though some non-animal pictures and examples would help stress that). I think the real problem is that this section is so extremely short. Richard001 03:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Human Physiology of Death

I couldn't find anywhere in the article a description of what actually happens during death. Do all the cells in the body die at once? What is the physical process that the body goes through when it dies? That the heart stops beating and the brain cells die off from lack of oxygen is all I could really gather. Is it painful to die? What parts of the body shut down and when? Etcetera. Cheers 58.168.238.79 16:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Giuls

There is more information on what happens after the heart stops in the articles on clinical death and cardiac arrest. There are so many different conditions that can cause the heart to stop, it is difficult to generalize about that phase of the process. Cryobiologist 18:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Death of Cells?

Can you use the term death for cells, as part of an attemt to define a death of the owner organism? If a cell stops its usual function, is it dead? Isn't it necessary to define what is meant by "death of the brain cells" before this concept is used to attempt to define death? If an organism is dead, then all its cells will cease to function soon enough. Some, inevitably ceased their function prior to the death of the organism. What distribution of dead VS live cells constitutes the death of the organism seems like a complicated way of saying: that was the question, not the answer. Better phrased: What set of live VS dead cells in an organism can make us safely say this organism is truly dead? (meaning at least that all cells will be dead shortly(?) ) --Ohadaloni 10:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends what organism and which cells. You can cut some invertebrates to pieces and they'll regenerate. When they have no heart or brain, like a tree, it's also very difficult to define. Richard001 09:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Splitting off articles

I'd like to propose we split the death in culture section into a full article so we can use summary style to shrink the section down to a more reasonable size. I think a section comparable in length with medicine and biology would be a good length, though by the looks of things it's going to stay much larger than either section unless it is split into its own article. If it is split the culture article can go into greater depth and cover more topics than it has the potential to here, and it will also free up some space for more on the other aspects.

There was some opposition to having a separate culture article previously, but I think the situation has changed enough now to recreate it. From there we can decide which aspects to cover and which to leave out in this article, for example the section on the number 4 in some Asian countries could probably be considered trivial enough to leave out in the main article.

The article existed for a brief time before being merged here. This last version of it before the redirection can be viewed here Richard001 08:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore I think we should look at splitting the medicine section off to death in medicine as well. The section is fairly large as well, and some of the material covered needn't be covered in as much depth. It will also allow Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine to focus on the article rather than a section here, which they can just update as it progresses. Splitting the death in culture article off is more important for now though, so I'd like to hear some comments. Richard001 08:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't recommend it. I think these articles are more appropriate in the death section, they're good the way they are now. Besides, 'rather keep them all together than seperate and create more space, right? ZeroGiga 04:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're approaching 60kb, and the article is still woefully inadequate in many areas. Do we want something 90k or more that just briefly touches on each item discussed? Richard001 23:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Spelling edit war.

Please don't edit war over spelling. As per policy:

"Articles should use the same spelling system and grammatical conventions throughout. Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. For example, do not use center in one place and centre in another in the same article (except in quotations or for comparison purposes). If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoke conflict by changing to another."

"Stay with established spelling. If an article has been in a given dialect for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone."[1]

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, what form of English are we using here? Is it consistent throughout the article? Should we leave a hidden comment at the top to make this more clear? Richard001 00:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Images

Lead image

Tombstones of men who died in the American Civil War.

Dog lies dead on major trucking road, route 101, California.

Death related to the natural aging process in the human being (body of Pope John Paul II during the funeral ceremonies marking the end of the physical existence and subsequent entrance into an afterlife).

A hawk devours its prey - predation is a natural cause of death.

Human remains found in scrub, circa 1900–1910.

I noticed the main picture has recently been altered from the hawk to a tombstone image. My intention, if I ever get the predation article up to scratch, is to include a small section on predation and move the hawk picture (or something similar) down to there. What to use as the main image though isn't so clear. The problem with tombstones is that it's (a) human (b) American and (c) recent. Should the main image relate to human or non-human death? Should it be a dead organism, their remains, a gravestone? Should it be from recent times or historic/prehistoric? What country should it relate to? Should it be related to warfare or peaceful death? Is it possible to find any compromise between all these? Richard001 00:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Two recently added images include a dead dog, which I find random and in somewhat bad taste, and an image of the pope, along with caption making POV assertions about his entrance to the 'afterlife'. Can we please have discussion before changing the image. Richard001 02:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Dog is clearly the best illustration of death put forth so far imho, the pope one is indeed POV. Why do you think the dog is bad taste? Bleh999 03:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added small thumbs of each of the images we have had recently. The last one used to be in the medicine section (I removed it because it has nothing to do with medicine), and is another candidate. I think we have a problem with there being far too many images involving Western culture, we need more from other parts of the world such as Asia and Africa for example. The problem with the Pope image is clearly in the caption, I don't have any specific objection to the image itself. As for the dead dog, it's not particularly appealing to me - the dog takes up little of the shot, and by the looks of it we wouldn't want anything more detailed. If we use an image of an animal I'd prefer something in a more natural setting like the hawk image. It also needs to be reasonably stable - not one that people are going to replace with something else all the time. There are plenty of other images we could use as well, the important thing is to discuss the changes. Richard001 03:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Korean war image

I tend to agree that this image is fairly disturbing - the body is partly decapitated and there are flies all over the head and torso. It seems a little over the top - Wikipedia is not censored, but do we need to use such a gruesome image to prove a point? Also think about this from a political view - Chinese people may be highly offended by the image. Would an image of a US marine shot dead in Iraq be considered equally appropriate for the article? The image we had before, and I reverted the addition of this image once already, was Peter Fechter dying on the Berlin Wall, though that's from a period after the war had ended, so I'd rather not use that as the 'final' image for the section. Perhaps something from earlier history - even very ancient history, would be more appropriate, avoiding the problems of politics, over-attention to recent history (there are three images related to recent wars involving America, any more than one is too many) and preferably not so gruesome. Richard001 02:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I am for your remarks--Ksyrie 07:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Note the image was only used thumbnail size in the article so if you were so offended why did you click so to see the larger version? PBS is a public broadcasting service in the USA they use the same image on an article about the korean war [2] Bleh999 08:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a valid point that it's small - would it be okay to have a thumbnail of a detailed photograph of two people enthusiastically copulating on the sexual intercourse article if you couldn't see their genitalia in the thumbnail? My remarks weren't an invitation to change it to a US soldier to prove a point either. There's no need to have an image from a controversial ongoing war that is likely to cause edit wars between people who want or don't want the image for one reason or another. I strongly suggest using an image from a war that didn't involve America (the graves from the American civil war is enough) and preferably one from long enough ago that it won't cause any edit disputes - the Mongol invasions for example. Richard001 09:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I dount if any available pic far away too 1000 years ago,a slaughter scene from Sparta War?--Ksyrie 10:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again you are wrong, take a look at wikipedia commons there are graphic images of sexual acts available (I can post some examples here if you still don't believe me), I suggest reading I don't like it is a bad reason to remove content Bleh999 21:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding pictures from long past wars, there obviously won't be anything in the form of a photograph, but there plenty of paintings etc. I had a very brief look for something suitable but there was nothing that especially caught my eye.

Now to address your point Bleh - your argument regarding sexual images is moot; there are of course such images at commons if people want to see them, just as there are plenty of gory images of dead people and such, but there is no photograph on sexual intercourse of two individuals at the height of copulation. There is no need to show the most graphic or pornographic image just because one is available, and if an image is controversial for whatever reason there should be at least some rationale for keeping it. There is already a picture from a 20th century war just below in the suicide attack section, as well as the image of American graves in the lead, so I believe it would be more balanced to include something from times long past, like artwork from a chariot battle for example. As for the 'I don't like it' comment, I don't mind these images at all, I'm just looking for the most suitable one, and preferably not one that's going to be removed every few days by someone who objects to it. Richard001 06:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I am rather upset with the current image Image:Civil War graves.JPG This article should be mainly about the science of death, and its ties with human culture secondary. (Or in another article.) However, this image does the opposite. It seems to focus not on death itself, but our traditions that revolve around its occurence. The image should focus on death in general, not a custom. I recomend an image that actually shows the corpse of a human or animal. Fusion7 16:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you nominate a replacement image then? As for splitting off, please discuss it in the section above. We need much more input on this, as we currently only have one person for splitting (me) and one against. As for only treating scientific aspects, that's what we used to do, but the culture article was merged here to cover it all in one subject. I don't think we should only treat the scientific aspects as a default, though we need much more material on this subject than we currently have, and as I mentioned I think the length of the culture section gives undue weight at its current size, though it could probably be expanded much further still with ease. Richard001 00:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your comments, Fusion7 I replaced this image with one from the American civil war, I think some of the other images in this article aren't really relevant --Bleh999 07:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Which images do you think should be removed? Richard001 01:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

regarding the evolution of aging

Evolution can not create, enhance, or preserve qualities of an organism that can no longer reproduce. These are the superior organisms, where reporudction is complex and has its own death age. Nature is packed with organisms who never age and only die of other natural causes. Age related deaths are rarely achived in nature anyway due to high martality rates from other causes much earlier in life:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species#Struggle_for_existence.2C_and_natural_selection

Some fish never age, some snakes and other lizards, and most primitive organisms who's reproductive system remains active throught life. With plants, most never age, and as with some insects, a life cycle is not comparable to aging:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_process

The concept of age in single cell structures which reproduce by splitting is irrelevant. For those organisms death and new life are the same, and so older age means closer to new life rather than to death.

Primitive organisms can have many immortal cells, like the germline cells.

removed my conversation with Richard regarding wiki writing style --Ohadaloni 15:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

War, Extinction, Etc...

Hi. Why exactly are there such large subsections for issues such as War and Extinction? Do we need to describe the causes of war and so on just because they, well, can cause death? They all have their own articles in any case, and the subsections don't even deal specifically with the issue of death in their respective subjects. Is the idea to have subsections on anything that causes death? Frankly it seems silly to me. I would help, but the article seems to be protected... Great article otherwise... Tree Kittens 07:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I added those sections myself as I felt they were closely connected with the topic. Something that causes death seems to be relevant enough to me, and extinction is the death of every organism in an entire species, so again I felt it was relevant. The idea isn't just to summarize the related article (though that's all we basically have so far), but to discuss it in relation to the subject at hand. You should be able to edit by now - you can always request an unprotection if you want. The article doesn't get all that much vandalism, though much more than useful edits when unprotected. Richard001 09:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry to have criticised your hard work like this. I was reacting purely to the article as it stands. I'll try to explain what I mean:

Extinction - With respect, I really dont see the need for this section. OK, so extinction is sometimes defined as the death of the last member of a particular species. That's just one sentence, and the only one relevant to this article as far as I can see. All members of a species - indeed all organisms - will die. A species only becomes extinct if every member fails to reproduce. In other words - death is not really the issue here, as it will happen to each and every organism regardless of whether or not that species becomes extinct. Most of the other information about the causes of extinction, human involvement and so on is, in my opinion, irrelevant as it does not direcly concern death. We could easily say all that is relevant about extinction in a few sentences in the main text, and add it to See also...

War - Yes war is one (rather vague) cause of death in humans. Every human that has ever lived has, or will, die. A very small, but notable, proportion of those will die in wars. Old age, disease etc. kill far more. In other words, this large section gives Undue weight to that particular cause. Besides, the causes of war (sovereignty issues etc.) are really not relevant to an article about death.

Perhaps a better idea would be to have a section on major causes of death in humans, with some figures. War could certainly be in this section, along with things like flu. I would like to reorganise the article to deal with these issues, but I am a newish user, so I won't go ahead wholesale without some agreement.

What do you think? Best regards, and thanks Tree Kittens 04:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We have a causes section in medicine, but warfare isn't really related to medicine. The way the article is layed out makes it difficult to place a causes section, and there's the complicated fact that many causes on human/non-human death overlaps. If you'd like to rearrange the whole article feel free to outline a plan, but it's certainly not going to be a simple matter. Richard001 07:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they warrant more than a mention. Esp. extinction, it could say something to the effect of "when the last member of a species dies, it is said to be extinct." Bendž|Ť 09:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

How about we rename the section further down then as 'Competition, natural selection and extinction', and merge the extinction content there is a reduced form? Richard001 00:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your Life Flashing Before Your Eyes

I would have thought there should be some mention of the idea that your life flashes before your eyes right before you die. Can someone add something on this? Robski 15:49, 23 July 2007 (GMT)

I challenge this. What if you're Blind. Or have no eyes. Well, there goes another popular phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.192.93 (talk) 22:44, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's just a rumor, if someone dies permanently they can't come back to tell you about it, so we'd never know The snare (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps adrenaline has something to do with it? It usually happens just before a violent death; if you're peacefully dying of old age, you have time to reflect on your life over a prolonged period, and the "flashing" phenomenon doesn't occur. I say this because most instances of "life flashing before your eyes" that I've heard of occurred just before someone died suddenly (or was just rescued from a sudden, violent death.) I think it also has to be something that could be noticed shortly before it killed the person, such as a train about to run one over or a landslide about to bury someone. Something that is completely unexpected, such as an assassin quietly creeping up and whacking the person upside the head without them ever seeing him, would not cause the person's life to flash before his eyes. Basically, I think this is caused by the realization that one is going to die in just a few seconds, especially when one isn't expecting to die (i.e. terminal illness or old age.) What do you guys think? --Luigifan (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Most common cause of death?

The intro paragraph sayeth: The principal causes of death in modern human societies are diseases related to aging.

I'm not sure this is true? for example, I read a study recently which estimated one third of adult deaths in China, in coming decades, will be due to tobacco use.

Also, what of infant mortality?

It might be that in first world human socities, the primary cause of death is aging, but that's a different statement to modern human socities, even if that is what the author intended to mean.

Toby Douglass 14:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the primary cause of human death is abortion. But proponents of abortion will not allow this fact to be mentioned because they will not concede that the fetus is fully human. ^rossnixon 02:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and this would be so even if abortion was illegal. Most fetuses are naturally aborted due to inviability (though the cut-off point can be a matter of parent-offspring conflict). Richard001 07:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Richard, are you saying that if life truly starts at conception then the most common cause of human death is primarily due to the incompatability of genes? Do you know the ratio of births to natural abortions? Do you know if this extends to all viviparous organisms? Anthony 00:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins mentions it in The Blind Watchmaker, where he discusses speciesism. It's not incompatibility of genes, just inviability of offspring for whatever reason - genetic, environmental or both. It would definitely be the case for similar animals, though I'm not sure of the exact amount - probably several times the amount of intentional abortions though. Many would be very early on in the process, as it's highly costly in terms of time and energy to bear a feutus that dies after say six months. Natural selection would favour eliminating it early or going with it, so a woman's body basically practices eugenics whether she likes it or not. As I said though there is the conflict that the father's genes have no 'interest' in the wellbeing of the mother, which is basically an extension of sexual conflict in the offspring. Richard001 02:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Richard. Can it then be said that "life forms" that aren't aborted are the ones that acquire mutations, either pheno- or genotypically and this is sometimes necessary for evolution? I'm sure their is a lot more to it than that. I definitely need to brush up on my evolutionary biology. Anthony 22:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, evolution as we know it could never have occurred without mutations, but no, it's much more likely that the aborted offspring will be the ones with mutations. Almost all mutations are bad, and any that are good are only so by luck. Secondly, mutations are all genetic. Some may be silent and make no difference to phenotype, others may have an effect on phenotype (usually a harmful one). Richard001 06:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks. Anthony 23:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate image

In the Capital Punishment section of the article There is a gruesome image of a vietnamese woman slumped over a pile of her brains. Regardless of my opinion of the tastelessness of this image it is definitely in the wrong place. What does this image have to do with capital punishment? A picture of a lethal injection table or some gallows would be best here. Could someone who watches this page let me know what you think before I remove it? Anthony 21:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it does not add anything to the article. The picture does not illustrate any specific point to advance the article. I would be OK with the removal. I would like to hear any devil's advocate argument to keep it before removing. SpoticusKC 02:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's at best distantly related, and we already have as many wartime images as are needed. This isn't a slideshow of gruesome war images, so I'm removing it. Richard001 04:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Richard, thanks for taking the initiative. Not to beat a dead horse here (excuse the expresion). But upon further inspection of the article I have noticed two other instances where the pictures do not coincide at all with the topic being dicussed to the left. This is true especially in the section Settlement of dead bodies . The pictures here in my opinion depict death in art more than anything. Maybe there should be a section created with this title. The second instance is in the section Martyrdom where there is another war casualty picture. I think if these pics were replaced with more appropriate ones or none at all it would tighten up the article. Just some observations. Anthony 06:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The martyrdom image was added by User:Bleh999, along with the Vietnamese one. Not to denigrate his efforts, but I think we have enough war images, and the one of the woman is a bit much. I'll restore the previous martyrdom image and hide the other image for now - there's no room for it further down, but it's a good image and would be okay at the beginning if there were actually a paragraph or two of introductory text for the culture section. Richard001 07:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I must remind you that Wikipedia is not censored Yes we may have things here that you may find objectionable but that is not a reason to not include the content if it is freely licensed and appropriate for the topic (death), death and destruction is not pretty and perhaps those who promote it will reconsider after seeing the end results, it's not a picture of capital punishment, but appropriate for the murder/homicide section if there is one in this article. Still, I am reasonable enough to agree to keep it out if you present some other argument (other than censorship) Bleh999 19:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your desire to express our freedoms, however, why make the article seem unorganized in order to do so? As far as the Vietnamese girl goes, there are other websites that dedicate themselves to that nauseating mess. So I think for the overall betterment of the article we should leave out the gore. Anthony 20:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The argument, as we've made, is that there are already more than enough war pictures - there is more to death than images of people being shot dead in a war. There are already 2 others, and there was a third in the martyrdom section, which was again irrelevant. And as we've said, this isn't capital punishment but a wartime mass execution of the perceived enemy. A picture of an electric chair would be more appropriate, or if we must continue to shock the reader, a person that has been hung with flies hovering over their corpse.

As for the military suicide picture, we already have two black and white WWII images of dead people, so I think something a bit different would be preferable. The remains of a blown-up vehicle, for example. Richard001 01:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've rearranged and altered the pictures a little. Any suggestions for improvement? Richard001 04:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Basically the argument boils down to censorship and this is not allowed by policy, and as someone else noted previously above we should have pictures of dead humans or animals to illustrate the topic of death not 'less offensive' alternatives, some of which are off topic in this article. ' Crucifixion of St. Peter, by Caravaggio' is also POV from a religious viewpoint and we should look for an alternative for this image. Bleh999 12:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Bleh, then we don't need a picture in the Martyrdom section. It would be impossible to find a non-POV picture of a martyr since the definition of a martyr is someone who dies for their POV. Anthony 18:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't boil down to censorship at all, it boils down to not having an article full photographs of dead bodies from the last century's wars. There is a lot more to the subject than that, and images don't have to be of dead bodies themselves. I think people are intelligent enough to make the connection between Atilla the Hun charging into Rome and there being some death here and there - if there wasn't I'm awfully confused as to why they have all those weapons, and why they are in such a hurry. Richard001 22:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Richard, this looks good. If you want me to nitpick for a possible improvement I would say scrap the hearse pic and here's why. First we must decide what is the absolute most common form of body settlement used today (I would assume it is burial in a cemetery). Then replace the hearse pic with one more accurately depicting actual settlement of bodies. But the hearse pic works as well since you've gotta get to the hole someway or another. I guess the most important thing to do now is to complete the to do list. I will try to help you as much as I can since I am very interested in this subject and I think we could make this not just a good but a featured article one day. Anthony 06:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its vital or even desirable that we have the most common/modern practice shown in images, but I welcome you to help expand it. I've done a little work on it, mainly earlier in the year, but for such an important article it is improving far too slowly and needs more contributors to get it up to at least a B class. Richard001 08:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible additions

Should we put something in the biology section about phenoptosis and or programmed cell death? Also does this article only pertain to death of organisms? Could we possibly add a small section about the death of a star during stellar evolution, since without the Sun there would be no life as we know it. We could even extend this to the theories on the death of the universe. If we did this we would only add a couple of sentences on these topics with no pictures but links to their main articles. What do you guys think? Anthony 18:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we need more material on cell death and senescence. I don't think it's relevant enough to give much more than a see also link or a couple of lines somewhere for the death of stars etc though. Richard001 22:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added heat death of the universe to see also, though I think that should be enough. I would look at other encyclopedic articles on death and see if they give any mention of the subject. It is perhaps a little more relevant that say blue screen of death though, since all life depends on the energy released by stars directly or indirectly. Richard001 22:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments re: Category:Death in the United States

Hello, I'd like to request help resolving a dispute about Category:Death in the United States. Another editor and myself are in disagreement about if Category:Death in the United States belongs in Category:United States, and if it does, at what level of that category's tree is most appropriate for its inclusion. Additional thoughts would be helpful to resolve this. Thanks very much, Kurieeto 02:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Assuming it survives the deletion request, I would put it in the main United States category. Which subcategory could it possibly be placed in? If it was just say extinction, you might put it in biota, but there's not much of a common theme there as it is. Richard001 05:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

After death redirects here.

But wouldn't afterlife make more sense? TheBlazikenMaster 12:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know the word has no specific meaning of its own, so it could only refer to what happens after death. Redirecting to afterlife would make no more sense than redirecting to decomposition really, so short of deleting it, it seems the best place to redirect. Richard001 21:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, why does Dieing redirect to Death? The two have nothing in common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.193.72.197 (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Afterlife would make more sense. You are absolutely right--Angel David (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

how would you know about afterlife if there is no proof in being reincarnated?? (vahn_dinio) 11:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyone Dies

Maybe I missed it, but I never see the article saying that death is inevitable for everyone, which seems to be an important point about it. It might seem obvious, but then again the basic concept of death is obvious to most people, so if there is an article on it at all, it should mention that everyone dies at some point.

It isn't inevitable for everyone. Bacteria and Hydra(yes there is such a thing, and it is not a mythical beast) are basically "immortal" they never age and deteroriate and die. They just keep reproducing. The snare (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The individual bacteria ceases to live when it then becomes split into two, in the same idea that some animals die after giving birth. —Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it still seems that the following 2 things should be mentioned at the top of the page: 1, that Death is (almost always) inevitable, and 2, that Death is (almost always) irreversible. The fact that there is a single 1 mm-long animal that doesn't die should not prevent the article from stating this, as the inevitability of death (especially for us non-hydras) is an important concept to understand in order to understand death as a whole. Same with the irreversibility; the fact that occasionaly people are brought back after death shouldn't detract from the main point, that the experience of the vast majority of people is dying and not coming back, ever. This too is an important concept to get in order to understand death. These two, put together, explain how death is fundamentally different from, say, winning the lottery, or graduating from High School. These two can be put in the lead with caveats, but I think it is important that they are not completely neglected.

Not including these two facts (that, granted, have rare exceptions) would be like not including in the article for the World Series that it is held each year, because it was not held in 1994. It should at least be mentioned, along with the exceedingly rare exceptions, in the lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.143.37 (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Death by extreme emotion

We know it's possible for someone to be literally scared to death, but it isn't the emotion itself in the person's brain that causes the death, it's the heart attack or whatever other physiological effect it causes to the person's body. I've also heard stories that people have died of sadness/depression (again probably something physical the emotion causes) not by taking thier own life, but from the emotion itself like Padme did in Episode III. And I've heard that some Hindu practitioners can get so relaxed in their meditations, that they really can just let go. Is any of this true? The snare (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Law section - Terrible footnotes

None of the footnotes give any relavent sources.

• Most legal documents void the terms if someone should die, although it can later be contested that the person is in fact alive.

If this is important, by general principles it should be in the main body, not in the footnote where you expect to find testimony to what has been said.

• See taxes and insurance.

Having a 'dictionary' refering to itself is silly, also since wikipedia is under constant developement, your source may no longer contain the relevant information.

• Any process requiring verification of ID would meet with resistance, since now that the person shows up as dead, the identification is viewed as false. That is, the birth certificate is nullified by a death certificate.

Again main body or not at all. This is somewhat of an explaination of - as contradicted to what it's not; a verification of - presented facts.

• As shown by many movies like Black Sheep, in addition to actual legal records.

A movie? :) And 'legal records'? Please present the relevant legal records.

• A vagrant is someone who is homeless, if and only if they have no visible means of income, which is the case if businesses will not hire.

Their is a section for vagrancy in wikipedia, why not redicrect 'vagrant' for the reader unfamiliar with the term instead of explaining it - in unclear terms - in the footnotes?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.242.98.144 (talk • contribs)

I agree. Frankly I think this is a ludicrous section. "Dead people cannot vote"?--Mantanmoreland (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What you feel when you die?

What you feel when you die? You feel the same thing when you get frozen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.28.221.131 (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

When you die, obviously you'll never feel anything, you can never feel the same thing as when you are frozen. vahn_dinio (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge with premature death

The premature death article does not offer enough information to stand on its own. It should be merged into this article.

Neelix (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.--Astavats (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD and have redirected. There is little useful content in this article which is unsourced and lacks WP:RS. Nk.sheridan   Talk 22:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Legal rights for the dead

I agree, that list was getting pretty silly, but you gotta admit, "Legally dead people may not participate in employer-sponsored athletic tournament gambling pools" was pretty darn funny. EOBeav (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead image question again

I think that the best lead image (see also the discussion from last year) would be something general, symbolic, as in the German article de:Tod, a Memento mori or similar. For example, Image:StillLifeWithASkull.jpg would be fitting in my opinion. The image from the American Civil War currently used at the top is far too specific for the general topic "Death". Gestumblindi (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No response? Any objections to using this symbolic image:

instead of:

as the lead image on top of the article? Of course one could say that we shouldn't shy away from confronting our users with the stark reality of death; however, I don't propose the new lead image because it's "nicer" (and I do not agree with 24.98.47.141 in the paragraph below who thinks we should remove content if it's "offending" people) but because it is more general, a symbol for death. We can keep the dead soldier picture in the article, in my opinion, but I don't think it is the best lead image. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'd have to object to the replacement of the current lead image with the skull. I've detailed my argument in the section below. My main argument is that as this article concerns death, from a primarily human point of view, an image of a dead human is the obvious choice rather than a symbolic skull image. Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is a human skull. Also, I didn't remove the dead soldier picture; moved it below the symbolic image, but it's still in the article's lead section. The symbolic skull image as well mainly symbolizes death from a human point of view, though in a more general way than an image of death in war. Therefore I still think that it is the better lead image. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I can see your point with the skull as being a good symbol of death. Although I still prefer the dead soldier!

Perhaps this skull image would be a compromise as it lacks the unrelated items on either side of it. There is also an image of a decomposing rat which might be suitable, although it lacks the human POV. Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 20:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That rat, or mole, or whatever it is gives me the creeps. KenFehling (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, a lead image question

I know this has nothing to do with the content of the page, but the lead image will offend people, maybe a picture of a dead flower or something of the sort. We need to respect the dead, and taking pictures and posting them on the internet isn't very respectful. I know I'll get slammed by wiki-addicts and wiki-editors for being off-topic, or stupid, or something like that. But I think a picture of any kind of dead animal will offend people. 24.98.47.141 (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd have a problem with the image if it was of a recently deceased person and thus could offend living persons (i.e. close relations). However as the image is from the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863 there is no issue with this. The article concerns death, primarily from a human bias, and as such it is appropriate to have a lead image of a dead human. Wikipedia is not censored and in my opinion the purpose of an encyclopedia is to present facts from a NPOV avoiding cultural bias as far as possible. Nk.sheridan   Talk 22:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The present pic is a good strong image that aptly posits the topic head-on in all its threat without recourse to visual euphemism. The foggy consequence of something merely symbolic (e.g. a skull or suchlike - let alone the dead flower suggested above) is best avoided.Wingspeed (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Only just noticed that someone has in fact already plonked the painted skull (and a dead flower!) up there as the lead image. This is no improvement. A veritable kopf-out. The corpse beneath renders it muddily otiose.Wingspeed (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The consensus regarding the lead image appears to be unclear (per this and previous sections). I propose that we have a survey. Nk.sheridan   Talk 21:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

@Wingspeed: Please see the paragraph above, Talk:Death#Lead_image_question_again. I changed the lead image after making the suggestion there (19 June) and receiving no response (neither positive nor negative) for several days - I certainly didn't want to rush things. The paragraph here, started by 24.98.47.141, is basically unrelated and I don't agree with the IP user's views. The painting, by the way, doesn't contain a dead flower - it's a living one, the symbols being a flower for life, the skull for death, and the hourglass for time. Why the soldier's corpse should render it "muddily otiose" I don't understand. The two images complement each other: first we have a general symbol, then a very specific image of a particular kind of death. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey regarding lead image for this article

The editor Gestumblindi proposes that the lead image be changed from the dead Gettysburg soldier to the more symbolic image of a human skull. Another editor, Wingspeed, does not agree and feels that the dead soldier image should be kept. My personal preference is that we should keep the current dead soldier image. As the consensus is unclear on this matter I'm creating this survey in order to obtain views from other editors.

Survey - Feel free to state your position on the lead image of human skull for this article by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons. Thanks, Nk.sheridan   Talk 22:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Well, it would be strange to "support" myself, but to repeat it: I think that the article needs a lead image that stands for "death" as broadly as possible, at least broadly for human death, which is what the article does focus on. Instead of the painting (which I inserted after suggesting it here and receiving no response for several days) I would also agree with any other image of a human skull, although I think that the painting is very fitting. The dead Gettysburg soldier is too specific for a lead image: this is not death in general, it's the death of a soldier in war. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Despite all the discussion, a new lede pic seems to have suddenly appeared unannounced; and it's displaced the painting to a rather inapt position lower down. If these two images are going to stay where they are, I still prefer the Gettysburg pic on top because it's appropriately stark, appropriately in b&w, appropriately distant in time for so gruesome an image, yet the heap of detritus behind eerily echoes more recent pics of skull piles from Year Zero Cambodia. The over-riding aspect of the human attitude to death is fear. The opening pic needs to reflect that. That's the very reason we understandably try to reduce it to a mere concept. So a picture visualizing a concept just won't do. Fine in the right place, but not at the top. I see the Germans have a statue at the top of their entry (perhaps understandable in their case). At least the Pope pic serves to emphasize by implication that death comes to us all. In the meantime, I'll move the painting from where it's suddenly been plonked to a spot more apt until some consensus is arrived at. Wingspeed (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I did notice that Pope image when I was trawling commons but I dismissed it as the subject (i.e. the dead Pope) is not so clear with all the other persons in the background. Certainly not suitable as a lead image IMO! Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Pope image is completely unsuitable. My vote is still for a symbolic, broad lead image. Gestumblindi (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I certainly do not think the image of the Pope is appropriate for a lead image here, and for similar reasons I don't think the dead soldier is, either.

The previously displayed image,Vanitas by Philippe de Champaigne: Life, Death, and Time, is better imo -- though perhaps it would be best to crop out the Life and Time symbols for use here...?

Perhaps one of the images from Death (personification) would be better, though "Death as a skeleton carrying a scythe" is sort of skewed toward a Western POV...

I'll try to look through wikimedia commons myself for something better to suggest, if I get a chance...

Wikiscient 09:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

@Wikiscient: Only whoever put it there seems to favor, so far, the Pope image; so it can at least be down-graded to a spot less prominent. I don't mind if we lose it. You say that "...for similar reasons I don't think the dead soldier is, either." Would be good if you could say what those reasons are. People, I notice, are using words like unsuitable & inappropriate but failing to state reasons as requested (see above: "please explain your reasons"). I've given in detail my reasons for favoring the dead soldier, which lead the page when first I clicked to it a while back. I've also stated why I feel the mere oil-painting that replaced it to be a muddy cop-out. Death is no oil-painting. Such squeamishness has been identified by various authors (Evelyn Waugh - a Catholic incidentally - Jessica Mitford and others) as particularly marked in the US. What Mitford called The American Way of Death. If true, I hope we don't end up - irony of ironies - with a solution itself a symptom of what she & Waugh sought to pillory. Let's get real. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

@Wingspeed: You say that "...for similar reasons I don't think the dead soldier is, either." Would be good if you could say what those reasons are. - Well, I can't speak for Wikiscient, but I assume it's for the same reasons I stated here repeatedly: The dead Gettysburg soldier is too specific for a lead image: this is not death in general, it's the death of a soldier in war - this also applies to the Pope image, another very specific case of death. Whether an oil-painting or the photograph of a real human skull, as suggested by Nk.sheridan above (at the bottom of the paragraph "Lead image question again"), I don't really care. Also, is "death" the first thing the soldier picture evokes? Without the caption, especially at the low image size in the article, it's just a person lying on the ground, apparently badly wounded, but not necessarily dead at first glance. If you look at the image in full resolution, the death of the soldier depicted is rather obvious - but the lead image should obviously and broadly stand for death at first glance. I see that we have again a new lead image, the skull from the painting isolated, which I think is good. The Pope image, I think, we can completely remove from the article. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, I've removed the Pope image, re-captioned pics for greater impact, done general tidy-up & spot copyedited to increase overall cohesion. I hope this meets with general approval. The opening section & pics now look pretty good to me (i.e. I've accepted the skull |!D) I hope this resolves the pic issue for at least the time being. Wingspeed (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I like your skull caption, Wingspeed! (maybe better with just "detail from..." and not "a detail from..." but not a big deal).

As far as my "disapproval" of the dead-Pope image (and "similarly" the dead-soldier image): it's not squeamishness, it's just the same reason why I thought the painting would be more "appropriate" here cropped down to just the skull. The lead image should be a good representation of the subject of this article. Choosing a lead image that also contains representations of the subjects of other articles weakens the effect, is distracting, is potentially confusing, and depending on the "other subjects" in question might easily be interpreted as editorial bias (to the extent, in the case of the Pope, for example, of possibly causing offense to some readers).

That's all. If you want to put up a morgue or med-school shot of some anonymous "John/Jane Doe" corpse, I'd probably be okay with that (depending in that case however entirely on how likely it seems that some reader out there might be surprised and disturbed to see a deceased relative or loved-one representing this topic -- which again is just another aspect of the same reasoning and in the same way something that Wikipedia probably ought to avoid here...).

I don't really have too much of a problem with this dead-soldier (though again a more "neutral" John-Doe-on-morgue-slab would be better). Piles of corpses at Auschwitz: problem. Close-up of JFK's head-wound: problem. (You see what I'm trying to say, and why, right?)

Anyway: regards! Wikiscient 22:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm quite happy with Wingspeeds removal of the Pope image and the the insertion of the symbolic skull image (edited to remove the associated items). I'd agree with User:Wikiscient that a morgue shot of a dead human would be better but this is unlikely as the person would likely have living relatives making it a no no IMO. Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

the nature of death is a concern for everyone

Someone (no doubt religious) snuck in a mention in the beginning paragraph about how the nature of death is a concern for the world's religions. What I have a problem with is that it is mostly pointless to mention, because the nature of death is a concern for practically every mortal, sapient being in existence. I added mention of scientists and philosophers to balance it out, but it may need to be altered further. I know we are supposed to assume good faith, but it came across to me as an attempt to imply that religion is the only or primary sphere of human thought that is concerned with the nature of death, which is nonsense.VatoFirme (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This has now, I hope, been adequately addressed. Mention of philosophers has been added, as you rightly suggest; the overall emphasis of the lede is scientific, as is appropriate for these scientific times, and the final two sentences of the lede specifically focus on medical science. Wingspeed (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

'See Also' list really made me laugh

Death, as a word, can mean so many things; and of course its wikipedia article should have a 'see also' section. But the existing collection of internal links concerning supposed "death topics" has some interesting links. Many should probably be on the disambiguation page; and many are so far removed from the arch-topic of "death" that they are just out of place. For example: death metal - could possibly be put on the disambiguation page - but I think that anyone who is searching for an article about death metal would know that they could find the article much more swiftly than if they just look in the "death section." death erection - I'm sure it's interesting. But again - it's just not a sub-topic of "death" - without even looking at the article, I'm guessing it's mostly a concept involving erotic fantasy. Probably not family reading, either - which pretty much rules it out as being an appropriate link from this page - way down the subtopic ladder, perhaps...

Anyway, I'm not in an editing mood - just wanted to point out this odd mix of links. I don't even remember how I ended up looking at the "death" page in the first place.... Dmodlin71 (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Neutral

I've come across a few times where your article has been a little questionalable with its neutrality. Many sections may cause the reader to view death as a bad thing. This goes against the idea of some religions as death being good and as another step in life. If this is wrong, please contact me about this issue. Thank you. MaBot (talk) 06:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Erm, because oddly enough death isn't a good thing for any religion. name me one that it is considered good for.. what you can't? excellent argument.. really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.93.42 (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Dude, are you kidding! Check Christianity or Islam to name but two. Haven't you heard of Heaven? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.160.155 (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah,,, its the beginning of judgment in Islam and (as i understand it) a kind of "on hold" till judgement day for christians. Not good for either really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.10.23 (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of the Christian faith clearly believes that death = going to Heaven, if you have accepted Jesus. I am not familiar with the Islam faith, but you are wrong about christianity, death is considered a good thing that lets you move on into Heaven, there is no "on hold" or whatever you are talking about. Frogsterking (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Afterlife, or 'the no brainer'

Wingspeed unilaterally undid a basic edit I made to the lead, to include some mention of afterlife as a focus of philosophical and religious concern about death. I think it should be in the lead. -Zahd (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my request to discuss this edit. The sentence as it stands implies religious & philosophical concern about a possible afterlife. To make that more explicit in the lede renders the sentence imho needlessly cumbersome. There are those (see above) who have objected to the inclusion of any reference to religion at all in the lede, and I've had a bit of a tussle to keep it there. I agree with you. The question of what you call the afterlife warrants proper mention. Lower down, the page in fact links to the Afterlife article - at the start of the Death in culture sub-section. If you feel it needs to be added to, I for for one would be happy to see that since, for most people in most cultures, whether or not there's experience after death has been a major preoccupation: whole societies, it could be argued, have revolved around it. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be open to putting it back in. I will work with your recommendations. -Zahd (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. your objections to the wording in the lede doesnt explain your changing the text in the image caption. -Zahd (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

@Zahd: You misunderstand me. The sentence as it stands already implies religious & philosophical concern about a possible afterlife. To make that more explicit in the lede renders the sentence needlessly cumbersome - now particularly so: "a central concern of the world's religious traditions and philosophers to penetrate (centrally, on the existence of an afterlife)." (my italics.) I've therefore taken out the additional words. I repeat: possible existence or othewise of an afterlife warrants proper mention, but not in the lede. There's a separate article titled Afterlife. The Death in Culture section is the proper place for greater detail on the question. Image caption: the edit to the original caption added nothing by way of information but simply rendered it needlessly banal. P.S. It would be good if when making edits you could put an edit summary in the appropriate box. Thanks. Wingspeed (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it makes the lede more "cumbersome." You will note that many of our articles ledes are dense with links to relevant concepts, even tangential ones. I find the argument that an encyclopedia should be written to only imply concepts rather than directly stating them a bit empty. Not to mention, being a web resource, we also have to view linking as superiour to simply stating a concept. -Zahd (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(Of course "the argument that an encyclopedia should be written to only imply concepts rather than directly stating them" is, as you put it, a bit empty. I have suggested no such thing.) What I find troublesome in the context is the implied assumption behind the term afterlife - i.e. that there is inevitably such a thing, which, with the added force of "no brainer," seems at odds with the need for a neutral viewpoint. It's cumbersome, more specifically, because of the ungrammatical way in which it's dragged in to the sentence in question. Since you are adamant that this be included in the lede, I attempt a more grammatical compromise which I hope will meet with your approval & not bring down the disapproval of the anti-religionists (see above - and, indeed, below). Regards Wingspeed (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you found a good compromise. :) Be well. -Zahd (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Green Propaganda

It's everywhere.

"an increasing cause of species depletion in recent times has been destruction of ecological systems as a consequence of the widening spread of industrial technology."

Is there a single wiki article that doesn't have Green/Communist propaganda? This article is about death, not the Amazon rainforest. An ecosystem isn't ALIVE to begin with, so therefore an ecosystem cannot DIE.98.165.6.225 (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you equate Green with Communism. The two aren't even remotely related. (and if you look at communist countries - they generally not too hot on environmentalism...)86.31.123.203 (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Still part of life even after death: a decomposing mole has entered Earth's biogeochemical cycle" And that is just disgusting man. Nice picture. 98.165.6.225 (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah! how strange that an article about death, containing a section on most common forms of death has infomation on "the most common form of death".

"An ecosystem isn't ALIVE to begin with, so therefore an ecosystem cannot DIE" and if you believe this. R U N back to school and ask for extra classes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.10.23 (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Brain death not neutral

"Many have challenged the idea that brain death is equivalent to the cessation of consciousness. Critics point out that much of human consciousness is embodied in numerous body parts and that the end of electrical impulses in the brain does not necessarily indicate that this embodied consciousness has also ceased. Given this possibility, brain death does not necessitate the end of consciousness, and thus brain dead people may still be alive. Furthermore, some have argued, even if brain death does mean the end of consciousness for a human being, the whole notion that cessation of consciousness indicates death is problematic. Critics note the existence of many simple organisms such as viruses that we consider to be alive but which many doubt are conscious. If life does not require consciousness, defining death in terms of "brain death" is a dubious procedure, even if the brain is the seat of consciousness. Thus while legal concerns surrounding death force us to develop a working definition of death, it is not at all clear that the current American definition, according to brain death, coincides at all with a definition that can be reasonably endorsed."

There are two distinct points in the article where similar assertions are made. These assertions strike me as bring written from a "pro life" POV and lacks a neutral perspective. It fails to mention, for instance, that even if alive as a whole, a brain dead individual has zero chance of ever recovering their memories or personality or being able to lead any kind of meaningful life. Who are these unnamed critics who claim that the body as a whole serves as a seat of conciousness? What other body parts are responsible for conciousness and in what way? If your big toe was cut off in an accident would you suddenly stop appreciating Monty Python as a result? Has anyone ever regained conciousness from a state of brain death?

This whole section is very problematic, it doesn't cite any sources and is written from a biased perspective, that of someone who believes any kind of biological activity occurring in a human being means that the person in question is alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.45.3 (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The entire section on "Defining death in medicine" is full of weasel words. No citations whatsoever. While the subject of Death itself may be a philosophical question, surely a medical definition of death can can be found even in a college textbook and cited. 66.68.69.154 (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the mention of viruses in the above paragraph is prety meaningless. Not even a total moron would try to use brain-death as an indicator for the death of an organism that wasnt normally conscious. Do they imagine teams of doctors standing round a tree deciding it's dead because they can't measure any brain activity? Nobody has even suggested that all life be meansured in terms of consciousness. Sounds like a straw-man to me. 86.31.123.203 (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What concerns me is "Critics point out..." It makes it sound as if this was an absolutely established fact. It isn't, and in fact there's no evidence whatsoever that consciousness exists anywhere but the brain. It's not pro-life or pro-religion, it's pro-fringe theory. --NellieBly (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was what prompted me to come and take a look at the discussion page. The entire paragraph is weasel words, unattributed claims, and basically groundless. So, I took the slightly simplistic approach and just deleted it wholesale. It seems to me that it's making two points at once: first, that it is at least a logical possibility that the brain is not the sole seat of consciousness; second, that consciousness is not the same thing as life and the cessation of it is therefore not the same thing as death. The first of these would be worth re-adding if someone could find some references and add a few lines about which particular philosophies or theories it is that claim or suggest this; the second more general doubt I think is already quite well covered in the whole tone of the entire section, which is after all all about what exactly should be considered to constitute death or not and whether "brain death" should be regarded as sufficient, I think it just restates the general theme of the section without adding anything. 82.6.108.62 (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Image captions

Does anyone else think these images captions are a bit philosophical and deep for an encyclopaedia? SGGH ^ping! 21:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No. A good caption is more than just a label. It should also serve to signpost aspects of the image that might otherwise be missed - thereby, it is to be hoped, capturing the reader's imagination and drawing him or her into the article itself. The relevant WP guideline on captioning has more on this. Wingspeed (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that while the captions may be gripping, they seem a bit too conversational/casual for WP.134.174.21.5 (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirect Kanji

Is there any reason why the kanji for 4 (四) redirects here when the kanji for death (死) doesn't take you anywhere on Wikipedia? A little background knowledge: In Japanese, both of these kanji are pronounced "shi", which links 4 with death, or at least makes it really unlucky. If this information is relevant to the article, perhaps it should be included, but in the meantime, I think it would be more appropriate for 四 to redirect here. me llamo Andrés (tock) 11:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

fixed.

Articulo mortis

I'm not sure where to make mention of articulo mortis, which simply means on the deathbed, as in a deathbed will or other legal act taken by a person while on his deathbed. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 09:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Existence and non-existence

Given that the phenomena of consiousness has yet to be explained scientifically, any view proclaiming that there is an 'afterlife' after death or alternatively that death brings about the total destrucion of consciousness remains an unsubstantiated blind faith belief. These two are at opposite ends of the spectrum of belief, but blind faith beliefs they both are. The only true scientific viewpoint is to remain neutral and open to whatever the evidence indicates, despite personal preferences or opinions. Scientifically the issue is still not anywhere near to providing an adaquet answer until the nature of consciousness itself can first be discerned.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's quite well understood that consciousness is a function of the brain and there's no evidence of a consciousness without a properly functioning brain. That death of the brain is death of consciousness seems indeed a very fair presumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.89.123 (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Photo

The photo with the title 'Gravestones in Kyoto, Japan', can you verify it? Differentiation between Chinese, Japanese and Korean characters is no problem for me because I am Chinese. Firstly, there are only Chinese characters in the photo. However, I have doubts. If it's Chinese, I can tell you that no one would talk like this unless it's the kind of Chinese you use for poems and therefore hard to understand. But it can also be Japanese with its different grammar. Even if it's Japanese, I'm wondering why these people constantly use Chinese characters for tombstones. Sorry for my English. I'm just a teenager who lives neither in China nor in English-speaking countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.116.193.228 (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like a typical Japanese cemetary.--Taylornate (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"Ungrateful Dead"

"Ungrateful dead" redirects to "death", but it's the title of a documentary. It's confusing. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0495541/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.101.233 (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Are humans animals?

There is a disagreement about a single sentence. The 1st sentence in the second paragraph currently says, Humans and the vast majority of other animals die in due course from senescence. The disagreement is whether the word other belongs in the sentence. As it looks from the reverts, others and I believe that the word does belong in the sentence. The argument is whether humans are animals or not. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The argument is not only whether humans are animals, but also whether this argument belongs on this article. A dispute about whether humans are animals or not must take many points into consideration, including definitions of an 'animal' and a human, biology, psychology, intelligence and culture. I am with many philosophers, scientists and psychologists who feel that humans are not animals, and should not be labelled as such.

Additionally, in the format of this article, the reader wants to know about death. This is described and dealt with with regard to humans and animals separately. They do not need to be drawn into a debate about whether humans should be classified as animals or not. The artticle clearly distinguishes human death as well as death in animals separately. Therefore the addition of the word 'other' is not appropriate. Classing humans as animals is not a consensus in any field whether it is science, psychology or philosophy, and furthermore does not belong in the article.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Your belief that humans are not animals represents a minority view. See Humans which makes it clear we are primates belonging to the great ape family. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 12:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence that this is a 'minority' view. I would think that the overwhelming vast majority of people in the world do not regard humans as being 'animals'. Secondly, biological definitions are by no means absolute and they do nor prove anything. Yes, we are primates, but that does not equate to being 'animals'. This is clear from the fact that primates are divided into 'non-human primates' (e.g. animals) and the human primate. Being classed as 'great apes' is also a matter of terminology. Humans evolved with modern apes from a common anscestor, but humans are certainly not a type of ape now, and no serious biologist would argue that they are.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I am truly astonished that this is being discussed. Humans are animals. They are not vegetables or minerals. They are alive and they are animate. They exist in the biological kingdom "Animalia", which is that of the animals. The misconceptions of large numbers of poorly educated or misinformed people do not trump solid factual information. The status of humans as apes or non-apes is irrelevant as all primates (whether apes or hominids or whatever) are animals. The taxonomy is intrinsically hierarchical. If you accept that some primates are animals then you either have to accept that all primates are animals or reject the whole system of classification as bogus. While taxonomy is a legitimate subject for debate the sweeping claim that "biological definitions are by no means absolute and they do nor prove anything" seems unsupportable given that genetic research is making this a more and more precise science.

I know that there is widespread non-scientific or colloquial use of "animal" that normally excludes humans but, given that we are speaking in precise scientific terms here (remember that this is a sentence that uses the scientific term "senescence" in favour of the more colloquial and vague term "old age"), we should be scientifically correct in our usage. A few general readers might read it and find it a bit odd that we say "other" but they are more likely to be busy looking up the meaning of "senescence" than angsting over the use of the word "other". It doesn't prevent a general reader understanding what is being said.

In my view removing the word "other" would be an act of deliberately introducing factual inaccuracy into the encyclopaedia and I know that nobody here wants to do that. If we really can't agree that "other" is correct then maybe it would be better to say something like "Humans and the vast majority of other living organisms die in due course from senescence." --DanielRigal (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The last part of your post actually came up with a good way of putting it - "humans and the vast majority of other living organisms". The preceeding part however is simply not true, and reflects only a certain perspective of some, but not all biologists. Appealing to the supposed authority of taxonomical classification means very little. There is NO consensus in science about whether humans should be classed as 'animals' or not. Living beings yes, living organisms yes, but the definition of animal is something entirely different. Just because something is alive and animate doesn't make it an animal. Things which are alive and animate are either going to be animals or humans, or else just a type of organism. Some forms of scientific classification may want to class humans as animals, but there are many others in science who would not. This is even greater in other fields such as psycology and philosophy, where humans are specifically not seen as animals. There is no basis for excluding the views of these fields just becasue some but not all taxonomists have decided to class humans as a type of animal. Humans are not animals. They are living breathing beings, but not all living breathing beings are animals. Humans are living breathing beings that are not animals.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit clash)I can't really respond to that except to reiterate my original points. What you say simply does not make any sense in the context of the sentence we are discussing, which is about the biological death process and uses correct biological terminology, where regarding humans as animals is entirely uncontroversial.

What I propose now is to see if anybody else agrees that there is an issue here at all. If we get a few people agreeing with you (even if they are a minority) then we should go with the alternative wording I suggested. If not, we should leave it as it is. If you want to make a formal RfC of it, go ahead. Personally, I don't think it is controversial enough to require it. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Humans ARE animals. Humans are primates of the class Mammalia of the Kingdom of Animalia. The biological definition of the word "animal" refers to all members of the Kingdom Animalia including humans. (The American Heritage Dictionary (Forth ed.). Houghton Mifflin Company. 2006) Where are the references that say otherwise? Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Humans are animals and saying otherwise is just silliness. --Geniac (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the statement "Humans and the vast majority of other living organisms die in due course from senescence." true? There are many living organisms that are not animals. Do molds, fungus, and other non-animals die from senescence? A large percentage of living organisms are non-animals. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if they all do but plants do. We have a separate article on Plant senescence. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That wording seems inaccurate to me. Senescence means death by aging, correct? What about death by accident, starvation, or predation? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Senescence does not mean death by aging. It is simply used as a synonym for the aging process – from the Latin senescere, to grow old. Wingspeed (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What a gripping debate!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.1.34.162 (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I support that human are animal... :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Pope John Paul II

I don't believe the picture of Pope John Paul II lying in state illustrates anything about causes of death. I would suggest graphic illustrations or tables of causes of death by age, etc. Or simply remove the picture. It seems like an innapropriate place for the picture since it is not referenced in the section in any specific way. MikeR —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC).

I think discussing the mummification of people is a important cultural aspect of death. It is not just a thing of the past. The image is significant just not maybe in this section. Maybe some autopsy images... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar

Created template:death sidebar. Based on template:suicide and needs editing to differentiate it. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 05:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.114.27.135, 13 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Holding medicine in the mouth for more then 10 seconds kills children under the age of 10 98.114.27.135 (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll be nice and just say that's extremely dubious and would require a source. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Complex Wording

There's no way that people who don't know what death is (e.g. children or non-native speakers) will understand a thing of the first paragraph, and those that do know what it is will already know everything written in it anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernovic (talk • contribs) 08:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that what Simple English Wikipedia is for...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.207.44 (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of deceased individuals

I have removed the photo of a deceased confederate soldier under the 'Legal' heading of this page. My reason for doing so is that I do not see visuals of any dead organism, human or otherwise, being necessary to have a knowledge of what death is and indeed images of such organisms, human or otherwise, are more likely to evoke negative emotions rather than academic insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.243.29 (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It says confederate soldier but his uniform clearly says US on it. Are we sure this is not a Union soldier? I know confederates often used supplies from before the war, but the Siege of Petersburg was pretty late in the war, 1865 I think. I know he is long dead but I am pretty sure he would appreciate being identified to the right side. Can someone check the original source?50.80.146.188 (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Use more direct image (and video if we can't find some)

We should use real and more direct image of death poeple/animals instead of painting and symbolism. In west society death is totally ignored, we should try to be more direct and cold (without play on world) her. I also don't like than we use an image from a war in a special context, it's to emotive and it will be better to use an anonymous body in a "normal" context (hospital's bed is the more common now).

It would be "nice" also to have a video of someone or/and animal old age. Peoples have the peaceful image from movies but I can tell you when old peoples die is habitually not pretty, painful, slow and violent. --Gagarine (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Skull

Do you guys have to have a picture of a skull? -James Pandora Adams

I have to admit, the lead picture is a bit... overkill... ThemFromSpace 01:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the problem with it?--Taylornate (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

I recently nominated this article for assessment. You can leave any comments about the article below. The last nomination was in 2007, and it seems many of the original issues were sorted out. But a reviewer recently said its still not good enough. Pass a Method talk 12:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised someone nominated it for Good Article review, as there are many places, even entire sections, that need references and in-line citations. Hence the many C-class assessments from the involved wikiprojects. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

lead reversion

All known organisms, including humans, inevitably experience death or the degradation of their original forms.

I reverted the following additions for these reasons:

• Known: On second thought this is probably fine.
• Including humans: This is redundant. I don't see the need to emphasize that humans are organisms which die like other organisms.
• or the degradation of their original forms: I don't understand what this means. Is it an alternative definition of death? An alternative to death itself? The latter would be incorrect and the former would be out of place.--Taylornate (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel the same way about the 2nd item. The last item was made only as a suggestion, as there are technically "immortal" organisms out there. But because those types of immortality are usually the result of budding or clonal colonies, it might not be what some readers think of as "immortality". Hence, the wording. I've also stated that I'm amenable with removal of the whole sentence. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the sentence (or a vaiation) is essential because otherwise it would sound as if death is like cancer or someting, that some organisms go through but some do not. I have addressed the humans part. Pass a Method talk 21:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think your change of degradation to termination did much to clarify that part of the sentence. At this point I favor removing that part.

I do think the fact that all organisms experience death is worthy of mention in the lead.--Taylornate (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I modified that last paragraph, as per consensus. Also modified the sentence pertaining to disposal of the corpse. Check it out, and try it on for size. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I modofied the last paragraph too. I hope it was fine. Pass a Method talk 08:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's why I linked the one article to "mortuary customs", but to answer your questions, there's "burial by exposure" (related or utilizing the process of excarnation), Tibetan sky burials, disposal by feeding to animals, burial at sea, endocannibalism, ritual osteophagy, interment within a tree, donation for medical/educational usage.... I think I've run the extent of methods that I can recall off the top of my head... Boneyard90 (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I wrote "typical" method of disposal, because the "typed" or ideal method, according to culture, includes burial or cremation with funeral customs. The usual circumstances, talking strictly in terms of numbers and percentages of deaths, may be much more random, due to natural disasters, people who are lost, homicides, etc. Think of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake or the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. I doubt there's been a study of number of bodies lost and never recovered versus people who die and get funerals. It would be an estimate anyway, so "usual" is an assumption of majority. Boneyard90 (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Boneyard90, I think you are answering my previous deleted post. Pass a Method talk 12:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted when I posted my reply. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

oh, but the lead looks ok now. Pass a Method talk 14:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Buried vs. Interred

I see no reason to use interred over buried which is more common in everyday language. This is supported by the name of the linked article, burial.--Taylornate (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You were faster than me. But here's why I switched "buried" back to "interred":

A "burial" means that a hole/grave is dug, the body is placed in the hole and the hole is filled in. "Interment" is more inclusive. To "inter" a body includes burial, but also placing a whole body in a room cut or constructed in the earth or in rock (a tomb or sepulchre), a body placed in a fully-constructed, permanent edifice (a mausoleum), a body placed in an "above-ground grave" (really just a sarcophagus sitting on the surface), bones placed in an ossuary or catacombs, and cremated remains placed in the niche of a columbarium.... among probably other places. The point is, "burial" is restrictive and specific; "interment" is inclusive and more general. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you guys thin we can take this to good article status? Pass a Method talk 17:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The main thing holding it back is in-line citations to reliable sources. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The two words seem to be exact synonyms.--Taylornate (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they seem to be. They are synonyms, but not exact. And a dictionary isn't usually the best place for nuance of meaning. A burial is an inhumation, and it is a type of interment. Burial specifies in the ground. While people might use "bury" as a common catch-all, it lacks accuracy, and we should not encourage that. This site references a work on funerals. This Funeral planning site also uses them seperately. After looking closer, I'm beginning to think I shouldn't have linked "interment" to the article on "Burial". It's terrible, and in need of an overhaul. However, look at Burial#Alternatives to burial. Those practices listed are not burials, but are rather forms of interment (even the term "burial at sea" is often put in quotation marks, because it is understood that the corpse is not being interred in the ground, but rather "buried" in water. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, a dictionary is the highest authority on the meaning of words. Honestly, I've never heard anyone suggest otherwise. If you truly disagree, then I would suggest we ask for a third opinion. Would you be comfortable with that?--Taylornate (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The "highest" authority? Not even. Dictionaries these days cater to the vernacular and put their definitions in easy-to-understand simple English. Their definitions are aimed to conversational usage, "laymen's terms", rather than specialized meanings. That's why there has to be specialists' dictionaries, like medical dictionaries, architectural dictionaries, etc. But, not sure I feel so strongly about it as to pursue the matter further. Go ahead and change the wording if you still disagree. If I find a reliable source that goes into more detail, we can discuss it then. Boneyard90 (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of policy we should choose layman's terms over specialized meanings. I'll wait for your response to my policy link before reverting because I'd prefer if we could agree.--Taylornate (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That's just it, I don't really see the difference as that specialized. When I think of "technical jargon", I think of articles like Zobel network. "Technical jargon" includes words unique to that field, or common words with specific and esoteric meanings within a field. These two words (burial and interment) are used as synonyms, but the difference is analogous to the difference between "meat" and "beef" (all beef is meat, but not all meat is beef). What I'm saying is, all burials are interments, but not all interments are burials. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Belief in Oblivion common among atheists?

There's currently a bit of an edit war going on over whether belief in oblivion is "common/prevelant among atheists". I think it's no different from strong atheism, which barely any atheists can be described as, and although obviously some atheists do believe in oblivion, I think we need a source showing it is a significant amount for us to be able to say it is "common" or "prevelant". The source given on the page Oblivion (eternal) claims that although oblivion is associated with atheists, many do not believe in it, without actually breaking down the per centage of believers vs non-believers. So unless a source is found showing that it is high enough to be "common" and above 50% to be "prevelant", I don't think it should remain here.--140.203.209.62 (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Besides oblivion, what else do atheists believe in? Pass a Method talk 08:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read the source again and understand it. Often is the word used, and that is the word now used in the article. That is good sourcing. In fact, it is better than having a percentage and interpreting that to mean often. The source does not say many do not believe in it. It says only that it is possible for an atheist to not have this belief.--Taylornate (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see what this has to do with the article, it is about death, not the/a afterlife, or lack thereof, or any religion The snare (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

DMT released upon death?

Supposedly, the DMT, hallucinogenic drug, is released by the pineal gland upon the moment of one's death, which in turn causes the person to have a feeling of floating and leaving their body, going in a tunnel of light and also they feel no pain. Perhaps this should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.60.111.91 (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Renaming Section “Senescence” to “Biological aging”

I'm afraid we may need to take this measure for the benefit of laypersons' understanding. Don't get me wrong, I too prefer the more scientifically appropriate “senescence,” but my concern is that average readers will simply skip the section finding its title unintelligible to themselves. I'm reactant to exercise the proposal without receiving feedback first, but to make things work faster, I will exercise it eventually if no objections will surface in a period of 72 hours. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd still prefer to retain the term senescence. If a reader is curious enough to look up "Death", then he is probably interested in the details and would be willing to read all sections, even if not familiar with the heading. Boneyard90 (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I see. In that case, we could make this manipulation: alter the phrase “biological aging” in the lead section to “senescence” so that the reader, being attentive enough to notice an unfamiliar word used in that particular context, would feel enticed enough to examine the section thusly entitled. How does that sound? Everything Is Numbers (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. You could even put one or the other in parentheses. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Suits me fine. Though I'll leave it alone for two more days, just in case somebody will show up with an alternative view: as minor as this matter may be, I don't want it to turn into an edit war. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Y Done. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

oblivion

The doctine of annihilationism is more in line with the resurrection part because annihilation occurs after resurrection acording to this source [3] Pass a Method talk 17:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Location

There's no way that "most of the people before the 20th century did in their homes, comforted by clergy, neighbors, and doctors". Just no way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.64.92 (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Glad to see this article has somehow dodged the "citation needed" nitpickers. So tired of seeing "citation needed" after every damned sentence. Especially for comments that are COMMON SENSE to intelligent people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.206.206 (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Death

I am here to add about the death that with the availability of life support system a person declared otherwise dead can survive for months and years together,So organ death is the term coined. Any person who dies,the onset of death starts at cellular level first necrosis sets in then tissues and the organs systems die.In a nut shell the dead body is entirely electrically discharged with no polarity.and the charge i.e polarity is produced as a result of functioning of the Na+K+ ATPase pump which depends on oxygen and nutrition supply to the living entity.So it is the functional status of this very pump that keeps a cell ,organ ,a system or the body as a hole in living state.Person with organ death,be it cardiac,cerebral,kidney or respiratory failure is functionally alive and not declared as dead scientifically or legally Hence DEATH IS AN IRREVERSIBLE STATE OF GENERALIZED DISCHARGE OF POLARITY OF THE THE BODY. Without nutrition cell or the body in totality can survive for seconds or days but it is the oxygen reaching the farthest of the cell in the body that keeps it alive.The moment the cardiac respiratory support systems are removed person dies.what cardiac respiratory support does is maintains the micro perfusion and tissue supply and thus sustaining life in the individual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharad1946 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds a reasonable add to me Jonpatterns (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Death Metal band Death

Needs a "For Death Metal band see, Death" — Preceding unsigned comment added by UzSpArk89 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I see no point in adding a link to the band because at the Death (disambiguation) there is a link to the band.Casvdschee (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Fear of Death

I must strongly challenge your suggestion that my entry on "Fear of Death" contravenes the guideline of No Original Research. Wiki guidelines says, "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". Do you maintain that the remarks cited from James Boswell, Samuel Johnson or Benedict XVI are not "reliable, published sources", or are not "directly related to the topic of the article", or that I am quoting them "in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say"? Nor do I think "Neutral Point of View" can mean NO point of view. The Wiki articles on "Shakespeare authorship question", or "Conspiracy theories" regarding the assassination of John F Kennedy, for instance, offer contrasting (not "neutral") points of view - as one would expect. I am certainly not in a position to offer "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" on the topic of Fear of Death; that is precisely why I added the note that this "is a rich topic, and my entry can certainly be expanded". Surely Wiki is a collaborative effort? I do expect that my entry will attract contrasting and significant views, also giving published and reliable sources. Do you hold that "Fear of Death" is not a human phenomenon or not worth mentioning? Might I suggest that "People fear death" is as obvious as "Paris is the capital of France"? I am reinserting the section, with some modifications. While I would maintain that the first paragraph of my contribution is simply factual, and not OR, I bend to your opinion and have taken it out. The section on suicide seems relevant and also factual. I don't think removing it is justified; but if you do so I will not object further. However, regarding the passages from Boswell, Johnson and Benedict XVI, I refer you back to what I say in my first paragraph above. They are "reliable, published sources", and are "directly related to the topic of the article". In particular, I am not quoting them "in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say". They do say it explicitly, taking the fear of death as a universal human phenomenon. Please do not take the new version out without showing, not simply affirming, that the entry now violates Wiki rules. [Incidentally, there being hundreds of editions of Boswell’s Life of Johnson, the reference to the date he gives of Johnson’s remarks makes its verifiability much easier than reference to a particular edition.]Unimpeder (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

One glaring omission in the treatment of this topic is Fear of Death. This is not a religious issue, but rather a universal human experience. I have introduced a new section under this title. It is a rich topic, and my entry can certainly be expanded.Unimpeder (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Your addition clearly violates WP:OR; while you have added sources, you may also want to read WP:SYNTH. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Unimpeder, please don't be offended by what may seem to you as onerous bureaucracy or arbitrary pedantry. You're quite welcome to resume your contributions, provided that they're made in compliance with Wikipedia's three core content policies. By the way, are you familiar with the term “thanatophobia”? Everything Is Numbers (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read what Unimpeder wrote, but I agree with him in that this article needs a little more information on the human condition aspects of death. Even obscure movies on wikipedia have a section labeled "legacy" or "cultural impact", so I don't think adding a little information about grief or about fear of death would weaken the article. Even a few links to other articles on related topics would significantly improve it. There should definitely be links to articles about theories about the afterlife or something similar.

207.207.127.230 (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

science

Re the sentence: "There is no scientific evidence that suggests consciousness survives the death of an organism." I would change one word ... "suggests" to "proves." There is ample evidence suggesting the survival of some consciousness for some time after death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.3.30.125 (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have references to this scientific evidence? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. Here is a reference: https://iands.org/publications/journal-of-near-death-studies.html89.100.155.6 (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The given link points to a journal on near-death studies and does not point to a specific reliable source. Do you have a reference that says that it has been suggested but not proven that consciousness survives the death of an organism? Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing in science is proven, every idea has more or less evidence to support it. The editor linked scientific proof, but failed to go to that link and read up on the concept. We could change the wording to "there is very little scientific evidence..." or "no convincing scientific evidence" or "there is weakly supported scientific evidence that suggests..." But not "prove". - Boneyard90 (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "proved" is the wrong word here, and thanks for the suggestions. To avoid weasel words, I think "no convincing scientific evidence" is the best choice. I appreciate the IPs speedy change but I'm going to go ahead and modify the text. Ca2james (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess it depends on who is the potential convincee, or non-convincee as the case may be. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience89.100.155.6 (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Near death is not death. (wp:or statement start): As an experiencer of the first and not the latter, I would not conclude there is life after death (/end). There is no reputable scientific evidence of it, and without evidence there can be no conclusion, much less proof. "Evidence" is the phrase that should be used.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 19:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't really believe the phenomena in near-death experiences continues after death. While the neural activity continues to be measurable after cardiac arrest in rats, it doesn't continue forever. IMO the real issue is that we don't have any scientific evidence of what consciousness is. Parsimony suggests it should arise from matter, but parsimony also suggests that the difference between the brain and any other matter should be a difference of degree, which implies panpsychism and some form of consciousness after death, although probably not any kind of consciousness that would make sense to us. 24.218.80.101 (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is this line here?: "There is also no convincing scientific evidence that suggests consciousness does not survive the death of an organism". This is meaningless. No one can justly expect science to prove without a doubt that a supernatural claim is not true. We can't prove Zeus doesn't exist but I wouldn't say so on the Zeus article. So why is this equally irrelevant line on this article? --Shabidoo | Talk 03:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The question transcends the modern operative scientific definition of consciousness which is "something that humans have and can be measured by self-report," so it's not really investigable by science. How we ought to apply Ockham's razor depends on who you ask. The claim that there is something special about the human brain that gives rise to consciousness and disappears when its host dies is also a little on the supernatural side. I really don't think there is sufficient scientific knowledge on this topic to keep either sentence in the article. If you really want to keep something, with "human consciousness" or "the human mind" in place of "consciousness" in the original sentence, it might be okay. It is scientific consensus that properties of consciousness are tied to physical properties, even if we don't know what is and is not conscious.24.218.80.101 (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Better to have neither than both. --Shabidoo | Talk 05:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Request to Semi-Protect

Hello, I am SirLagsalott. There has been a great deal of vandalism on this page by mobile users, IP users, and general vandals. I would like to request that this page be semi-protected to combat the constant vandalism on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirLagsalott (talk • contribs) 18:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Grief

Why is there no mention of grief? This article is a collection of trivial topics, superstition, and novelty associated with death from people's insensitivity and unfamiliarity to the aspect of death, and it fails to address the real aspect of the grief caused by the death of a admired/loved one. I'm guessing no one has addressed this since they don't have much experience with death or the death of someone around them, right? How about mentioning the five stages of grief? - M0rphzone (talk) 05:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Also this the statement that consciousness ends at death is seriously lacking neutrallity. We're not ALL atheists you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.96.245 (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not lacking neutrality, as it's the truth. Stop feeling entitled because you believe in something. Wikipedia is not a place for your ridiculous beliefs. It adheres to scientific principles, and science now KNOWS that consciousness is just a result of your brain working in a certain way. Therefore, when the source of consciousness (your neurons) stops working, your consciousness disappears, no matter what your ancient religions may tell you. Whether you're a believer or an atheist is of no concern here, this is about the truth, and the truth is consciousness is generated by your frontal lobe. The fact that you decided to lie to yourself by going against the very reality you occupy, and against proven facts, is your problem, so don't bring your "I'm not an atheist and my opinion is as valid as science" audacity here. Sorry to burst your bubble.62.245.69.24 (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm an athiest and a neuroscientist. No one has ever convincingly demonstrated that "consciousness is generated by your frontal lobe." While most scientists agree that consciousness arises from matter, we don't actually know what is conscious and what is not. It is possible there is some property of the brain that gives rise to consciousness that disappears when you die, but it's also possible that you remain conscious long after, albeit most likely not in the way described in the Christian tradition. While not very common among the general population, there are a surprising number of scientists and philosophers who have been drawn to panpsychism for its simplicity; panpsychism necessarily implies that you are conscious after you die. This question is currently beyond the reaches of science, although it is not clear it will stay that way forever. 24.218.80.101 (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You might want to go and change the "Lobes of the brain" page here on Wikipedia, then. Even they seem to think that the frontal lobe is responsible for conscious thought. They're backing it up by by q, but I guess that's wrong, too? And honestly, "scientists" who adhere to panpsychism are like "scientists" who support, say, astrology. Meaning just because some "scientists" support something doesn't make it valid, so don't throw that around.

Oh, and it's "atheist", not "athiest".62.245.69.24 (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Most scientists I've encountered think consciousness is either not scientific or beyond the reaches of science. But while there aren't any mainstream scientists (that I know of, at least) who believe in astrology, there are mainstream scientists who believe in panpsychism, e.g. Christof Koch. There is no scientific consensus here, besides that the problem is hard. That doesn't mean you can go around comparing any idea you disagree with to pseudoscience.

Also, the lobes of the brain page says "conscious thought," not "consciousness," which is an important distinction. 96.253.44.202 (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

When does a human being die?

Review/discussion in the QJM doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcu239 JFW | T@lk 10:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Death. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130518024043/http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Fenwick%20Book%20Review%20Human%20Immortality;%20%20Death%20and%20Adjustment%20Hypotheses%20Elaborated.x.x.pdf to http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Fenwick%20Book%20Review%20Human%20Immortality;%20%20Death%20and%20Adjustment%20Hypotheses%20Elaborated.x.x.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

non-organic death

this article needs to talk about the death of non-organics like a star or a light bulb and also why we call it death when it is non-organic. also because some links like "a star dies" leads here. Casvdschee (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Could or should there be a disambiguation around different semantic uses of the word 'death'? Does this article not concern merely biological death, where other semantic uses of 'death' apply to cessations of function or identity? Does an article have room to address 'other uses of language'? MaynardClark (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that a section concerning the different uses of the word death would be beneficial. Perhaps a more clear note that this article is specifically discussing biological death? AudreyMMull (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarification

In the "Signs of Death" section, the signs are limited to Warm-blooded animals. I feel as though a note on the difference between cold-blooded animals signs and warm-blooded animals may be useful. AudreyMMull (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Relevant sources for the article (IAH209)

1. DEATH STUDIES. Cite: DEATH STUDIES. (2012). Journal of Psychology and Theology, 40(3), 240. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA305103731&sid=summon&v=2.1&u=msu_main&it=r&p=ITOF&sw=w&asid=8618f3ea21d93a69893d92f0612425c2 Link: http://go.galegroup.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=msu_main&id=GALE%7CA305103731&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon&userGroup=msu_main#

This article is mainly talking about how god influence death in Christian. I choose this article as one of my reliable source because I want to add something about death and religion on this article.

2. Recreating Identity? Death and Art Cite: Recreating identity? death and art.(2007). Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 97(1), 113-133. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/docview/220873242?accountid=12598 Link: http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/docview/220873242?pq-origsite=summon

This article is mainly talking about the relationship between death and art. I choose this article as one of my reliable sources because I want to add something about death and visual art on this article.

3. Life and Death: Art and the Body in Contemporary China Bloomer, C. M. (2014). Life and death: Art and the body in contemporary china. The China Journal, (71), 264-266. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/1503776803?accountid=12598 Link: http://search.proquest.com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/1503776803?pq-origsite=summon

This article is mainly talking about the death culture in contemporary china. I choose this article as one of my reliable sources because I want to add something about death and cultures on this article.

4. Death becomes art Cite: Martin, C. (2015). Death becomes art. The Lancet, 385(9983), 2142. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61011-X Link: http://search.proquest.com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/1684447054/fulltext/A026DDEC44FF4687PQ/1?accountid=12598

This article is mainly talking about the relationship between death and art. I choose this article as one of my reliable sources because I want to add something about death and visual art on this article.

5. Cell death in human health and disease Cite: Xu, J., Wang, D., & Ma, W. (2014). Cell death in human health and disease. BioMed Research International. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA427022266&sid=summon&v=2.1&u=msu_main&it=r&p=ITOF&sw=w&asid=021e6d7a794ab1c30ac4bd018525d6ee Link: http://go.galegroup.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=msu_main&id=GALE%7CA427022266&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon&userGroup=msu_main&authCount=1#

This article is mainly talking about the relationship between cell and human health. I choose this article as one of my reliable sources because I want to add some academic information about how cell influence human health, disease and death to this article.

6. Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers Cite: Roach, M. (2003). Stiff: The curious lives of human cadavers. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

This book is our textbook. By reading this book, I learned a lot of new information about death, autopsy and cadaver. I want to combine those information together and add to my project because my project article “Death” is a very big topic, I want to add as more as related source to this article that readers can learn more form there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiaoxiao0727 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2015

Troythedeleteor112 (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC) This page makes people sad and should be deleted!!!

Not done: Not a valid edit request. Wikipedia is not censored. If this article makes you sad, don't read it. Chamith (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you Troythedeleter112 it should be deleted Precious Connel (talk) 19:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Article lead section (IAH209)

Choosing Article -- Death

Death : Death refers to the end of life. This is the particular point when the biological functions of a living being cease to operate completely. Some of the factors that can cause death include senescence, lack of proper nutrition, disease or suicide. It is a sad occasion since it signifies the end of a family or social bond that once existed.

Death versus Suspended Animation: Some theorists have come up challenging the concept of suspended animation claiming that such things are not by any means alive. Freezing of the zygote and embryos to be used later for vitro fertilization nearly stops their vital process. For something to be considered dead it implies that it has lost its capacity to be restored to its living state. A frozen embryo is thus termed as viable but lacking vitality, (DeGrazia, 2014).

Senescence: Senescence refers to a scenario when a living being is able to survive all calamities but eventually dies due to old age. In the United Kingdom, nine out of all the deaths that occur on a daily basis relates to senescence, while around the world it accounts for two thirds of 150,000 deaths, which take place daily.

Mythical elaboration of deaths in history: Life and death is compared to the two sides of a coin since they coexist in a mutually exclusive kind of manner, (Fork, 2013). During the Renaissance and Baroque period, death was identified with evil, (Guthke, 1999) and this resonates with the Bible where it illustrated how the devil caused death in the world. In his painting dubbed the Young Man and Death, the visual impression is that of an unequivocal female angel of death who appears with a glass and a sword at hand.

Autopsy: Autopsy refers to a medical procedure which is done by a pathologist to a body to determine the cause of death. Necropsy, is a term used previously used for post mortem but currently used in the case of examining animal corpses.

REFERENCES DeGrazia, D., (2014). “The Nature of Human Death” in S. Luper (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Life and Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fork, S. (2013). Life and death. Bristol, UK: Intellect Guthke, K.S. (1999). The Gender of Death: A Cultural History in Art and Literature. Cambridge University Press.

Editing One: Death: The word “death” originated in the Old English language, launching semantic roots from the Latin “mors”. Death is an existential notion that refers to the end of the life. This is the particular point when the biological functions of a living being cease to operate completely. It is a sad occasion since it signifies the end of family and other social bonds that once existed for an individual. However, death is not an exquisite or accomplished phenomenon; it’s rather a law of nature that accompanies existence. Before heart and other vital organs stop working forever, all creatures face death each day regularly: for example, more than 35 million of cells die in the living organism every minute, gradually leading body to the total extinction (Gawande, 2014). The finite triggers of death, as the end of existence in general, are lack of oxygen in the blood and full stop of biological processes inside a body. Among the major factors that can cause death the one can define senescence, lack of proper nutrition, disease or suicide. Death versus Suspended Animation: Some theorists have come up challenging the concept of suspended animation claiming that organism condition between life and death has nothing similar with absolute certainty. Suspended animation refers to intermediate phase of existence and signals about serious interruptions in the organism. In the medicine this phenomenon is also called “emergency preservation” and “resuscitation”, embracing the technique of replacing blood with a cold saline solution that immediately cools the whole body and ceases all cellular activities. Thus, freezing of the zygote and embryos so that they can be used later for vitro fertilization nearly stops their vital process and leads to their partial extinction. For something to be considered ahead, it implies that frozen cells lose its capacity to be restored to their primary living conditions. A frozen embryo is thus termed as viable, but lacking vitality (DeGrazia, 2014); patients that reach a state of suspended animation cannot be declared neither alive, nor yet dead. Leading Causes of Human Death Worldwide: On the average, every minute more than 110 death facts are registered in the whole world, while about 56 million of people die annually for various reasons (“Population Clock”, 2016). People are not capable of dying due to old age or simply physical fatigue, although the phenomenon of senescence is ardently argued. Since 1951 federal agencies of the USA have adopted a standard list of more than 130 contributing and underlying reasons of death (Hayflick & Moody, 2003), most of which occupy leading positions in current world. Cardiovascular diseases, as well as stroke, lower respiratory infections and chronic obstructive lung diseases remain the top biological killers throughout the world. Car accidents and misadventures are admitted as the leading causes of death among teenagers and youth, whereas the biggest part of young women die in the process of childbirth. One of the most notable reasons of human death is doctor’s mistake, incorrect diagnoses and improper medical treatment (Hayflick & Moody, 2003). As a result, most people are tend to die in hospitals and other medical establishments (nursing homes, long-term-care facilities) after receiving intensive therapeutic care. Senescence: Senescence refers to a scenario when a living being is able to survive all calamities, but eventually dies due to old age. Human, animal, and plant cells normally reproduce and function during the whole period of natural existence, but the aging process drives to deterioration of cellular activity and ruination of regular functioning. Aptitude of cells for gradual deterioration and mortality means that cells are naturally sentenced to stable and long-term loss of living capacities, even despite continuing metabolic reactions and viability. In the United Kingdom, for example, nine out of all the deaths that occur on a daily basis relates to senescence, while around the world it accounts for two thirds of 150,000 deaths that take place daily (Hayflick & Moody, 2003). Mythical elaboration of deaths in history: Life and death are compared to the two sides of a coin since they coexist in a mutually exclusive manner (Fork, 2013). This traditional dual vision took a starting point in the ancient world where life and death were seen as the two main powers of the Great Mother, the unity of everything. Life was connected with the Good Mother, and demise with the Evil Mother. According to Greek cultural sights, the mutual cooperation of life and death is a part of universe law that splits all existing things into opposites. Life was embodied as female unit, and death was accepted as masculine one and named Thanatos. In European literature, sculpture, and iconography, Thanatos as the lord of death is frequently depicted as a sincere, winged juvenile with a smothered flare. During the Renaissance and Baroque period, death was identified with evil (Guthke, 1999), and this greatly resonates with the Bible where death is illustrated through the image of devil that caused extinction of all creatures in the world. On the painting dubbed the Young Man and Death, the visual impression is of an unequivocal female angel of death who appears with a glass and a sword in hands. Autopsy: Autopsy refers to a medical procedure which is done by a pathologist to a body to determine the cause of death. Necropsy, a term used previously for post-mortem, currently is used in the case of examining animal corpses. Autopsies have been practiced for more than t thousands years in many European and American countries for legal purposes. During that time autopsy has proved to be a beneficial way to prevent further medical errors and provide reliable data to confirm diagnosis.

REFERENCES DeGrazia, D., (2014). “The Nature of Human Death” in S. Luper (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Life and Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fork, S. (2013). Life and death. Bristol, UK: Intellect. Gawande, A. (2014). Being mortal: medicine and what matters in the end. Recorded Books. Guthke, K.S. (1999). The Gender of Death: A Cultural History in Art and Literature. Cambridge University Press. Hayflick, L., & Moody, H. (2003). Has anyone ever died of old age?. New York, NY: International Longevity Center-USA. Population Clock. (2016). Census.gov. Retrieved 19 March 2016, from http://www.census.gov/popclock/

Xiaoxiao0727 (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Actuality

From all given reports of people being recovered by paramedics or emt, even doctors or nurses; it was hell that is the actual remain for the soul of the person that died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.117.16.22 (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Trimming the hatnote

Please see wikipedia:hatnote as to why this article's hatnote is being trimmed. I've had a look through the disambiguation page. the following is a record of the previous text from the old hatnote.

'"Dead", "Died", "Deceased", and "Dying" redirect here. For the personification of death, see Death (personification). For the Alice in Chains song, see Died (song). For the coloring process, see Dyeing. For the American heavy metal bands, see Deceased (band) and Death (metal band). For the rock band, see Death (protopunk band). For other uses, see Dead (disambiguation) and Death (disambiguation).'

I've tried to ensure that all of the info from this hatnote is now included in the disambiguation page - please check this disambiguation page if you are worried that something might be missing. Edaham (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Policy_regarding_.22see_also.22s_for_bands for an ongoing discussion regarding hatnotes in general. Edaham (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

After editing, some of the information was restored to the hatnote. I think it's fine now after having had some of the links restored. Thanks @User:Bkonrad. --Edaham (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2017

Please add to the end of paragraph under Location

"The “Invisible Death” process was extremely slow and infinitesimal. It took many years to shift to this new location where dying was commonly taking place outside of the home."

Btennis (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Thank you for your suggestion; however, I question the need for that text since the timings are already well-defined in the paragraph.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 18:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Death. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.lensculture.com/wschels
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rack1.ul.cs.cmu.edu/is/deathtypes/doc.scn?rp=_n

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  ^{put'r there}  11:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Death. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=death
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jellyfishfacts.net/turritopsis-nutricula-immortal-jellyfish.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/06/28/blood-swapping-reanimates-dead-dogs.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/mch/ch/techareas/malaria_brief.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pewforum.org/2013/08/06/living-to-120-and-beyond-americans-views-on-aging-medical-advances-and-radical-life-extension/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070503021611/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/18368186 to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368186
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sens.org/files/pdf/ENHANCE-PP.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.lensculture.com/wschels
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rack1.ul.cs.cmu.edu/is/deathtypes/doc.scn?rp=_n

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  ^{put'r there}  11:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2017

Please add the following two sentences to the end of paragraph under Location :

"The “Invisible Death” process was extremely slow and infinitesimal. It took many years to shift to this new location where dying was commonly taking place outside of the home."

Ariès, P. (1976-1981). Invisible Death. The Wilson Quarterly, 5(1), 105-115. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40256048 Btennis (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101101081710/http://engineering.mit.edu/live/news/1223-must-all-organisms-age-and-die to http://engineering.mit.edu/live/news/1223-must-all-organisms-age-and-die

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Lede

You left out asphyxia in the intro to the article. I would propose just after starvation and dehydration. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

About the lead: should not death be called an "irreversible cessation", or termination, of biological functions? As opposed to clinical death, which in exceptional circumstances may be reversed, the essential characteristic of death is that it cannot be undone. Although death can be misdiagnosed, and new methods of bringing people back from the brink of death have and continue to force medical and biological terms to be updated, this one element holds regardless of how death is medically defined. Anything short of termination of life, not to be reversed, is not really death. Mythology aside, no one who has ever actually died has ever been returned to a state of life. 108.34.201.56 (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2018

Coolguy10038 (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Can i write about interesting facts about death? For example i can provide the fact that over 100 billions human had died in total. see Wikipedia's article Christian mortalism.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Peer editing

"fuck me daddy" is very interesting topic and I did not know that every minute more than 110 death facts are registered in the whole world, while about 56 million of people die annually for various reasons. It is interesting part to me, because I didn’t know that so many people died in every minute. Also I remembered that you picked autopsy topic at the very beginning of the semester for your topic. I also picked autopsy topic first, but it was really popular topic in our class, so I choose another topic. However, you graft death and autopsy part in your article! It was really great job. Also your reference is very great. It’s very clear and great references I think. My suggestion is add more information about autopsy part. It has only few information. If you add more information about autopsy, it will be great!

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2018

I WANT TO TELL MORE 108.31.42.4 (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2018

I'd change the lo-res image at the beginning of the wiki and replace it with a better one, own work. Seba.ds (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you either upload the new suggested image or provide a link to where it may be found so the community can discuss whether or not the current image will be changed? Sakura Cartelet^Talk 20:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The supernatural death, is not a pure annihilation thus not a pure death (most theists believe are eternal, them or the essential component of them)

The Statue of Death is physically - corporeally anthropomorphous. The Statue of Death represents a living Death-god, able to move, hold object and make decisions as taking lives. The anthropomorphic representation of death, shouldn't be depicted on the first photo. We should start the article with facts. No data supports that the anthropomorphic Death-god exists. Don't delete the article; merely reshape its order. We are supposed to reveal everything but when analyzing the full context of it. The order of representation of notions is crucial and that is psychometrically quantifiable. Pushing for mythology on top paragraphs isn't encyclopedic. Number on photo must be based on facts. Photograph a dead person. If you don't like reality do not contribute in encyclopedias; become a priest and teach people the mythology you didn't invent but its dogmatic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4103:F800:7510:638C:106D:FCB5 (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Should we add that it occurs to all organisms?

It isn’t believed that death occurs to most organisms. Should we add this?2605:6001:E7C4:1E00:3C9F:F7B0:9F84:294B (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Senescence section needs work

Senescence seems to describe a "natural" death IMO even if disease or other non-human influences is involved. Death comes in many forms. IMO with science today, there is no such thing as a natural death. IMO, we all die of "something", diagnosed or not. --2600:6C48:7006:200:B056:6066:1296:EF0B (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2019

Add:

Keanu Reeves: “I know the ones who love us will miss us.” Peterklogborg (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Better suited for wikiquote:Keanu Reeves. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with User:Andrybak. Closed as  Not done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Death for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Death is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Death until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Religious beliefs

Add Islamic concept of death SK SHIHAB (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Religious beliefs are not a problem to the definition of death per se

This sentence is a part of the paragraph that justifies why defining death based on consciousness is flawed: “Additionally, many religious traditions, including Abrahamic and Dharmic traditions, hold that death does not (or may not) entail the end of consciousness. In certain cultures, death is more of a process than a single event. It implies a slow shift from one spiritual state to another.” I don’t believe it belongs there. I suggest adding something like “While not a concern to the scientific definition of death,..” if at all you want to keep this in this part. Ethan Stykes (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

(link removed power~enwiki (π, ν)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4060:1C:28F:6FF6:659F:3C77:66B7 (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The second sentence lists homicide as phenomena which "commonly" bring about death.

I can't think of a case of homicide that didn't bring about death, so "commonly" probably isn't a good word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.197.181 (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Clarification needed

From the current article (as of 28 June, 2020) this text:

"Death, particularly of humans, has commonly been considered a sad or unpleasant occasion, due to the affection for the deceased and the termination of social and familial bonds. Other concerns include fear of death, necrophobia, anxiety, sorrow, grief, emotional pain, depression, sympathy, compassion, solitude, or saudade."

What exactly does it mean by "Other concerns" ? Do these other conditions, like saudade cause or is a factor in causing death? MAureliusAugustus (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

misspellings

"judgement" is the incorrect spelling; the correct spelling is "judgment"

It's a variation — see Judgement. El_C 00:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2020

Hi, i'd like to make an edit to the page called death. Some things have been removed that seemed neccessary. Zhyboo01 (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2020

Get rid of permanent 2603:6000:AB40:75D7:58CF:4FAD:DE86:CCB (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 12:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2020

Get rid of permanent and irreversible. Then get rid of inevitable and put natural in place of that. 2603:6000:AB00:12CC:453:FAA9:D63A:6ADC (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Death. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2021

death is verry common 92.3.122.51 (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Already in intro – Thjarkur (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2021

Synonyms for death: passed away, deceased, euthanasia, mortality Gunner2535 (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 16 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Beedizzle21. Peer reviewers: Iadao, Hscstudent475.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xiaoxiao0727. Peer reviewers: AudreyMMull.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Permanent

It should not have the word permanent because should only just be cessation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthsmoke91 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for starting a discussion, Earthsmoke91. Why do you think it should "only just be cessation"? Do you think, for example, that death is not permanent? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Death is permanent wether you like it or not. In this life, that is. Cessation of life is a synonym of death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:8181:3980:FC0B:DD3D:8FC:A509 (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"Draft:Cessation of life" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Draft:Cessation of life. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 28#Draft:Cessation of life until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Muhammed was a prophet and he fell ill. Suffered for a few days and died. Rip. He was then buried in a simple grave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.154.44 (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Another Language

Hi! I wrote this article on the Zulu version of Wikipedia and I was trying to link it to this one as a new language but I can't because this one is locked. Can someone help me? SmangaMbongwa (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Which one? Ukufa [4]? Rasnaboy (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Rasnaboy (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Is Religion True?

Really badly off topic for this page. Guettarda (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Religion, is an important step into a child (infants) life. Us people grow up to believe in religion ceremonies, cults or things are parents betray us as. "Is that really what we want to believe in?" Scientsits spend years and years brainwashing us to believe in "old time" news, which in this case would be religion. The process of what are pe]arents are actually "forcing" us to preach, and read about for decades. So who really started the trend? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.215.231.20 (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Death inevitable?

@FishandChipper Was wondering if you can name an organism that contradicts the first sentence in the lead? I am happy to know that I am wrong, but I do wonder if requiring a citation for this statement is a bit much (falling into Wikipedia:SKYISBLUE territory). Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 17:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Biological immortality is the page you're looking for. Apparantly some organisms just cannot die without outside influence. Now I'm no biologist but i think that at least the line should be changed to most rather than all just to account for these organisms. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 17:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know there are some jellyfish and microorganisms that can live indefinitely, but indefinite does not equate to infinite. The disputed statement suggests that all organisms will eventually die, which is what is observed in practice. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 18:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

“Almost all” is incorrect, right?

Some organisms may be able to live forever if the conditions they are in remain unchanged for that period of time, but every organism will eventually die. I feel like “almost all” implies that some organisms will be immortal and survive for an infinite amount of time. FinnSoThin (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Misdiagnosed

Wondering if there is a better source for the second to last line about bringing dead organisms back to life. Also I’m not sure if the comment about science fiction is completely relevant. Abbiers (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Abbiers (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree a lot with the second sentence, so I removed it. G-Toasty (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Death/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 17:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Lets get this review done.

Sourcing

There are a lot of sources missing

• This is difficult due to there being little consensus on how to define life.
• .. of life support devices, organ transplants, and artificial pacemakers.
• Even by whole-brain criteria, the determination of brain death can be complicated.

etc....

I have concerns about a few sources as well

• Encyclopedia Brittanica and Dictionary.com are WP:Tertiary sources, not the worst thing but does need justification
• Multiple sources have clean-up tags

Copy-vios

• Earwig is clear, will do spot checks when I get to it

Images

• The human skull is used universally as a symbol of death. not cited in the body
• A flower, a skull and an hourglass stand for life not cited
• In general, please cite images if the information isn't obvious/up to interpretation. Art is very subjective and a few of these captions are getting close to 'close paraphrasing'.

Prose

• Lead as a whole needs to be tightened up. Death is a level 2 vital article and there shouldn't be 2-3 sentence paragraphs for such an important topic
• WP:LEADCITE remove the repetitive citations from the lead, this isn't a major issue but should be pointed out
• There are a large number of articles that can be linked under a 'see main article' template. e.g. Brain Death, Grief, etc. The templates are inconsistent.
• "Problems of definition" change to just 'definition'
• The concept of death is a key to human understanding of the phenomenon. what does this mean?
  • This subsection is largely unnecessary, the definition sections should be merged together. Especially since some of the headers take a less than encyclopedic tone.
• development of CPR and prompt defibrillation have rendered that definition inadequate because breathing and heartbeat can sometimes be restarted appears to be WP:OR, the source is an army manual on how to do CPR
• Please review WP:WEASEL, a lot of weasel words
• so the volcano can be considered to be dead This is WP:OR and really stretching the concept of 'dead'. The term is 'extinct' and if you want to go down the road of anthropomorphising everything, you'll need a whole other article.

---

Yah, I'm gonna call it here. The page need serious work, there are citations missing, the prose needs work, and the sections should be merged and expanded upon. I see you've made a couple of attempted to promote vital articles. I applaud the tenacity but recommend that you start on smaller articles and learn the ropes first. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 19:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bibliography verified

I have checked the edition notice/copyright page of the original version of Buried Alive: The terrifying history of our most primal fear by Bondeson, Jan. The book was published in 2001 by W. W. Norton & Company. The same is mentioned on Kirkus Reviews, Research Gate, JSTOR, and Cambridge University Press. The confusion about the publication date (2001 vs. 2002) stems from the Barnes & Noble listing which clearly mentions it as a reprint in 2002.

As such, I have removed the verification tag from the bibliography section of the article. UMStellify (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

"Not alive" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Not alive has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 4 § Not alive until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2023

the word 'taxon' is spelled wrong 61.239.74.133 (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: As you haven't specified where you are talking about, I can't be certain that I'm looking in the right place. However, under Death#Extinction in the first sentence, the word "taxa" is used and wikilinked to Taxon. "Taxa" is correct in this sentence, as it is the plural of "taxon" and the plural form should be used in that context. Tollens (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)