Talk:Death
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Death article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This  level-2 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | Death was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Former good article nominee | ||||||||||||||||
Expansion
Other
Please add anything you feel is missing I really feel like there needs to be a section on coping with death or different ways to find help when dealing with death. (Clbratt (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)). I will make it, I have all of the information, I just don't want it to get deleted right after I make it (Clbratt (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)).
Here is some information regarding phases of grief, part of the coping stage. 1. Shock: disbelief, unreal 2. Denial: denying that your spouse is actually gone, that it is not true. 3. Bargaining with a higher power to make it all go away. 4. Guilt: difficult stage to get through, you start to blame yourself for the death. You feel as if you did something differently they would still be here. but everyone is responsible for their own actions, there is no way you made anyone do anything. This stage would be helpful to have a friend to talk too, to help you understand it is not your fault. 5. Anger: not always a phase, some find it easier to move on if they are angry at the spouse for leaving, but often it leads to feeling guilty for being angry at them, if the phase doesn't start to occur, don't worry yourself, you can skip this phase. 6. Depression: varies, it comes and goes, give it as much time as possible to heal. While dealing with depression stages try to stay clear of the child and not let them know you’re breaking down. Remember be strong for the child. 7. Resignation: finally believe the reality of the death 8. Acceptance and Hope (“moving on”): you finally understand it can never be the same, but you have to move on in life with a meaning and a purpose. (Bmhans3 (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)) The summary does not relate to the topic at hand -- "Humans increased the number of extinctions in recent times, one cause being, for example, the destruction of ecosystems as a consequence of the spread of industrial technology.[1]" Not only is human causes of extinction events completely unrelated, but it doesn't sound completely neutral. This should be removed. --Andreas |
"End of life" definition
@Altenmann: Having proceeded in synchrony to your indication WP:RS (which means I was already looking for more reliable sources at about the same time you provided this indication) on the basis "Dictionary.com" is not a reliable source because it isn't professors, specialists in the study of death (i.e. how I discovered 19:52, 19 March) - another problem which I discovered about the title definition is it excludes the possibility of life after death - which though is a situation discounted by some professors not by others (I don't provide proof of such a situation now though I would look for proof if you then insist it necessary) - the obvious problem with "end of life" is - if a soul (as christians, muslims, jewish people, buddhists, etc - I don't know all relevant religions) life continues - an afterlife. So what I propose is simply annuling "e. o. l." - simply on the basis cite 3 (as above) isn't "all majority and significant minority views" and in-any-case no-one would trust simply a dictionary which is a general reference with no published sources, no indicated references and no-one shown to be qualified to know what the definition is, ignoring the fact that some athiest (and scientifically rigorous) and reliable sources seem to be representing the current state of fact in the article in this matter in discussion via 3 (a final comment: neither athiesm or religious is the proven reality - as no proof exists). Cattenion (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2026 (UTC) was courtesy of AI actually: https://iask.ai/q/thanatologist-definition-6pgso28, thanks for that one AI! (if only you could talk too, we could be friends: 3) Cattenion (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- While I agree that a dictionary, is hardly a definitive reference, the first sentence of an arlicle is a concise definition of its content. All philosophical issues with the definition are in section Death#Definition. --Altenmann >talk 22:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Of people who died for a few minutes: reddit: legally_died, msn: "was clinically dead" - death wasn't the end; was temporary. My argument above: is the transition to a spiritual location. The article provides only the medical&legal reality. Cattenion (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- While I agree that a dictionary, is hardly a definitive reference, the first sentence of an arlicle is a concise definition of its content. All philosophical issues with the definition are in section Death#Definition. --Altenmann >talk 22:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
00:10, 23 March 2026 reversions
@Altenmann: your reversion choice: I provided quite a few reasons for the changes:
- Diagnosis -> Definition: "Legal" is not a sub of "Diagnosis"
- "in most places": "not true (the source is US not global)"
- "of electrical activity": "is also not true: neurotransmitters"
+ you returned a cite without all the source information I added. Cattenion (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
@Cattenion:*Yes, I agree that the structure of sections was confusing. I fixed it now.
- Yes, I removed "in all places" and put United States in a subsection
- Yes, I removed "electrical activity" - not in the sources cited
- I removed your cite of Machado because you quoted him confusingly. In fact, the article suggests a new criterion, and to add it here would be imporper: it puts an undue weight on an opinion of sine author citing from a primary source. To be added into Wikipedia, by our rules, his opinion must be discussed in secondary sources. --Altenmann >talk 16:21, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Lead rewrite
Per our rules (WP:LEAD), the lead section must be the summary of the article content. The current one violates this principle in two ways: on the one hand, it does not summarize; on the other, it has content not covered in the body. I made a crude fix by sepatarting large part of it into a new section, "Background". Meaning that a real lede, i.e., a summary of the article is yet to written. --Altenmann >talk 16:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Split out Religious views on death
I suggest split religious into a separate article, because it is a completely independednt subject. --Altenmann >talk 16:38, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- 1. in the least "completely" is an exaggeration, if not, what is your evidence? your statement is a reiteration of the fact that the article in your opinion should show only the reality of death as bio-medical etc 2. Religious opinion excluded: your argument is not neutral="all significant views":WP:NPV - the number of believers is a significance. 3. In defence of your statement - this is obvious because bio-medical sources are provable (ergo science) so provide a knowable causative principle to base action on (a way for verifiable improvement of human life in this world) - so are like "reliable" (as a sourcing criteria/principle) - while religious (supernatural) statements and beliefs presumably aren't provable. 4. Contrary to your argument: as scientific knowledge increases so death as a religious subject decreases (since in the past science=medecine=treatments could not provide as many (any) effective contraries to imminent or known death-causes) so science: knowledge of the natural - replaces superstition-the supernatural, but religion continues to maintain the connection to "eternity" (if/as death is eternal) as the scientifically inexplicable fact the infinite: time before the universe & distance out from the observable universe - those things science fails at. Cattenion (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- If there are reliable sources (professors-universities) which have the factors death+religion the determination "death" is a subject of science only is not informative. It depends on how much information exists on the subject of death+religion in a sourcing effort not on exclusion of any preliminary attempt to prove. Cattenion (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- https://iask.ai/q/religious-beliefs-moment-of-death-3c3tjj8 https://iask.ai/q/religious-views-moment-of-death-5s1jal0 Cattenion (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
"Death of abiotic factors" removed
I removed the section because it is off-topic: the figurative usage of the term "death". There is a large mumber of these usages. If some are notable or well-established terminology, separate articles must be written, according to Wikipedia's guideline of disambiguation; see Death (disambiguation). --Altenmann >talk 16:52, 23 March 2026 (UTC)