Talk:Death
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Death article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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, come here to 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 page is not a forum for general discussion about Death. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Death at the Reference desk. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it 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 |
To-do list for Death: 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 |
Death before birth
[edit]makes no sense to put abortion here since a foetus is never alive. Something which isn't alive cannot die. 148.252.146.55 (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- This is probably acceptable; most would argue that the fetus is, biologically, alive, but in the sense of death as it’s usually put an abortion might not qualify as the “death” of a conscious being. More discussion necessary. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- probably need to elaborate on different arguments on the definition of (alive and) death in the article in order to decide this?
- while i do agree that a foetus is (culturally seens as) never alive, the answer to the question seems more to be on the philosophical instead of practical/empirical side of things. irisChronomia (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
calcium baby
[edit]dead baby in womb being attacked by cells Ballseater (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Ballseater be more specific please, UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 00:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Aging as leading cause of death.
[edit]In the Introduction, cardiovascular disease is listed as a leading cause of death, with the source claiming that it is responsible for a third of all deaths. However the National library of Medicine cites aging as causing 23.3 million annual deaths, 41.6 percent.[1] I have fixed it, I simply wanted to let everyone know, as I understand this may be a controversial issue. Panderbear01 (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC) Panderbear01 (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Panderbear01, thank you for an excellent reference. That sentence begins with "The top ten causes" and then mentions "aging" followed by other causes of death, so at first glance it appears to be saying that "aging" is the #1 cause out of 10 causes. However, when I re-read that sentence more carefully, I see that it's making a statement about the relationship between the "top ten causes" and "aging", and *then* it literally lists all 10 causes, starting with "ischemic heart disease" as the #1 cause and then 9 other causes.
- So while I think this article *should* have a few more words about aging, our sources seem to be saying heart disease is #1 (not #2) and so that's what we should report as #1 (not #2). --DavidCary (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, however the sentence notes that aging is the underlying cause of aging, the listed conditions being the most common subset, it says "The top ten causes of disease accounted for a total of 16.1 million global deaths related to population aging (69.2%); these included..." implying that aging was the cause of the conditions, as well as stating that aging accounts for 69.2% of all deaths. Panderbear01 (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
References
Short description
[edit]...was previously "Irreversible cessation of an organism's biological functions". I personally find this description to be more mild and neutral, (albeit quite terse,) and prefer this version of it. Maybe we can put this sentence somewhere down in the main article or put the current description into the Simple English Wikipedia? irisChronomia (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2024
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a grammatical error in the World Health Organization statistics in 2012, where a writer wrote "persons" instead of people. Madrilla21 (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: Persons is also grammatically correct. If there is any other rationale to change it to 'people,' you're welcome to open another request The AP (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Poorly written article
[edit]There are a lot of issues with this article, especially when you get to the psychology and the culture and Society pieces. The paragraph structure and grammar is off . It seems like the purpose of the paragraphs is not clear. It seems like the writer is trying to make an argument rather than provide information. And I strongly question the thinly veiled arguments that are being made. It reads like it was written by someone who overestimates their argument, composition, and just general writing skills. It needs to be revised by somebody with a little bit more technical skill in writing, and someone who has a little bit more understanding of those topics and knows how to represent that in an informative writing style. 24.237.159.221 (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class level-2 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-2 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class Biology articles
- Top-importance Biology articles
- WikiProject Biology articles
- B-Class Death articles
- Top-importance Death articles
- B-Class Cemeteries articles
- Top-importance Cemeteries articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- Top-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class sociology articles
- High-importance sociology articles
- B-Class psychology articles
- High-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- B-Class Anthropology articles
- Mid-importance Anthropology articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- High-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class ethics articles
- High-importance ethics articles
- Ethics task force articles
- B-Class philosophy of religion articles
- High-importance philosophy of religion articles
- Philosophy of religion task force articles
- B-Class Religion articles
- High-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class history articles
- Mid-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Former good article nominees
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists