Jump to content

Talk:Death

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeDeath 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 23, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
February 5, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
March 24, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

calcium baby

[edit]

dead baby in womb being attacked by cells Ballseater (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ballseater be more specific please, UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 00:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2024

[edit]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]