Talk:Richard Selzer
Add topic | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Death
[edit]Do we have any confirmation of Selzer's death? No site I can find online verifies his death, and in fact the most recent I've found says he celebrated his 84th in July. 128.138.65.187 (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Has now actually died (June 2016) and has an NYT obituary here. EricEnfermero (Talk) 13:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Classified as a stub
[edit]This article has been classified as a stub due to its level of detail. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
BLP status change
[edit]Due to the death of this person, the BLP status of this article has changed. This does not mean that unsourced material that would contravene the Biography of Living Persons rules can be added to this article Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Jarring, isolated sentence
[edit]"In 2016, death with dignity is a right legally recognized in four states."
Well, that may be. But this is supposed to be an entry on Richard Selzer, not on the topic of "death with dignity." Moreover, as a phrase "death with dignity" has the cant sound of implicit advocacy, much like "the right to life" or "a woman's right to choose." And btw the core of that sentence is this: "death with dignity is a right," which is a view, not a matter of fact. I'm not taking a position here on the matter, I'm merely referring to the sentence as being not directly related to the topic here. It should be either cut or at a minimum rewritten to make it more germane to the entry. (One could state "death with dignity is recognized as a right in four states" and be less tendentious, but it still needs to be tied in to the doctor.) NicholasNotabene (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)