This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Top-importance). Sports Car Racing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports Car Racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sports Car Racing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sports Car RacingWikipedia:WikiProject Sports Car RacingTemplate:WikiProject Sports Car RacingSports Car Racing Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ohio B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.OhioWikipedia:WikiProject OhioTemplate:WikiProject OhioOhio B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Unitarian Universalism B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Unitarian Universalism work group.

Archives

Through February 2008

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has Lung cancer i just found out today, put in the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.23.45 (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article now has cancer mention. Here's a much longer and more detailed AP story about the cancer news than the one footnoted in the article.[1] --71.175.28.121 (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyon College, from which Newman graduated in 1949, said in a statement that the actor had suffered from leukemia.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=aDRGBnPCbyWY&refer=home

66.222.50.11 (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Kenyon College is a reliable source. Mr. Newman's publicist only cited cancer as cause of death. All mentions of lung cancer are unsubstantiated rumors.--Btgreen (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was lung cancer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.152.137 (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 92.11.241.122 (talk · contribs) - 4 March 2008
• 92.12.65.8 (talk · contribs) - 5 March 2008
• 92.12.100.30 (talk · contribs) - 10 June 2008
• 92.12.24.144 (talk · contribs) - 11 June 2008
• 92.10.0.3 (talk · contribs) - 12 June 2008
• 92.11.168.98 (talk · contribs) - 15 June 2008
• 92.11.247.193 (talk · contribs) - 17 June 2008
• 92.12.59.120 (talk · contribs) - 19 June 2008
• 92.8.40.83 (talk · contribs) - 21 June 2008
• 92.11.192.11 (talk · contribs) - 3 August 2008

Revert all sock puppet additions in this 92.8 to 92.12 IP range.

~ WikiDon (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no foundation for Newman's health being at the point where he is confined to a wheelchair. The link offered by the IP is to the the Sun, which has been determined not to be a reliable source, it is a tabloid. Secondly, the article accompanying the photo says specifically that the photo is taken as Newman is leaving Sloane-Kettering Clinic after his treatment. When most American hospitals release patients from treatment, they are wheeled out in a wheelchair. There is nothing in the article to support the claim he is "confined" to the chair. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He only has weeks to live now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.162.167 (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we now assume it is true that he has lung cancer; that he is terminal; that he will die this year? Whilst he and his staff have not admitted it, many people try to keep such diagnoses/prognoses secret. If it were untrue, he or his people would have clearly made a statement to that effect. There have been many media reports this year stating he has lung cancer, and he would almost certainly have taken legal action against the organisations who stated he has lung cancer, had he never been diagnosed with it. The vast majority of lung cancer cases are fatal. The large majority of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking: does he currently smoke? If not, how long did he smoke for, and roughly how many cigarettes per day? This man is very famous; he had a long, successful career; the public, including Wikipedia readers, are entitled to know the truth about this man's health, diseases, life and future death.Werdnawerdna (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

per above, we need to stick with reliable sources. WP:BLP still applies, and I suggest we wait and see, without speculating. --Rodhullandemu 14:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We can't assume anything that we can't reliably source. Drawing these conclusions is beyond the scope of an encyclopedic article. As I say this, I want to go on record right now about the smoking, diagnoses and original research. The article currently states "it was widely reported that Newman, a former chain smoker, had been diagnosed with lung cancer and was receiving treatment." This is all we know. Unless Newman goes on record to say "the doctors told me that all of that smoking has caused lung cancer, from which I'm going to die" or "I think the smoking caused the cancer", we do not have the sourcing, nor the facts from it, to draw any further conclusions. It doesn't matter for purposes of this biography how long he smoked nor how many cigarettes a day, especially considering people die every day from lung cancer for whom cigarettes do not apply. To connect Newman, 2 packs a day, 40 years and lung cancer constitutes original research per WP definition. Finally, WP:V says The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. There are few basic Wikipedia tenets that outweigh this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear from his appearance that he has cancer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.53.15 (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then we have a reliable source. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article,toward the end, states that Mr. Newman son Neil will be taking charge of Newman's Own. I believe it should say daughter Nell, since there is no living son. I don't trust my skills enough to tamper with the article itself. If someone reads this, and makes the correction, please feel free to delete my comment. Loujen (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another error. Article states wrong number of grandchildren. He has 2 grandchildren, sons of his daughter Melissa. Source NYTimes obituary. --Btgreen (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He died the 27th of September, not the 26th even if you are in Australia the date must be referred to the location of his death ( America ), 27th of september 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.136.193 (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most important fact is that he died the 27th, and not the 26th of September. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.136.193 (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It really is sick that people jump on this and rush to be the first to add it. The BBC story was 16.43 and I saw it at 16.51. Someone said to me "I bet it's on Wikipedia already" but I refused to believe them. I looked at 16.51 and here it is. Seriously, people, get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.235.75 (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this sick? Wikipedia is a news source. I'm only disappointed that the death of such a great american hasn't made the homepage yet.

Wikinews is a news source, we aren't meant to be, and it's consensus that only deaths of heads of state are reported on the Main page. --Rodhullandemu 19:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified his death date, but the reference is in Spanish. If you can add a better reference, you can do it. Thanks you--Nico89abc (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be so hasty in reporting Paul's alleged death. I haven't seen a single credible source yet. We should wait until we get some hard confirmation. Ackatsis (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, a second-hand report of an email is not a reliable source. If necessary, the article will be fully protected per WP:BLP until we have one. --Rodhullandemu 13:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I requested the semi-protection because at the time, the changes were from mostly IPs. There hasn't been a report published in any reliable source yet, but we can certainly ask for full protection. I'm sure Newman would appreciate any extra time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here's another source: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080927/nysa002.html?.v=101 love & light to the man Sssoul (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the bbc's got it now too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7639614.stm

in case either/both of those are deemed prefereable for English-language wikipedia than the current Italian & Spanish refs ... Sssoul (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CNN report here. Fox News report here. Reuters report here. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newman's death was verifiably sourced and cited - yet you guys locked the article and savagely beat back all attempts to correctly include the sorced info. There was no question about the Reliable Source status of the reports - just a blanket statement, unsupported, unreferenced and unsubstantiated about no RS, yet. Why not just put a big sign up, "Newman Fanclub Members Only". This little incident, and the reluctance to properly report facts, inconvenient facts for some apparently, is just another example of Wiki's failure, it's apparent inability to rise above the pettiness of the gatekeepers that seize ownership. The Wiki game will always keep the project burdened with mediocrity and unable to rise above itself.70.131.53.37 (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)This is just not true; I've been watching this article for several hours, and only in the last 40 minutes has anyone cited a reliable source for his death. It's only just hit the BBC in the UK. WP:BLP and WP:V policies say we insist on reliable sources, and I suggest you learn to live with that. --Rodhullandemu 14:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this another case of Wikipedia breaking news? The first mention of his passing was added at 02:46, 27 September 2008, which would still be September 26 in the US. And I don't see any sources reporting this before Sept. 27. Joshdboz (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of the early cites that was rejected:[2], how did it fail RS?70.131.53.37 (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Google translation:

This morning at 7.30 (Italian time, 5:30 GMT) I received an email from the United States in which it informs me that Paul Newman is not over between us," Manes said.

An email reported second-hand is not regarded as a reliable source, since we have no way of knowing whether it's genuine. --Rodhullandemu 14:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your excuse and selective edit are faulty, this is the part you left on the editing room floor:

"The American actor Paul Newman passed away in the United States, announced east Saturday Vincenzo Manes, president of the foundation Dynamo Camp de Limestre ... founded by the star of Hollywood."

It was a public announcement made by a close family friend and reported in the mainstream media. That he mentioned the type of communication used to convey the information is immaterial. He, Vincenzo Manes, is unquestionably a reliable source, reported by a reliable source. Objecting to the family's way of communicating the info is a nonstarter.70.131.53.37 (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When searching for verification, this was the first story that kept coming up. Obviously Newman didn't die in an airplane crash two years ago. The only other two things that came up were both based on that e-mail. That is the reason it was consistently removed. More than one person noted the need for a source: Reverted unsourced content, sources needed, Undoing - please cite it if true, an email is not a reliable source. Wait for such, his HAS to have a source BEFORE it is added, it stays until we have a WP:RS. It is misleading to say that the article was locked after a verifiable and reliable source was added - actually, it's just not true. The article was locked from anonymous editing only (because at the time, the death was being added by IPs) at 14:04, 27 September 2008 and the first reference, based on the email, wasn't added for 12 more minutes - at 14:16, 27 September 2008. Please assume good faith and realize there are strict policies that govern what goes into a biography of a living person, which had to be assumed until a reliable source was produced that was verifiable. This is an English language Wikipedia, since the only available sources were in Spanish, there is no foul in waiting for a source that the majority of editors could easily verify. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what he said. To the 'T'. --Rodhullandemu 16:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His death is now widely reported by the mainstream national and international media, the cause stated as cancer. There is no doubt that it was lung cancer; earlier this year, many media sources reported he has lung cancer; the version of this article on German Wikipedia states he died of lung cancer. Werdnawerdna (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see note below under "lung cancer". A reliable source, Kenyon College, reports leukemia as cause of death. [3]--Btgreen (talk) 03:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see response below that the actual Kenyon College website statement does not specify a cause of death. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement by the CEO of Newman's Own on Newman's Death on CNN at aproximately 10:45 a.m. today, September 27, 2008, indicates the amount raised for charity is now in excess of $250 Million (not $220 million as quoted in the current article about Paul Newman).

Thank you, Chad J. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadsj (talk • contribs) 14:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate to list somebody's political donations in a Wikipedia article?

This article says "He has donated to Chris Dodd's presidential campaign.[23]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by O% interest (talk • contribs) 16:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His progressive politics had part of him. I think it is relevant on that basis. What do others think?--Dstern1 (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, should all biographical articles about people who express some political opinions list their political donations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by O% interest (talk • contribs) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. The issue for us here is whether it is sufficiently important to have been reported in reliable third-party sources, and even if so, whether it's important enough to mention. Off the top of my head Charlton Heston Woody Allen Jane Fonda and others have certainly been vocal in political terms, but that does not imply we should make a point of it beyond a neutral description, and although political donations are recorded (as far as I'm aware), and are in the public domain, it should depend on how much of a part of their whole career is their politics. I've deliberately chosen some obvious examples, but I'm sure there are more subtle cases where although actors have made recordable donations, that's irrelevant to their career as an actor. If an actor has been vocal enough to publicly align to a political cause, I'd suggest that we should not ignore that. Otherwise, I doubt its relevance. --Rodhullandemu 23:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a lot more about Paul's political activism, because he was as famous for that as he was for his acting. He was a very good man, it's ironic that he died in the same year as his arch enemy Charlton Heston. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.101.98 (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is quite notable to include someone's political donations and belief's in their bio. Mr. Newman was extremely involved in activism and philanthropy and did a wonderful job, in my humble opinion. It takes a lot of guts to stand up to some of the conservative crap that exists out there. All this aside, his beliefs and contributions spoke to the essence of who he was.Wikiport (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In 1992, Paul Newman was presented as a Kennedy Center Honoree on the same evening as his wife Joanne Woodward for their careers on stage and screen and their tireless philanthropic contributions.

http://www.kennedy-center.org/calendar/index.cfm?fuseaction=showIndividual&entity_id=3765&source_type=A —Preceding unsigned comment added by LKLWahoo (talk • contribs) 20:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The GLAA considers Newman and Woodward to have been their first patrons[4], and he's reported to have been a fairly vocal supporter of gay rights including same-sex marriage[5][6]. Unfortunately, I'm having a problem finding specific information other than the 2005 GLAA letter and the one quote- is there anyone who can expand on this? Dysperdis (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added information to "Political activism" section with a suitable news source. Cheers, --Jkaharper (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that being supportive of equal rights specifically defines someone as an activist for that given cause. Not long ago, I came upon someone who had added the politician tag to WP Biography talk page templates if they were the least bit politically active. We have to avoid over-categorization. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, who was a bisexual man by the way, was a vocal supporter of gay marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.100.55 (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was a vocal supporter of homo marriage, he went out of his way to assist homos in their political aims, which is why I asked whether he was actively pro-LGBT enough to be considered an LGBT activist. Can anyone provide any evidence of the claim, above, that he was bisexual? If he was, that would help explain his political stance. Werdnawerdna (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, perhaps it would be better to refer to it as same-sex marriage rather than homo marriage. Please ignore the inflammatory statement left by a confirmed sock puppet (see note further up about sock puppet accounts) who has pushed questions of sexuality on many high profile actor articles and don't respond to them. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Newman was not bisexual and you do not have to be gay, lesbian or bisexual to support same-sex marriage. Anyways I'm sure we can agree that a minor mention of his vocal advocacy for same-sex marriage is enough. I'm sure whoever posted that comment about Newman's "bisexuality" above was either making it up, told wrongly or is getting mixed up with somebody else... --Jkaharper (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a findagrave link that was removed because "he isn't even buried yet." So when he is buried, the findagrave link will have to be added back. So what's the deal with what information is on findagrave? If the findagrave page exists for someone, it seems valid to have a link to it. Dk1965 (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on external links says we don't include links to information that would not already be covered if it was a Featured Article; the link currently does not fulfil that test. WP:CRYSTAL says that we do not write about things that haven't happened yet unless they are reliably sourced. The combination of these tests suggests that it is (a) unnecessary and (b) premature to include the Findagrave link, although it can be added when it is updated. Hope that helps. --Rodhullandemu 03:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in Joanne Woodwards wiki page, their date of marriage is listed as Feb 2nd, not january 29 as listed on this page, someone should confirm and source it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rousseau (talk • contribs) 04:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture at the top of the page isn't very good for the size of a star he was.. has anybody got anything better? --Jkaharper (talk) 08:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can only use pictures, licenses of which allow sharing, example being creative commons, public domain, or gnu public license. On wikicommons there are only three pictures, two from exodus, the same film where the top picture is from. If anybody has a more recent picture and is willing to share, please do and remember to use one of these licenses. Ben ^T/_C 12:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}}

Paul Newman was one of the founders of the Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy (CECP), a membership organization of CEOs and corporate chairpersons committed to raising the level and quality of global corporate philanthropy. Founded in 1999 by Newman and a few leading CEOs, CECP has grown to include more than 175 members and through annual executive convenings, extensive benchmarking research, and best practice publications, leads the business community in developing sustainable and strategic community partnerships through philanthropy.

^[1]

 Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is in the categories Americans of Jewish descent and Jewish actors. Was he Jewish or merely of Jewish descent? He self-identified as Jewish. His father was Jewish, but his mother was not. Was he a religiously observant Jew and/or a convert? What religion was he raised in? If he is categorised as Jewish, he should be in the American Jews category, not Americans of Jewish descent. If he is not regarded as actually Jewish, but merely of part Jewish ancestry, he should not be in the Jewish actors category. Werdnawerdna (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Jewish law, Newman was not Jewish. To be Jewish, you have to have a Jewish mother. --Gilabrand (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many people who self-identify as Jewish, yet were not born of a Jewish mother. These include people with a Jewish father and people who convert to Judaism. Whilst many matrilineal Jews do not consider such people to be real Jews, there are many people not born of a Jewish mother who are currently in Jewish (not merely Jewish descent) categories on Wikipedia. His father was a lifelong Jew and Paul self-identifed as Jewish. Werdnawerdna (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you convert, then it is not "self identifying", it's being Jewish - Jewish law is the first to say this. No "matrilineal Jew" considers a convert as anything other than another Jew. Now I've heard that Newman considered himself Jewish, but I can't seem to find anything concrete to put in the article - or even a good spot to throw it in. However, he shouldn't be put in any list that is specifically for categorical Jews.FlaviaR (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some fully-Jewish/matrilineal Jews do not accept converts that were not born of a Jewish mother to be Jewish. Jews in general do not seek out converts, and many discourage it. Many Jews view converts and prospective converts to Judaism with suspicion. Some people, who were not born Jewish, claim to have become Jewish, yet have never practised Judaism. Can such people really be regarded as Jews? Newman self-identified as Jewish because "it's more of a challenge". If that, along with the fact his father was Jewish, is all there is to his Jewishness, then he was of partial Jewish descent, but not a Jew himself. Werdnawerdna (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article about Paul Newman hardly seems like the place to settle the age-old question of "what is a Jew?" If we have reliable sources where he considers himself to be Jewish, that should be enough for Wikipedia, especially if it's worded correctly. We don't need to try to settle the question...it may never be settled and that has nothing to do with Newman.  Frank  |  talk  00:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear in the article WHO converted to Christian Science...the father, the mother, or both? Unclemikejb (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newman's mother; I'll try and fix it to make it clearer. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the age of 70 he became the oldest driver to be part of a winning team in a major sanctioned race,[citation needed] winning in his class at the 1995 24 Hours of Daytona.

 [2] 

[7]

Bbigjohnson (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show us some reliable sources that detail which cancer Paul Newman died from. The sources in the article do not show he died from this. Otherwise this is inaccurate and reverts will continue. Guroadrunner (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Newman himself, he was not battling it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1024980/Paul-Newman-speaks-Im-NOT-battling-lung-cancer.html

Guroadrunner (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second reference to that statement does in fact say lung cancer. Meanwhile, your source above was at the time that his illness was first hitting news sources and was still denying any health problems. Your source also quotes him as saying he was being treated for athlete's foot and hair loss. How many references do you want? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources on the net that state Mr. Newman died from lung cancer. I'm not sure what you will accept as notable. I think this is one subject that may be better served, if we wait to see what evolves from the media, and follow on sources in the wake of this unfortunate happening. Wikiport (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He died of lung cancer. That fact should not be denied. There are many mainstream media articles which state that fact. In many cases where someone has lung cancer and/or died of it, the afflicted person and/or his/her family merely state cancer, deliberately omitting lung. The only reason they do that is that well over 80% of lung cancer cases are caused by the afflicted person smoking for many years; therefore the person caused their own disease (and death). Despite the proven fact that that smoking causes millions of cancer deaths, the afflicted people and/or their families/friends/fans etc are in denial of that, and pretend that it wasn't the fault of the person struck by the disease. Werdnawerdna (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is cause to say that the word "lung" being omitted by family when discussing a cause of death is to hide smoking or that anyone is in denial. That's your opinion. Newman didn't hide the fact that he smoked for many years, nor have a large number of people who I knew who died of lung cancer. By the time someone dies, it really becomes a bit irrelevant to identify the location of cancer. Besides, that is still a "blame the victim" argument that isn't valid. About 20% of people who die from lung cancer never smoked. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg news cites Kenyon College's announcement that cause of death was leukemia. Kenyon College is much more reliable that the Daily Mail. --151.202.90.98 (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Here is the Kenyon news release:[8][reply]

That might be true, if the Kenyon College site actually said he died from leukemia. In fact, it doesn't say anything about the cause of death, although the link you provided, to the Columbus Dispatch does credit Kenyon College with saying that, as does Bloomberg. It's understandable that some would say that because the focus of the camps was for children with cancers and leukemia. Meanwhile, please point out where anyone has used the Daily Mail as a source for any citation on the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is fact, not merely opinion, that Newman died of lung cancer, and that the word lung is being deliberately omitted. The large majority of sources only state his cause of death as cancer, not lung cancer. There are many people in denial of the facts regarding not only him, but cancer and smoking in general. Whilst he was alive, there was basically denial from him and his people that he was seriously ill at all, let alone that he was terminal and he knew that fact. He said he was 'doing fine' or words to that effect, which was an outright lie. Wildhartlivie's 20% statistic is incorrect - in fact, only about 10% of people who contract lung cancer are lifelong non-smokers, and the cause of a significant proportion of those cases is passive smoking. Lung cancer causes massively more deaths than any other form of cancer. It is never irrelevant to identify the location of a cancer's organ of origin: it is a matter of recorded fact on the afflicted person's medical records, and is stated on death certificates, which are an official document. Different cancers have different causes, which makes it very relevant which people contract each type of cancer and why - that is how researchers and experts make scientific and medical progress. Wikipedia has categories including: deaths from lung cancer, deaths from colorectal cancer, deaths from breast cancer, deaths from prostate cancer etc. Therefore, the identification of a malignant neoplasm's parent organ is important and relevant - on Wikipedia as well as elsewhere. Werdnawerdna (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you are arguing, Werdnawerdna. The article contains the word lung. It's in there, it's sourced, it's been settled. As far as it being deliberately omitted by families/people because it is lung cancer, if it is fact, you'd have to prove it with reliable sources, and I don't think you can do that. It isn't relevant to the discussion about Newman having lung cancer or why he didn't make a huge public announcement months ago. It doesn't matter why Newman chose to downplay his illness - maybe he didn't a lot of public attention over it, he was always a private person when it came to his life and family. I said 20% because you said "over 80% of lung cancer cases are caused by the afflicted person smoking for many years." That either means around 20% of people who smoked didn't develop lung cancer or around 20% of lung cancers aren't related to smoking, or some combination of the two. Regardless, it isn't pertinent to improving the Newman article, and thus isn't appropriate for the talk page. I'm not going to debate personal politics regarding lung cancer or "blame the victim" mentality. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Newman did not acknowledge the nature of his illness. The announcement of cause of death was "cancer." Perhaps the family will be more forthcoming about the type of cancer. Until that point, I think "cancer" is all that is really verifiable right now. Some mainstream media have reported lung cancer, but none of the sources listed give their sources in their articles, they just say things like "lost his battle with lung cancer." --Btgreen (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since mainstream media has reported lung cancer makes it verifiable, that's the meaning of verifiable. It's not particularly true that they will always cite their sources. Please see WP:V - it is incumbent upon editors to use sources to back what is put in an article. It may be that at some future point, it could be proven as erroroneous, but appearing in mainstream media reports defines verifiability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor in a Series, Miniseries or Motion Picture Made of Television 2006 for Empire Falls - Second column last entree at bottom of page; needs to be changed to for

Fixed, thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk)

New image on commons

Paul went to Kenyon College (my grandparents were in his graduating class), not Ohio State. I'm not good at edits, so can someone add this? The source would be Kenyon's website - www.kenyon.edu. Thanks. 12.152.207.5 (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't claim that he went to OSU. Nothing needs fixed. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 15:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newman was apparently a Unitarian Universalist. See [9]. I'm not sure where this should go into the article. Aleta ^Sing 18:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find examples of how he was involved in the church, you might be able to put it under Political activism, as the UU church is often fairly politically active. Or, if you can find proof that he was raised UU (as opposed to joining later in his life), you could put it under Early life. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 14:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions, Politizer. I think he probably did become UU later in life; I read somewhere that he was introduced to it by Woodward. That was not a citeable source, however. So far I have not been able to find really anything beyond what I've already posted. I'm hoping some more about his UUism will appear in reliable sources so we can flesh it out a bit. Aleta ^Sing 17:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]