I added the Tom's Diner reference. I think it is an interesting fact, but as it stands the seciont on his death ends with "... Who had died While he was drinking it was no one I had heard of", which is sad. Feel free to rephrase that sentence so the quotation is partial or not at the end. BenFrantzDale 08:19, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Date of Death
The date 16 November appears from time to time. We'll never know with certainty when he died, however it definitely was not the 16th. That was the day his body was discovered, and he was long dead by then. As I said in my earlier contribution, forensic science determined his probable date of death as 12 November, and that date appears in reputable sources. I have made the necessary correction. JackofOz 22:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- We've now gone back to showing 16 November in the lead para as the date his body was found. And the most probable date of death 12 November has been removed from the Death section. I query both of these. Why give prominence to 16 November when we know for certain that he died "several days" before then? 16 November is not a significant date in his life - the date he actually died is far more significant. OK, so we'll never know exactly when he died, but I don't see a problem with stating that forensic evidence suggests 12 November as the most likely date. Showing "November 1981" as his date of death in the lead para seems to me to be a much more pertinent piece of information than "remains found 16 November". The detail about when his remains were found can go in the text. It does not have the same status as date of birth or date of death. JackofOz 11:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but I think, in absence of a precise date of death, the date his remains were found is quite significant in biographical terms. I didn't notice someone had removed the 12 Nov info from the text though and will restore that. Wyss 11:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- What if he hadn't been found for 2 weeks, or a month, or 6 months? Would the date of his finding still be significant? It's an interesting piece of passive detail. Passive, because it is about the actions of somebody else after Holden was dead; it is not about anything Holden did himself, and therefore does not merit such prominence in amongst the primary facts of his life. Keep it, but put it in the text. That's my view. JackofOz 11:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think it would be significant (I've worked on other bios, here and elsewhere, whose subjects died on unknown dates). However, the notion that his b-d dates are expressed in a way that could rankle some readers does concern me, so I'll try something else. Wyss 11:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I await your solution with great interest. JackofOz 11:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Heh heh, like I await your reaction :) Wyss 11:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I like your solution. Hey, I would have been happy with "November 1981", the way it was before. But you've gone one better. Thanks. JackofOz 11:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the nudge. Wyss 12:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Newman children
I guess it's ok to keep the information about the Newman kids in the article but I've made it more encyclopedic and qualified, there's zero paper trail, after all. Wyss 17:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)