Talk:David Angell

I think "he was survived by his brother" seems excessively obfuscated. I think it should be changed, but since nobody has done it yet, I thought I'd ask.Shadow demon 05:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

This page was submitted for deletion, and the vote was to keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/More Sep 11 victims. DJ Clayworth 16:20, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't know many pages that use murdered, so i'm going to change it, but if i'm wrong, please tell me!! Im so sorry if i am -=) Bitbitz.xx 03:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Murdered" is the most appropriate word for the situation -- anything else is evading the truth. On a side note, Kelsey Grammer (who played Frasier) said shortly after 9/11 that he and David Angell were very good friends.

Yeah, I was just thinking murdered was more appropriate Kingal86 (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Lynn Edwards (1971-2001)

Did his wife die with him? Morhange (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

She was on the same plane, yes. All Hallow's (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Maybe add some information on his wife (when they met, how long they were together, if they had kids)... Jaxx19 (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Did Mr. Angell have a sibling that was adopted? "His natural brother, the Most Rev. Kenneth Angell, is a Roman Catholic prelate and former bishop of Burlington, Vermont."69.150.75.33 (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is there a consensus for adding a link to American Airlines Flight 11 to the infobox in the cause of death parameter?

Personally, I believe the circumstances of Angell's death quite easily meet the criterion in the template document for including it, "when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability". In addition to the obvious notoriety of 9/11, it takes up a substantial portion of the lede section, and nearly all of the citations in the article are from sources written in the context of Angell's death. While it is true that he would have an article had he not died in this manner, this is not itself a criteria for including the parameter; both John Lennon and James Dean are cited in the template as circumstances in which the parameter is appropriate, as their deaths are judged sufficiently significant to their notability, but both individuals would be notable outside of their untimely deaths.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Given the state of the article overall, I wouldn't agree that proportionality supports inclusion: the article is very short, and if it were better developed the situation would be more balanced. In the case of both Lennon and Dean their deaths had significant standalone notability; in this case that is subsumed by the general notoriety of the event rather than specifically this subject's death. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree that there would not be a case to specifically make an article about Angell's death in particular, but I think we have to take these situations contextually: you could make the case that there are many untimely/non-natural causes of death which may not substantially represent the overall notability of the subject, however we wish to define that, but it's also true that 9/11 is in every sense a highly unusual and highly notorious event. It is hard to imagine any individual who could be so notable that being a victim of the attacks would not come to be a significant part of their life's story. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree that 9/11 is a highly unusual and highly notorious event, but I think that's actually overshadowing the issue here, because the notability of the event generally does not correspond to its significance to this subject's notability. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't disagree that it can feel like it's overshadowing discussion of the person, but I think that actually indicates that it has become a real part of the subject's notability. As I indicated in my last response, I was trying to imagine a person who was so notable that their being killed on 9/11 would not substantially factor into the common, overarching narrative of their life, and I'm really not sure such a person exists. I think it would just automatically become part of the broad understanding of their life's story no matter who they were, and thus factor into their personal notability by extension.

I agree that we should not default to assuming this is the case for most circumstances, but I also think it's true that there are individual events so notorious and historically significant (perhaps dying on the Titanic would be another case?) that involvement in them by nature of being a victim of them will feature prominently in the overall picture of the subject's notability. These are very much ad hoc situations but I believe they exist. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply