Talk:List of inventors killed by their own invention

Two possible additions to the list - opinions sought

• J.G. Parry-Thomas - an engineer and manufacturer of automobiles who changed his career to racing was killed when the drive chain of his race car snapped. It seems likely that his car was his invention. Opinions?
  • Hard to say. He didn't invent the automobile; he developed his race car; if he invented the drive chain which then snapped, I say add him.--Bltpdx 03:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Alexander Bogdanov - a physician and scientist conducted an experiment for a "rejuvination" technique wherein he deliberately gave himself a transfusion of blood from a student who suffered from malaria and tuberculosis.
• Jesus - Noted carpenter, invented the cross shortly before his (1st) death in 0 A.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.127.74 (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

What say thee? --AStanhope 23:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Edward Bayard Heath - man whose name was on Heathkits for decades. He died in a test flight of his Heath Parasol in 1931. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathkit User:andrewczernek —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Jimi Heselden - man who owned Segway, inc. He died after riding a Segway off a cliff. source: https://www.inquisitr.com/86002/owner-of-segway-dies-in-segway-accident/ Rebelray384 (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Rebelray384, please look around this page for the many, many, many times Heselden has been suggested and why he's not listed. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Fyrael sorry, my mistake. thank you for pointing that out Rebelray384 (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Another possible: Karel Soucek, daredevil, tool. Dead.

• Karel Soucek created a 9-ft. capsule with which he successfully rode in over the Canadian side of Niagara Falls in 1984. Encouraged by his success, he wanted to build a daredevil museum at Niagara Falls. In order to raise funds for the museum he attempted to recreate his adventure by having his capsule raised to 180 ft. inside the Houston Astrodome and have it dropped into a tank of water. The capsule fell and hit the rim of the tank, fatally wounding Soucek. Should we consider the capsule an "invention"? Was he killed by the capsule? His own stupidity? --AStanhope 00:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Marie Sklodowska-Curie

What about people like Marie Sklodowska-Curie? Radiation isn't exactly invented, but she certainly died of her discovery. There must also be a lot of doctors who died of the infectious disease they were isolating.

My copy of Brewer has a whole lot more suggestions, if anyone's interested? Espresso Addict 08:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• What is "Brewer"? --AStanhope 17:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, the original edition of which is the reference for the original article. Espresso Addict 22:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Cool - thanks! Is it recommended? Is it recommended in light of the existence of the internet, Google and the Wikipedia? --AStanhope 22:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• It's great fun to read, and a standard reference source in its area. I believe the original 1898 edition is online, but I have no idea how much the modern editions differ. Espresso Addict 19:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that Marie Sklodowska-Curie should be on this list because radiation is not an invention and doesn't belong on this list, according to the title. If we followed your logic then we would also have to add the people as mentioned underneath from the Manhattan Project who died from a Criticality accident while constructing the atom bomb. As User:Henriok said, they died from the radiation, not the atom bomb itself. I am therefore going to remove Marie Curie from the list. Please respond here if you want to further discuss this. Thanks, ShornAssociates (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

She was on the list for long periods (from 22 November to 12 December 2007, then from 13 July to 5 September 2008, then from 5 October 2008 until now) before you boldly removed her, so there has been much support for keeping her on the list... What she developed ("invented") was the separations technique that produced the concentrated radium to which she was exposed, so I think it is appropriate to include her on the list. (Not all inventions are things, and she was killed as a direct result of the process she invented.) I am re-adding her, but discussion can continue here. --Orlady (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't really aware of the fact that there is 'much' support for keeping her, since I didn't see anybody really commenting on her addition on this talk page. However, I see your point now and agree that she should be kept. By the way, I'm somewhat new to being an editor so please tell me: when you linked to WP:Bold, was there a negative connotation against my boldness or were you simply highlighting that fact? I've also seen that article and decided to follow it and be bold, but not sure if that was 'too' bold. Thanks. ShornAssociates (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, ShornAssociates. There are no negative connotations to boldness in this situation. I linked to that page to provide contextual information regarding Wikipedia cultural expectations for this kind of situation. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is also relevant. BTW, your comments here inspired me to revise the lead sentence in the article to better define both "killed by" and "invention". --Orlady (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I still don't buy the reasoning for including Marie Curie here. Whether or not she invented a means to purify radium, her work in general put her in close proximity to a great deal of highly dangerous material, and it's entirely likely that she would have eventually died of radiation-related disease anyway. Furthermore, it's hard to say for certain whether the work she did specifically in radium purification was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. The lady spent her whole career working around radiation with little or no protection. 75.41.6.103 (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

She did invent the radium isolation process, which directly led to her death. I think it's as plausible as any of the other candidates. Did Lilienthal actually "invent" gravity? @@i would like to re-open this, because I also don't believe that Curie invented, designed or produced ionising radiation. SGGH ^ping! 20:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

==Suggestion: Stockton Rush Stockton Rush made OceanGate and was killed by his invention when it imploded.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of inventors killed by their own inventions

The result of this AfD discussion was keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion Roger Franics Bacon?

This might be total bunk, but I heard somewhere (probably in the depths of my public school education) that Roger Bacon died from exposure while trying to prove that refrigeration could keep meat from spoling. Any thoughts? 129.89.197.117 23:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

you're thinking of (Sir) Franics Bacon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon_%28philosopher%29#Death

It says that he died from pneumonia, not exposure, though he contracted it after experimenting by stuffing a chicken with snow to preserve it.--69.149.227.173 (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflict?

The article currently states "Haman is hanged from the gallows he invented." in the top section, and "nor did Haman invent the gallows - he was simply hung on the gallows he had built." in the bottom section.

These can't both be true at the same time... which one is factual? I can't tell! _{Doc Sigma} ^{(wait, what?)} 13:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ahh, looks like someone edited the top section to indicate that Haman just built the gallows and didn't invent them. But in that case, doesn't that mean that Haman was not killed by his own invention and therefore doesn't belong? _{Doc Sigma} ^{(wait, what?)} 15:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Worse yet. Haman didn't even build the Gallows (He ordered them built) nor was he killed on them (he was killed *then* hung up for display.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.16.226 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 4 July 2009

Franz Reichelt

His invention didnt really KILL him, it just didnt save him. he killed himself accidentally. ^DAVID _CAT 23:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wan Hu

Since the Wikipedia page for Wan Hu states that it is an urban legend, i have removed his name from the list. 213.238.233.27 12:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he deserves a mention in the popular myth section, as he seems to be an archetype of this category. -- Logotu 16:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be "were" never seen again.  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.150.22 (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Manhattan Project

Harry K. Daghlian, Jr. and Louis Slotin both died at Los Alamos from Criticality accident while constructing a nuclear bomb.--Stone (talk) 10:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

They did die from radiation, this was however not their invention. Had they been killed by an actual bomb, they would have been on the list for sure. -- Henriok (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

well, they died in experiments with a nuclear core. but yeah, not really the same thing. if Oppenheimer had been in a city that was later nuked, then it would work, but a relatively mid-level guy dying in the process of making an invention is not quite the sense of irony desired for a list like this... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There's another problem: Plutonium is an alpha emitter. Unless ingested (were they machining it?)it won't kill you and even then not fast (years later from cancer).24.10.27.75 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Gunpowder?

Is it just a rumor that gun powder was discovered in an explosion that killed it's first creators? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.241.84.201 (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have heard that told about Berthold Schwarz, however it seems not even clear whether he even existed, and even those legends which attribute the invention of gunpowder to him do not agree whether he died by it. (Possibly a mix-up with the fate of other alchemists like Johann Georg Faust.) 2003:CD:E3E1:7800:A496:D91F:C3BE:3D06 (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Brazen Bull

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazen_bull

the inventor was supposedly killed in it himself Theasfl (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

part 2 has an explanation of it, so lets leave it out of part 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.223.98 (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Theasfl, the article you linked says otherwise; he was apparently just a test subject and was killed afterward. I forgot to remove it from part 1 (those actually killed by their inventions) when I edited, sorry about that. -- plushpuffin (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it, i came here just to suggest this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C54:4400:C76:74AC:3CC0:DA29:9E69 (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

So close! They only got you by a decade. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Unreliable Source

I have removed information from this article drawn from or sourced from the paper "The First Attempts of Flight, Automatic Machines, Submarines and Rocket Technology in Turkish History" by Arslan Terzioglu. This source is unreliable, as discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Rocket_Technology_in_Turkish_history. Dialectric (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Honorable Mentions"

I am not very comfortable with this section at all, since it can be stretched to the point where every "Darwin award" winner could be included. When Perillos was the only entry ... it was strange. The addition of Garros - well that story is actually pretty cool, and his invention led directly to his own death. But the story that Leopoldo "Polo" Lugones invented a device that was used to torture his daughter? ... that's just getting so remote that I don't see why it's included. I didn't want to delete it outright without offering a discussion first. Tkech (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, I think the more appropriate term is "Inventors indirectly-killed by their Inventions. I have changed this, if anyone has violent reactions, please revert my edit. But please if you do, add a comment to this discussion. --Maverx (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been using that section heading as I found it, but I would surmise the idea for an "Honorable Mention" category, along with the whole idea to create this list, probably came from a fan of the Darwin Awards (see their Honorable Mentions category). I like having a "Direct Casualties" section and an "Honorable Mentions" section for three major reasons: 1) the two categories prevent list-creep in the Direct Casualties by creating a second section with less-stringent standards to catch stories like those of Perillos and Garros which are of germane interest, but would only marginally qualify, if at all, for the list if one were to use a literal interpretation of the page title as the standard for inclusion; 2) the thought of an Honorable Mentions category jibes well with the spirit of tongue-in-cheek, macabre humor with which both the average reader and the average writer will interact with the page; and 3) "Direct Casualties" and "Honorable Mentions" are much more concise and reader-friendly than "Inventors directly killed by their inventions" and "Inventors indirectly killed by their inventions," respectively.
"Inventors indirectly killed by their inventions" wouldn't even be strictly accurate in the case of either Perillos or Garros, the former of whom was a victim of the capricious cruelty of a bloodthirsty tyrant, and the latter of whom was a victim of one of the most savage, violent conflicts the world had ever known up to that point in time — social conditions beyond the control of even the most ingenious of inventors. "Inventors who, though not directly killed by their inventions, still suffered ironic deaths related to their inventive activities" would be a much more accurate subheading, but it is long, cumbersome, and rather prolix. I feel that, if what we mean by "Honorable Mention" is explained immediately below the title, we need not fear losing any readers to incomprehension. --Dynaflow babble 03:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like either of the entries in this section.

• Perillos wasn't killed because of his invention, he was killed by a tyrant because that's what tyrants do.
• Roland Garros wasn't killed because of his invention, he was killed by someone using superior competing technology to what he invented.

If there are no objections, I will remove both points (which are also completely uncited) sometime soon. JoshDuffMan (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

All right, I'm removing the section for the reasons I mentioned earlier. JoshDuffMan (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Fiction

Frankenstein is mentioned in the article under myths. The Frankenstein story is not really a myth; it's a work of fiction, not a myth or legend. As irony is a common feature of fiction, especially as regards the hubris of inventors, I don't think it is appropriate to include fictional examples. Evand (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --Dynaflow babble 19:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree FizzleDrunk (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Fritz Haber

Fritz Haber didn't die of his own invention, but members of his extended family did die in death camps, killed by Zyclon-B, which Haber invented. Perhaps worth an honorable mention? Maybe not. It's more ironic than most, as the invention here was not initially meant to be used as a weapon of execution (it was an insecticide), but yeah. Not quite. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Titanic?

Are we sure the Titanic belongs to this page? While I understand that the HMS Titanic is one of the most dramatic examples of "things that killed their own creator", I fail to see it as an "invention" of any kind. If that was the case, we'd have to include here each and every ship builder, car designer, and even architects who died in similar accidents. What I try to say is that I don't think the Titanic should be considered an invention, so it doesn't fit in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.109.173.37 (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the Titanic article, I have to agree. The design was not "revolutionary" and new, evidently. Tkech (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit Skirmishes

I am noticing a lot of stuff repeatedly being removed, re-added and/or reworded. I'm assuming this is done by people who are new to the article and do not realise that these things have been discussed and edited before. I don't know if we have any way to encourage people to check the History and Discussion before they dive in, but it would be a good idea. Tkech (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Lack of Citations

Large chunks of the article, including the entire sections for Medical, Maritime, and Miscellaneous, were removed on 3 September due to lack of citations. The compare page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_inventors_killed_by_their_own_inventions&diff=next&oldid=311615454

Although the deletion is somewhat irksome, it is quite TRUE that this article has been composed largely of "well-known" anecdotes from most of us. This is against Wikipedia guidelines. (Note that links to other Wikipedia articles are NOT considered acceptable, unfortunately.) To comply, none of the removed entries should be re-added without a citation.

If we all pitch in with some internet searching, we can locate citations for the individual entries and happily add them back into the article. Tkech (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

J. G. Parry-Thomas

What did he invent for the car, plus as sources states, he brought the car and rebuilt it. Therefore I am removing that entry. Donnie Park (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

al-Jawhari section inconsistent with given source

The source provided states that Abul Qasim ibn Firnas "flies for a considerable distance". The source states that al-Jawhari simply fell, and did not 'fly for a short distance', as the Wikipedia blurb states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.98.35 (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Flourine martyrs

How about the people who died trying to isolate Flourine? Could this be considered an invention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjklin (talk • contribs) 14:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

But they did not invent flourine. I agree with the recent removal of Marie Curie from the list - being killed by something you discover is not the same as being killed by something you created/invented (which is what this page documents). ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Segway creator

The creator of the Segway recently died by driving his invention off a cliff.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315518/Jimi-Heselden-killed-Segway-accident.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.101.171.90 (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added it, but I'm not sure if it really belong to this list, since he didn't invent the Segway.--Micru (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed it, he's not the inventor, so he should not be included in this list. Matt J ^User|Talk 13:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Currently it's in the "Myths" section. I don't think it belongs there either, as the Heselden/Segway story is true, not a myth. Perhaps it belongs in "See also" instead? 129.130.102.216 (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's becoming a myth, a lot of people seem to be telling the story as being the inventor of Segway.Matt J ^User|Talk 15:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In either case, it doesn't belong in both. Lilyology (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I added it back in because the "myths" section now covers related stories. I think it absolutely belongs through that lens. Dflovett (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

This article's scope is defined through its title. Jimi Heselden was not the inventor of the Segway, and should not be included here at all, not even in a seperate section. Even if further clarified upon, it does not change the simple fact that he was not its inventor and thus has no reason to be included here.

However, if consensus indicates a general desire to retain the Heselden entry, my suggestion would be to move the article and expand its scope accordingly. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 16:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Killed by or killed by the use of?

The title of this article seems inaccurate to me. If a man creates a robot that then kills him then certainly he has been killed by his invention, but if he creates a motorbike and falls or unsuccessfully deploys his parachute after jumping then he is killed by gravity, incompetence etc.

I therefore propose that this article be renamed.78.86.61.94 (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Bogdanov and Andrews removed. They weren't inventors in any way.

I've removed Alexander Bogdanov. He didn't "pioneer bloodtransfusions", he just dabbled with it (hoping to achieve eternal youth) about a century after the first successful transfusion between humans took place. (See James Blundell and others for details on that). I also removed Thomas Andrews. He worked on draughting the Titanic and sunk with her a few years later. Very ironic, yes, but that doesn't make him the inventor of boats. FCTS 142 (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to remove Bogdanov and Andrews again. I was unable to find a justification for the reversion that restored them, and I agree with the rationale above. Bogdanov didn't invent blood transfusions, he experimented with them. Andrews was instrumental in the creation of the Titanic, but he did not invent or directly design it. I'm open to arguments for restoring either of these entries. Andrews could be a candidate for "Popular myths and related stories", if we draw a sufficient distinction between myths and related stories. Wamitchell (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Jimi Heselden

The entry says both that Jimi Heselden was killed in a Segway accident and that he did not invent the Segway. So why is he here? Hairhorn (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the discussion at the top of the talk page (because I searched for "Heselden" and found nothing). I've reverted the move out of the myths section. Hairhorn (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I added it back in because the "myths" section now covers related stories. I think it absolutely belongs through that lens. I noted this in both the Segway creator section above and again here. Dflovett (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Some more to be considered

• 10 great inventors who died (in a round-about way) at their own hands.
• Top 10 Scientists Killed or Injured by Their Experiments
• John Godfrey Parry-Thomas and and presumably Donald Campbell - here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Icarus should go in the myth section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.181.203 (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Jim Fixx

Jim Fixx was briefly added and then deleted in this edit. I've re-added him to the related stories section, and justified the inclusion there. If that's a problem, please discuss here; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

While he may have been killed by a combination of running and his own body parts, he invented neither. This article documents people who were killed by things they invented. Unless someone hits me up with an amazing revelation in the next 24 hours, I will remove this edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshDuffMan (talk • contribs) 08:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The point of having a "related stories" section is exactly to cope with cases which fail a strict test. I suggest you do not remove the inclusion, but rather discuss here why we have a "related stories" section, and what the limits on content in that section might be. If I can be frank with you, I do not appreciate someone with a mere 256 edits on wikipedia setting himself up, as you appear to be doing, as the arbiter of what should and should not appear on this page, and setting a ridiculously short deadline by which "amazing revelations" must be made. That is not the way wikipedia works, and is thoroughly offensive. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to get snippy. I also think that Jim Fixx is not really appropriate for this heading. I agree with the previous commenter that A) "running" is not an invention and B) "running" did not kill him. How is this relevant? Lyrric (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Perillos of Athens

He is in the list twice. First in Direct Causalities and then in Popular Myths, because according to source, he was killed by throwing him off a cliff after being taken out. However, I am not sure if any of the sources can be trusted.

Anyhow, I believe we should keep it in Popular Myths, cleaning up a bit the paragraph talking about him.

--Lomegor (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused, Perillos of Athens is listed twice --24.235.74.227 (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, it's true! I've removed the first entry and moved its reference to the other location in this revision. ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Maritime -- inventor died on SECOND sinking?

Here, it's saying that inventor Hunley died on the 3rd sinking. However, articles about inventor Hunley and the Hunley submarine say he died on the SECOND sinking. The 3rd sinking came right after the Hunley submarine had sunk the USS Housatonic (1861), so please consider changing the Wikipedia article whose talk page contains the paragraph you are reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

edit request -- switch period and right parenthesis

This is being requested for what currently is:

(Dean Kamen invented the Segway). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Bruce McLaren

Bruce McLaren died while driving a race car his company (McLaren) built. Include? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.197.226 (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Not unless he invented race cars. ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There's an entry for Duesenberg who didn't invent cars but was killed driving a Duesenberg. Qwy47 (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I agreed that should be removed as well, as with the inclusion being that he designed his own car, so did Athol Graham. Donnie Park (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

Antino Gaudi the famous Catalan architect from Barcelona designed the tram system around the city and dies upon being hit by one of his very own trams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmcr92 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 March 2013

The writing on the death of Karel Soucek is misleading. It says he "He died when his barrel, with him inside, was prematurely dropped down a waterfall from the top of the Houston Astrodome" which is patently ridiculous. There's no waterfall in the Astrodome. The source / link says he was dropped from the roof of the Astrodome and missed the water tank he was supposed to land in. Thanks. 173.247.204.226 (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing this out.  — daranz [ t ] 01:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Bruce McLaren

{{edit semi-protected}} Bruce McLaren should be added to the list under the "Automotive" section as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_McLaren#Death. He was testing his own car when the rear bodywork came adrift and he died at age 32. Mr tr0n (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The article lead says: (I underlined for emphasis)

"This is a list of inventors whose deaths were in some manner caused by or related to a product, process, procedure, or other innovation that they invented or designed."

It's not clear to me the extent that McLaren himself invented or designed the cars he drove. It would be nice if we had an article on the M8D to clarify. Look at the article on the McLaren M7A. It says it was "designed by Robin Herd and Gordon Coppuck." Now, if either of those gentlemen were killed driving the M7A, then they would qualify for this list. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree per Wbm1058 and thus I am nulling the open ESP request. Of course, if you have a source that provides McLaren was the (or co-) inventor/designer, please resubmit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

William Bullock

I don't think that fits here. He died from gangrene after his foot was crushed while installing a machine. While you could say his invention killed him the accident had little to do with the fact it was a printing press or was an innovation to the industry. Was the press criticized for being too large and heavy? Was the accident attributed to the failure of equipment other than his printing press? Sounds like it, so it wasn't his printing press that killed him. Batvette (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Walter White

We received a suggestion via email to insert who I suppose is the main character in Breaking Bad. Not sure if it belongs, I'll let other editors make the call. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

He did construct the machine gun, but I am not sure if he invented the contraption or if it was described in the manual. In any case, this would require a "Fictional characters" section, are there any more entries? Chunk5Darth (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Vladimir Petlyakov

• Vladimir Mikhailovich Petlyakov, designer of the famous Pe-2 WWII era Soviet dive bomber was killed when his Pe-2 crashed in poor weather en-route to Moscow. The purpose of his trip was to complain about the impressment of his engineering staff for front-line duty and the resulting poor quality of production aircraft. While the aircraft cannot fully be blamed for the crash, I think this story fits the requirements set out in the introduction to the article by being "caused by or related to a product" produced by the inventor. NathanielJS (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Do you have a reference citation for the information you provided here? --Orlady (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article and several other sources, this information can be found in Tupolev: The Man and His Aircraft by P. Duffy & A. I. Kandalov. Unfortunately, I do not have access to this book and cannot confirm this. NathanielJS (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Luis Jimenez?

Sadly, Luis Jiménez (sculptor) died when part of his original work in progress fell on him. Can we take it as read that it was a structure of his own invention? Ajm475du (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that he should be in the list; added him in a newly created Art section. — Avelludo 21:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Father Gomez

There are some Internet references to a "Father Gomez" who designed an instrument of torture for the Spanish Inquisition. He was subsequently denounced as a heretic and executed by his own "Spanish Donkey". 121.44.7.104 (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2014

Even though Dr. Guillotin did not die by his own invention, one of his associates and an advocate for the guillotine, Maximilien de Robespierre, did die by the guillotine.

The creator of the JATO Rocket Car died during its test run.

65.87.54.17 (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Are you asking that these two be listed? If so, Robespierre should not be included as this list specifically is about the inventors that were killed. The JATO article describes it as a myth, so it will not be listed either. Cannolis (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Abakovsky/Aerowagon death count conflict

The description of the Abakovsky/Aerowagon incident states "...the Aerowagon derailed at high speed, killing everyone on board..." but the article Aerowagon article states that 6 of 22 were killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.190.117.34 (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Li Si... inventor?

Three citations are given for the claim "Li Si (208 BCE), Prime Minister during the Qin dynasty, was executed by the Five Pains method which he had devised." All of the given citations do state that Li Si was executed by the "five pains" method; however, none identifies him as the inventor of same, nor could I find any other sources identifying him as such. In fact, according to the Five Punishments Wikipedia article, the method may have originated as early as 2500 BC, thousands of years before Li Si lived and died. Probably he should be removed from the list, unless some sort of support can be found identifying him as inventor (perhaps of the specific set of five punishments used or something?). —Rnickel (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, it looks as though James Douglas, 4th Earl of Morton is also not the inventor of the "maiden" execution device, having simply seen it used in England and copied the design in Scotland. Maybe the whole "Punishment" section needs to go, unless we wanted to promote the "brazen bull" guy up from the "myths" section... that claim, although ancient, seems much better documented than either of the ones in the "Punishment" section as it currently stands. —Rnickel (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I've put them into myths. If we remove, they'll get added back again by a bright spark; myths guards against that somewhat. Thanks for raising this - always a correct thing to do. But so is being bold :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

adding Vidal Sassoon to "popular myths and related stories" section ?

Hairstylist Vidal Sassoon died of leukemia.. had his own brand of hair care products which he used frequently and are considered carcinogenic under California Proposition 65. I've seen this mentioned on social media quite a few times. Perhaps someone could investigate how popular this attribution (true or not) is--50.203.88.210 (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

suggestion to add Aircraft Lead Engineer Jon Karkow

Jon Karkow (1962-2017) was the lead designer of the Icon A5 in which he died in a crash on May 8, 2017. see http://www.flyingmag.com/icon-chief-test-pilot-killed-in-a5-crash

Jayrtfm (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2017

Remove "or infamous" from Thomas Midgley, Jr. Why should anyone being infamous because he invented something that worked perfectly and it was very useful at the time, though some generations later it was considered too poisonous to the standards of that later time? Frutwer (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Myth about Berblinger

There is a popular myth in Germany about "the tailor of Ulm" having crashed to death by trying to prove that a human beging could fly with a device he invented. There is a poem about that by Bert Brecht, which is well-known enough to have an extra article (in fact, even two of them at the moment) in the German WP in spite of the notoriously harsh notability criteria there. The true part in this is the story of Albrecht Berblinger (who fell into a river and survived). --2003:CD:E3E1:7800:A496:D91F:C3BE:3D06 (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of inventors killed by their own inventions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090820215815/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23733014-details/British+inventor+dies+in+crash+on+test+flight+of+his+flying+taxi/article.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23733014-details/British+inventor+dies+in+crash+on+test+flight+of+his+flying+taxi/article.do
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111226141614/http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=427 to http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=427
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121216121012/http://www.perillos.com/brazenbull.html to http://www.perillos.com/brazenbull.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150811163902/http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/hst/asian/TheCivilizationofChina/chap2.html to http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/hst/asian/TheCivilizationofChina/chap2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction "Aerowagon"

Under section "Railway" it is stated: "...the Aerowagon derailed at high speed, killing everyone on board, including Abakovsky..."

but in Aerowagon it says: "...killing six of the 22 people on board."

Which one is true now? --GGShinobi (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I did some googling and didn't really find any good sources. Mostly the same kind of "Inventors killed by their own invention list" articles. Out of the ones I did find though, almost all of them state that 6 people died, with a few calling that number the full passenger count. I found no sources (aside from Wiki mirrors) mentioning the 7 or 22 figures given in the Aerowagon article. -- Fyrael (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggested addition: Jimi Heselden

He was killed by his own invention, the Segway — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinnermck (talk • contribs) 17:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like that was invented by Dean Kamen. Heselden merely purchased the Segway company. -- Fyrael (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

According to the references, he was riding a "rugged country version of the Segway" similar to the x2. If he was testing a prototype, it's not fair to say that he "merely" purchased the company. Still, that doesn't necessarily make him the inventor, so I would have to concur without such evidence as to his contribution. DAVilla (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggested addition; Captain Cowper Coles

Captain Cowper Phipps Coles, C.B., R.N. (1819 – 7 September 1870), was an English naval captain and inventor; he was the first to patent a design for a revolving gun turret. Coles died when HMS Captain, an experimental warship built to his designs, sank with him on board.

Streona (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2019

In the section "Automotive", add the following bullet:

Jimi Heselden, owner of Segway, Inc. and inventor of the Segway, died while riding a Segway off a cliff. 71.251.6.233 (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

References

EDIT: Ignore. Noted above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.6.233 (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Include. Not an inventor, but they did "like it so much they bought the company". So the core sense of this is, "Killed by your own creation" and I think he falls under that. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Henry Winstanley

He died when a storm destroyed a lighthouse he'd designed. I'd hardly say he was killed by the lighthouse. If Henry Ford was crushed by a boulder while driving a Model T, would we say he was killed by his own invention? Bkatcher (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd keep Winstanley. If Ford had been killed by the Model T's unsuitability as a car, then we would. A car isn't expected or intended to be proof against boulders. But it should survive accidentally hitting the kerb. Winstanley's lighthouse didn't survive the Winter, to the extent that they couldn't find its remains afterwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Moving Luis Jiménez

I propose moving Luis Jiménez to "Popular myths and related stories", and possibly drawing a clearer distinction between "myths" and "stories". It's a colorful anecdote, but I argue that Jiménez did not "invent" his sculpture, or "design" it in the sense of the introductory paragraph to the article. Wamitchell (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

He created it though, and I think invent / create and invention / sculpture are close enough synonyms for the purposes of this article. It's certainly no "myth". Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think the specific emphasis on "invention" in the title of the article puts some distance between "invent" and "create", a broader word. I don't see "invention" and "sculpture" as closely synonymous, but it's not a distinction I want to justify at length here -- I mostly wanted to put it out there and see if there was consensus, because these kinds of lists have a "strange but true!" quality that tends to attract anecdotes that (in my opinion) stretch definitions. With regard to moving it: clearly it's not a myth, I just think classifying it as a "related story" could be a middle ground between treating the sculpture as an invention and removing it entirely. Wamitchell (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Request to add Jimi Heselden to the list

Change section:

Automotive

• Sylvester H. Roper, inventor of the eponymous steam-powered bicycle, died of a heart attack or subsequent crash during a public speed trial in 1896. It is unknown whether the crash caused the heart attack or the heart attack caused the crash.
• William Nelson (c. 1879−1903), a General Electric employee, invented a new way to motorize bicycles. He then fell off his prototype bike during a test run.
• Francis Edgar Stanley (1849–1918) was killed while driving a Stanley Steamer automobile. He drove his car into a woodpile while attempting to avoid farm wagons travelling side by side on the road.
• Fred Duesenberg (1876–1932) was killed in a high-speed road accident in a Duesenberg automobile.

To:

Automotive

• Sylvester H. Roper, inventor of the eponymous steam-powered bicycle, died of a heart attack or subsequent crash during a public speed trial in 1896. It is unknown whether the crash caused the heart attack or the heart attack caused the crash.
• William Nelson (c. 1879−1903), a General Electric employee, invented a new way to motorize bicycles. He then fell off his prototype bike during a test run.
• Francis Edgar Stanley (1849–1918) was killed while driving a Stanley Steamer automobile. He drove his car into a woodpile while attempting to avoid farm wagons travelling side by side on the road.
• Fred Duesenberg (1876–1932) was killed in a high-speed road accident in a Duesenberg automobile.
• Jimi Heselden (1948–2010), inventor of the Segway, was killed driving a Segway off a cliff. Lynxie (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Heselden didn't invent the Segway (that was Dean Kamen). NiciVampireHeart 15:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hunley - Not the first combat submarine

This article credits Horace Hunley as having built the first combat submarine, but in fact the first submarine used in warfare was called the Turtle and it was used during the American Revolutionary War in 1776. Dragonblorg (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Correct. Hunley wasn't the first in combat, but it was the first submarine to sink a warship, albeit killing the crew in the process, and 2 crews before that. DAVilla (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2020

Request 1

Please change "fatally wounded" to "fatally injured". "Wounded" tends to refer to violence, but here the context is blunt force injury caused by falling a long distance onto a hard object. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:A456:1B37:CF32:5EDB (talk) 10:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Request 2

Please change "Popular myths and related stories" to "Popular legends and related stories". None of the stories in this section is even close to a myth; they're just isolated accounts, not folklore "narratives that play a fundamental role in a society". 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:A456:1B37:CF32:5EDB (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Done both DannyS712 (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2020

Addition under Automotive (?) Jimi Heselden, owner and founder of Segway, fell off cliffs while riding a Segway. Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-11416654 Janbanananas (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: owner, not *inventor*. Goldsztajn (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Cowper Phipps Cole and HMS Captain

The cited article HMS Captain (1869) seems like a pretty clear reference to me, particularly the "Sinking" section. Cole was the designer and main motivator for the construction; he was on board; therefore he was killed by his own invention. If there's a preferred way of citing that article other than the linking directly to it that I already did, let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airdrake (talk • contribs) 20:54, April 28, 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself is not a WP:RS, so you can't cite a Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article. It will require an actual cite to a reliable source. TJRC (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Minor edit request: Slightly improve wording

"[...] while testing his flying taxi device designed to permit fast, affordable travel between regional cities." should be:

"[...] while testing his flying taxi device designed to permit fast and affordable travel between regional cities." (minus the added formatting by me to highlight the change).

-- 80.187.109.58 (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021

Addition of person who died:

Jimi Heselden OBE, Segway company owner, died from an accidental fall off a cliff while riding a Segway. (Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-14167868) Adamabo (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

He was not the inventor of the Segway, just happened to have purchased the company, which doesn't fit the criteria of this article. - Aoidh (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Addition of Langley Collyer who was killed by his own booby trap

Addition of person who died:

Langley Collyer was killed by a booby trap he created. He didn't invent the booby trap but isn't each individual booby trap kind of its own invention? (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collyer_brothers#Langley_Collyer's_discovery)

 Not done: We don't take Wikipedia articles as source. RealAspects (talk) 12:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1983&dat=19470409&id=k0IwAAAAIBAJ&pg=1103,4347916

Here's the original - pretty great headline Jonstieg (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

James Douglas killed by guillotine-like device he designed

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/26194

it's called the maiden and he was killed by it. The Wikipedia page on the maiden isn't 100% that he designed it but it certainly fits. What do you think? Jonstieg (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Stockton Rush

He was/is the founder and CEO of OceanGate, Inc., which created the submarine that went missing a few days ago. If they find him and he's dead, would he be able to be put on this page?

And what if they don't find him? Would we need to wait until he's 'legally dead' or until the oxygen supply is expected to run out? Felix Croc (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

yeah i agree if he is found dead, or after a few weeks then he could be put in a section that could be made for people who probably are dead or something. Sebbog13 (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

therefore he should be removed from this list. Probably he's dead, yeah, but for the time being the entry is even closer to original speculation than to original research. 84.160.231.222 (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

There is news from the new york times of a debris field on the ocean floor near the titanic, including a section of the submersible's tail cone, so I that would be pretty clear evidence. It is safe to add it then? 142.147.59.202 (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Coast Guard just stated a few minutes ago that the submersible imploded. Might as well add it in. Dcgh96 (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

debri was found so yeah he is dead Sebbog13 (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I Stockton an inventor? He created the submarine but I'm not sure it was a novelty or innovation, except perhaps that it was cheaper than other vessels travelling to similar depths. For example, would a person who builds there own custom car out of stock parts, and crashes, be considered killed by their own invention? 184.171.214.178 (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

would a person who builds there own custom car out of stock parts, and crashes, be considered killed by their own invention? Sure, I don't see why not. "Invention" doesn't have to mean an entirely new concept. WPscatter ^t/_c 03:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

yeah he could be added Sebbog13 (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

He was added and seems to have been deleted since then, does anyone know a reason he was taken out? TheNeutroniumAlchemist (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@TheNeutroniumAlchemist User Tvx1 removed him, claiming Rush did not invent submersibles (23:03 edit, can't properly link on mobile app, sorry) DrmedWurst24513 (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

This is the edit DrmedWurst24513 (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, i don't mean that only the original inventor of the submarine should count, just that not anyone who builds a submarine should count. There should be some elements of original design and innovation, which other users have alluded to. 2604:6400:45EE:6B01:7969:E2D:F89E:F03A (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I would say yes as we have the titanic listed and it wasn't the first ship, same for the different cars fatalities listed. Xeracross (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

A carbon fibre composite submarine definitely was a novelty to a degree that everyone else in the business were warning against it (and Rush boasted how he did it against those warnings).

Stockton Rush also held a patent on "systems and methods for curing, testing, validating, rating, and monitoring the integrity of composite structures", which was an acoustic system to detect the sound of micro-buckling and to warn of a catastrophic hull failure. Considering that his current cause of death is thought to be a submarine implosion, there's a good chance that his patented composite structure integrity system did not exactly work. Hamuko (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Definitely needs to be added back in; if we’re going on the logic that an invention is a brand new concept I can count a handful of people who need to be removed from this wiki. 204.232.94.246 (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I definitely agree with this. He should be added back in. 24.8.205.232 (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Concurr 100%. His submersible had a number of innovations that were uniquely his. Batvette (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I undid the removal. Dan0 00 (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Your edit was removed again, and I undid the removal again.

People are using their own personal definitions of "innovator" or "invention". Instead, we should apply the definitions provided in this very article and in the linked "Innovator" article.

Rush meets them; he "designed" a "product" which killed him; he "improved" upon a pre-existing product by "lowering cost" with materials his peers found highly experimental.

Not including Rush would entail substantially rewriting the article by changing its definitions just to exclude him and re-examining the similar figures it includes. That would be ridiculous. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

oh no a edit war Sebbog13 (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Henry Winstanley

That it was the first lighthouse on Eddystone Rocks doesn't make it an invention. Maybe being the first known offshore one would count, but then that is what should be included here. Yitz711 (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Charles Spalding

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Spalding

died diving to a shipwreck near Dublin in a diving bell of his own design 69.172.174.234 (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Karl Flach

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flach_(submarine) The recent tragedy of the Titan remembered me of this one incident in Chile of a submarine killing its creator and its crew, so I guess it is appropiate for it to join this list. 2800:300:6272:7C60:0:0:0:2 (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023

Change

• Horace Lawson Hunley (1823–1863), Confederate inventor, drowned with seven other crew members during a test of his invention, the first combat submarine, which was later named the H. L. Hunley.
• Cowper Phipps Coles (1819–1870) was a Royal Navy captain who drowned with approximately 480 others in the sinking of HMS Captain, a masted turret ship of his own design."

to

• Horace Lawson Hunley (1823–1863), Confederate inventor, drowned with seven other crew members during a test of his invention, the first successful combat submarine, which was later named the H. L. Hunley.
• Julius H. Kroehl (1820-1867), a German American inventor and former Union Navy contractor, is thought to have died of decompression sickness after experimental dives with the Sub Marine Explorer, which he co-designed and constructed with his business partner Ariel Patterson.
• Cowper Phipps Coles (1819–1870) was a Royal Navy captain who drowned with approximately 480 others in the sinking of HMS Captain, a masted turret ship of his own design."

The H.L. Hunley was not the first combat submarine; that was the Turtle (submersible) of 1775. It was the first one to sink a ship in combat, however. I also added an entry on Julius Kroehl, who created what is considered the first modern submarine. 72.83.44.98 (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: Sorry to bother, but it appears you only made one change. The part about H.L. Hunnley being the first combat submarine (which IS changed in the "change x to y" part of my message) is still there. It is not the first combat submarine; that was the Turtle (submersible) of 1775. H.L. Hunnley was the first combat submarine to sink a ship in combat, however. This is why i suggested that the qualifier "successful" be added to "the first >successful< combat submarine". --72.83.44.98 (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023 (2)

I want to change correct one word: "en route to the" to "on route to the"

• Stockton Rush (1962–2023) was a pilot, engineer, and businessman who oversaw the design and construction of the OceanGate submersible Titan, intended to take tourists to view the wreck of the Titanic. In June 2023, the craft imploded en route to the Titanic, killing Rush and four passengers. Glats (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: "en route" is correct. WPscatter ^t/_c 21:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Did Thomas Crapper invent the toilet and then fall into it and die?

My dad keeps telling me Thomas Crapper is a real guy who invented the toilet but fell into it and died, but when I looked it up it said he wasn't even a real guy. 2601:183:867E:FD40:1D8C:4525:82E4:2C40 (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The modern flush toilet we use today was invented by multiple people who improved upon it over time. In 1596 Sir John Harington (1561–1612) published A New Discourse of a Stale Subject, Called the Metamorphosis of Ajax, describing a forerunner to the modern flush toilet installed at his house at Kelston in Somerset. A crucial advance in plumbing was the S-trap, invented by the Scottish mechanic Alexander Cumming in 1775, and still in use. Inventor Joseph Bramah also later developed a float valve system for the flush tank. Obtaining the patent for it in 1778. (From Flush toilet#History) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

If Stockton rush is no inventor, Thomas andrews must be removed by that logic.

To the person who removed Stockton rush claiming “he didn’t invent the submersible,” your logic would have it that Thomas andrews, inventor of the titanic should be removed as well. 204.232.94.246 (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

With that, many others on this list must be removed per your logic. 204.232.94.246 (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

He indeed probably should. He didn’t invent the large ocean liner.Tvx1 10:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Why don’t you remove him then? You seem to be exclusively focusing on the inclusion of Rush. 204.232.94.246 (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

On deleting Andrews, you stated "Andrews in particular wasn’t killed by the ship he helped design, he drowned". Just for the record, the lead says "deaths were in some manner caused by or RELATED to". His death is related to the sinking of the ship he designed.

Moreover, we have a couple of pilots, parachuters, hang gliders, and hot air balloonists down for the chopping block under this narrow definition - that kills pretty much the entire aviation category. We would do well to include people who made notable alterations to pre-existing designs. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

segway

wasn't the segway inventor killed as his segway ran off a cliff? shouldn't we add this to the list? thanks 98.109.213.146 (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

He's mentioned in the 'popular legends' section. He owned the company, but did not invent the Segway.Bkatcher (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Recent addition

The creator who oversaw the engineering and completion of a submarine that recently was lost didn’t invent the Submarine. Why is he on the list? Should every person who made a contraption which ended their life be on it too? As far as I’m concerned an invention isn’t the same as a concoction or contraption; an invention is credited to the first person to create something. This person didn’t invent submarines or even create something better, he made a failed attempt at copying what was already invented. I think he should be removed. 2600:6C48:7A7F:70B4:F470:4DF6:584F:E0E (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree. He simply was no inventor. Tvx1 23:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

This logic requires that many others be removed from this wiki. Seems like there’s two options; Singling out Stockton Rush, or completely overhauling the wiki removing at least 8 people I’ve found that don’t meet the “invented a new concept” standard. 204.232.94.246 (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Therefore, tvx1, it appears you have some work to do: overhaul this entire wiki to remove all those who didn’t invent “a new concept.” 204.232.94.246 (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The linked "Innovation" article defines thus: "An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition, idea or process. An invention may be an improvement upon a machine, product, or process for increasing efficiency or lowering cost."

Per the above, Stockton Rush's innovation was to substantially "lower the costs" involved in reaching the Titanic via a highly experimental submersible of his own creation. You say it's not a "better" design than other submersibles, but is this article not about "failed" designs?

What I am seeing is people using their personal definitions of invention rather than following the guiding principles which the involved articles explicitly state. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

^{Wikipedia articles cannot be used themselves as reliable sources nor for verifiability. We should reflect reliable sources and I have seen none that call him an inventor.} Tvx1 03:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not using Wikipedia articles to source a claim. However, the article is self-defining with regards to its inclusion criteria, and I argue that its opening statement includes figures such as Rush. That said, the broad opening statement disagrees with the strict title. The ideal solution is to change the title to honour the long-standing content (this discussion is now underway). The narrow vision of the article you are advocating for is a departure from its spirit and is a step backwards in its improvement. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Sensitive content

maybe consider having a warning for the initial video of Franz Reichelt. 2607:FB91:1524:58AE:AC39:34B1:68A5:FB3A (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

This is being shadowed at the moment but I completely agree. Was a bit stunned to witness a man die on my first viewing of the article. Are people in favour of adding a warning or otherwise replacing the video with a still image of him wearing his invention? TelepathicTwelve (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I've swapped it out with a still image of the invention and a link to the GIF's source Youtube video with content warning. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Reverted by Cerebral726. Will hesitantly accept their reasoning (I still remember feeling shocked on my first viewing but over it now). TelepathicTwelve (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand the shock, but per WP:NOTCENSORED and the Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, it is reasonable to expect graphic depictions of death on an article about death. Wikipedia articles have Wikipedia:No disclaimers beyond the general ones. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2023

Unfortunate that recent tragedy has brought so much attention to this article. I propose an edit to the *Rocketry* section to more accurately describe Mike Hughes' crash.

• Mike Hughes (1956–2020) was killed when the parachute of his homemade, steam-powered rocket deployed prematurely, causing a crash landing.

Koopero (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

John A. Roebling

Designer of the Brooklyn Bridge died from an injury sustained while doing survey work for the project. 73.165.213.53 (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I have two questions:

1. Did Roebling invent any specific part of the bridge? Bridges are built using methods that were invented by different people over time.

2. If he did invent a componant, then was it the direct cause of his death?

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

A lot of recent removals

The addition of Stockton Rush has brought a bit of attention to this page, and there have been multiple removals recently. Some of these seem legitimate, however several are due to disagreements over what qualifies as an invention. According to the Invention page, "An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition, idea or process." This would include artists that create a work of art (a unique composition), people who create new building techniques (a novel method), and many others. The introduction to this page clearly states "This is a list of inventors whose deaths were in some manner caused by or related to a product, process, procedure, or other innovation that they invented or designed", but some of these removals seem to be based on the idea that if a completely new thing is not built, it doesn't qualify here. I'm not sure what the best process is here, but I'd like others thoughts on this recent activity. Dan0 00 (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It’s very simple though. We follow wikipedia content policies. We reflect what the reliable sources report. We don’t make our own synthesis of what constitutes an invention. We reflect what the sources states as such. And that’s something this page currently seriously fails to do. A work of art is not invention. A particular form of art can be invented, but a specific work of art like a painting or a sculpture is not an invention and its artists are no inventors. I seriously doubt that you will find any reliable source describing the artist you want to include as an inventor.

I also still think Stockton Rush should be removed. He did not invent the deep sea submersible. His company just built a specific version of one. And they even used a very basic design. Tvx1 22:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The solution is to bring the title into line with all the RS, just like the lead currently does. Be more inclusive. Make the title broader and more generic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Or bring the content in line with RS. Actually list what RS call inventions and inventors.Tvx1 02:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this solution. Rather than limit the article based on a very narrow definition of what everybody agrees on for invention. This will bring the title in line with how the article is being used, and has been used. If we were to, instead, remove everybody that there is a disagreement about, someone would just create another article for everybody else. Better to simply have a single article. Dan0 00 (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Or you could just accept the article’s actual scope and help bring its content in line with it instead of bludgeoning your favored content into it.Tvx1 18:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Why is what you want a better scope for the article than how it's been historically used? Why is it better to have a single article with a very narrow scope, forcing the creation of a very similar related article, than just having a single article with a more broad scope? Dan0 00 (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The use of carbon fibre counts in this case; "a unique or novel device, method, composition, idea or process" as per the definition. TheNeutroniumAlchemist (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Which no RS actually calls an invention, nor do they call him an inventor. It’s rather an innovation. Please don’t make your own synthesis of what an invention is. Tvx1 03:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Which is why we should not be tied to the words "inventor" and "invention". Related words used by RS can also be used. We should figure out how to document RS, regardless of the words they use. Any closely related concepts are fair game. Don't be bound by the limited word choice of the creator of the title. Change it if that's what's necessary to allow related concepts into the article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Or just accept the scope of the article and don’t start opening a can of worms. Tvx1 18:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

How is it a can of worms to just change the title to make it more in line with how it's actually being used? Dan0 00 (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Or you could just make the content in line with how the articles is supposed to be used.Tvx1 16:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree with this. No need to be so narrow, the article is worse off for it. I think there is plenty of consensus on what the scope is and ought to be, and that is to include "people whose deaths were in some manner caused by or related to a product, process, procedure, or other innovation that they invented, designed, or were closely involved in its creation" as Valjean stated below. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus in Talk about broadening the scope and reinstating the figures which a sole dissenter keeps removing. What are the next proper steps? TelepathicTwelve (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

We have to draw a line sowhere. And the core policy we had to follow to reach that is WP:V. If we make a claim here that an inventor was killed by their invention in our voice, we HAVE to proof that with reliable sources. There's no negotiating that. Completely overhauling the article also throws out preciseness. Tvx1 16:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Brainstorm a better title

TITLE

List of people killed by their own product

LEAD

This is a list of people whose deaths were in some manner caused by or related to a product, process, procedure, or other innovation that they invented, designed, or were closely involved in its creation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This looks like really good text to me. I would also remove the note that was recently added that states "Some things throughout history are made up of components by different inventors. The entries listed here are specifically cited by sources as having been invented by a single individual." Dan0 00 (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Or just leave the article title and thus its scope alone instead of opening a can of worms? Why are you so hell bent on opening up this article to be able to add anything you like?? Why can you not just show some respect to the article’s creator(s) and just accept the scope and intention of this article.Tvx1 18:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Ownership behavior is not appreciated here. If you wish to press your ownership behavior, sanctions can be used to remove you from the topic area or project entirely.

The original creators had a good idea, and their topic will still be an important part of this article. It would be foolish to have numerous small list articles for each related subcategory when we can include them all in one list article. A new title will just respect the actual content which documents what RS tells us. Inventors are still a major topic here, but RS cover many other very closely related topics that can easily be incorporated here. Note that the actual content won't really change much at all. It is RS, not the narrow inclusion criteria, that govern our editing and creation of articles, and sometimes an article benefits from a tweak like this. We should tweak our inclusion criteria and title to match the RS, not the other way around. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather say that the ownership tendencies are displayed by the people, including you, who are actively trying to hijack this article to be able to include all content they'd like to be here and refuse to accept any disagreement while also ignoring core Wikipedia policies. Tvx1 16:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

We are all collaborating on improving the article. There has been good, productive engagement in Talk, nobody is pigheadedly enforcing their views and "refusing to accept any disagreement"; we agreed when (you?) deleted the artist, but not some others. Your appeal to the hypothetical wishes of the article's original creators is inappropriate for a public project such as Wikipedia.

You have made no convincing argument as to what makes the included figures you want removed any different from any of the others. The first submarine was not invented by Rush. The first parachute was not invented by Reichelt. The first cruise liner was not invented by Andrews. The first motorized bicycle was not invented by Nelson. Etc. Etc. Etc. I also don't understand how it constitutes "original research" to call someone an "inventor" by simply applying definitions found in dictionaries and used in common parlance. Ironically, Rush IS called an "inventor" in the sourced article; so why are you removing one of the only people who actually holds up to a standard which you have made up and which you are not applying to anyone else?

Consistency is important, and our quite subtle changes have brought in more consistency while avoiding two glaring pitfalls: making the article meaningless by including everyone, or making the article worthless by deleting everyone, which is the logical conclusion of your stance. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

submersible*! TelepathicTwelve (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The article's scope is not currently captured by its title. Crudely stated, its scope is "person killed by their own thing" - this is the spirit captured in the opening statement and in the kinds of figures the article has historically included. Removing the artist, as you have done, is not "leaving the article alone" - the artist added something different than the other figures, and his removal is a tangible loss to the article's overall interest. Valjean's solution is elegant and I am in favour of adopting it and reinstating the artist. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm in favour of this change. It will bring the title of the article more in line with its long-standing content. It's either that or make the article worse by cutting the kinds of figures it has historically included, which has sadly just occurred.

To what purpose does the new note require a _sole_ individual to be responsible for the object? The efforts of a notable participant is not any less because they had a team around them. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

On second thought, "List of people killed by their own product" comes across as somewhat dry. It also could include, for example, chefs, whereas I feel the technological theme of the article should be retained (and the artist thus kept out, while reinstating Andrews and Rush).

The current title can be kept while ditching the recent and pedantically strict interpretation of it. Perhaps "List of inventors killed by their own technology" is a subtler change which will help the article more accurately reflect its actual content. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Valjean's text update to be added. I'm not even sure the title needs to be updated to include that text and align the scope with how it has been used (though I have no objection to that). There's no need to use some overly narrow description of what being "killed by their own invention", with each of those words being used incredibly narrowly (e.g. directly killed by vs. killed as a result of it's failure, a single inventor vs key in it's design or creation, etc.). The idea that the designer of the Titanic shouldn't be included because "was he really the inventor? Did it kill him or did he merely drown?" is not how this article's scope should be interpreted. The article should have the more broad additions reinstated. --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak for the inclusion of the artist who created "Blucifer", but the very stringent definition of "invention" used to exclude Stockton Rush from being called an inventor would exclude almost everyone else from this list (i.e. Julius H. Kroehl didn't invent the submersible, only developed a version of it, neither did Cowper Phipps Coles invent the ship, and William Bullock didn't invent the concept of printing press, etc.) Inventor is not a protected term which requires strict accreditation, it has always been used very broadly, and to impose this strict definition would require a more specific title (i.e. "List of inventors killed by their own patent"). If it is a matter of a reliable source calling the person an "inventor", a 2019 online article for Smithsonian Magazine describes Stockton Rush as a "daredevil inventor" in the subtitle. Ohmsteader (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree about the Blucifer bit. Not sure that qualifies for the “ product, process, procedure, or other innovation” mentioned. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

We need to drop the "inventor" in the title. Inventors will still be included. It may seem like a wider scope, but the content will be what it has been until this recent extreme tightening of someone's anal sphincter created problems. "People" may seem boring, but it's all-inclusive. We're only dealing with humans here.

If using "people" is too banal, we could try this:

• List of creators killed by their own creation

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I was more objecting to the banality of the word "product" rather than "people".

The current title is a good catch-all when taken in the common, obvious understanding of the terms it uses, and the current deadlock is broken by making that more explicit in the opening statement.

It also, quite importantly, retains the technological scope of the article, which any change must reflect. Your new idea of "Creation" could include anything from food poisoning to parracide ;) TelepathicTwelve (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

LOL! Good point. I have stricken that idea. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

My view is that we should move towards your opening lead while keeping the current title in place as they are not inconsistent with each other. The article's scope is, to state it bluntly, people who caused their own demise by bringing into the world a lethal implementation of an interesting idea using technology which may or may not have been pre-existent. The article has never required 100% novelty of its inventors (neither is 100% novelty a requirement for being an inventor) and suddenly enforcing it only makes the article worse.

To that end, I suggest resolving the matter by using the below slightly tweaked version of your opening lead. The changes I've made fix a grammatical point, adds emphasis on the technological angle, and makes it clear that team efforts are accepted:

"This is a list of people whose deaths were in some manner caused by or related to a product, process, procedure, or other technological innovation that they invented, designed, or substantially helped to create."

Title, lead, and content at harmony once more. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

That looks good. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a great solution. Look, guys, this article basically exists just for fun. It's a standalone list, which means it's curated by Wikipedia editors. We aren't beholden to the strict definition of the word "invention". The suggested new lead is good as it's more descriptive and accurate (and would hopefully put an end to this persistent debate), but the title is fine. WPscatter ^t/_c 17:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and consensus everyone. Hopefully this matter is now closed. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2023 (2)

• Stockton Rush (1962-2023) was a pilot, engineer, and businessman who oversaw the design and construction of the OceanGate submersible Titan, used to take tourists to view the wreck of the Titanic. On 18 June 2023, the craft imploded during a dive to the Titanic, killing Hamish Harding, Stockton Rush, Suleman Dawood with his father, Shahzada Dawood, and Paul-Henri Nargeolet 39.32.19.105 (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: closing edit request pending consensus. Xan747 (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I count a single active dissenter to this edit. The majority consensus is for its permanent inclusion. The question has been settled and it shouldn't be dragged out into an edit war by one individual. I apologise if there is a formal process of declaring consensus that I am unaware of. Describing the situation as I see it. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

To avoid problems, I think we should first settle the discussion in the section immediately above this one. Then, when we agree on a broader scope, we can then restore much of what has been deleted. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

John Joseph Montgomery (1858-1911)

Montgomery died in a glider of his own invention (see Wikipedia article). If Lilienthal belongs in this list, then Montgomery probably does, too. 47.205.67.147 (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Was he notable for that though? People still need to meet the notability guidelines. This list not supposed to include every person who died in some sort of self made contraption no one cares about.Tvx1 19:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2023

Hi,

I'm trying to edit the list as it's incorrect. The litmus test for someone to be an inventor is to invent and inventing means being able to create something that doesn't exist and would be classed as novel; so whether it's patented or not it should at least be able to pass certain criteria.

Certain people in this list are not inventors. E.g. Stockton Rush. Where in this example he built a prototype or a product with the current state of technology known and has no novelty. Therefore that person would not be an inventor and not be killed by their invention.

Would appreciate your collaboration in not misleading people to believe something that is not true.

Regards,

Isaac Ramonet 46.247.17.131 (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

This has already been thoroughly debated - I welcome anyone who wants to reopen this discussion but addressing and rebutting prior arguments would be appreciated. The argument you have made against Rush is selectively applied and if truly applied consistently would warrant the removal of virtually everyone - nobody in the article invented THE first airplane, or THE first car, or THE first parachute. Inventing is not only creating what humankind has never before seen. Novelty can be made in degrees, and hell, it can be a worse version, which is sort of the spirit of the entire article - freak accidents aside, our inventors are failures.

Changing the title to "List of people killed by their own technologies" would perhaps put this conversation to bed forever. But I just don't see the need. Why apply a far stricter definition to the current title than what is found in dictionaries, encyclopedias, and common parlance? You'll have to explain in what meaningful sense readers are currently being "misled" because I really just can't see it. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Titanic submersible?

Wondering if the titanic submersible incident would count. Not the first submersible, but it was a unique one. Panamitsu (talk) ^{Please ping on reply} 01:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support It was an innovative technical design, it failed owing to that design, and it killed the inventor. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

If we apply this inaccurate "the FIRST ever" definition consistently, and not just to Rush as we see time and time again, I challenge you to find a *single* figure who would survive this amendment to the article. They would in fact *all* have to be deleted.

I once again reluctanctly offer the article title change, "List of people killed by their own technologies". It would be a worse, less interesting version, done solely to put to rest the unhelpfully restrictive and not even accurate definition of "inventor" or what it means to "invent".

Too much emphasis is placed on the title alone when the opening statement defines the kinds of figures that will be included under the title. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I feel as if the article already uses a different definition of the word "invention". For example, Marie Curie is listed who didn't actually invent something as far as I'm aware. She did a lot of research with chemistry and radioactivity, but no one can "invent" ionising radiation. Panamitsu (talk) ^{Please ping on reply} 00:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Marvin Heemeyer?

I'm not sure if I'd consider Marvin Heemeyer to be an inventor killed by their own invention, since wasn't actually killed by his invention, but actually committed suicide... Thoughts regarding this? Abandonee (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it to be so, because like you said he did commit suicide (by gunshot); he just happened to be inside of his "Killdozer" at the time, but that never ultimately killed him per se. B3251 (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Death by suicide was likely factored into the vehicle's design and his entry cites a source for this claim (disclaimer, I rewrote his entry) so it's relevant from a technological angle. Further, the article's opening statement (disclaimer, I wrote that too) says "deaths caused by or related to". His death is related to his vehicle, just like Thomas Andrews technically died of drowning but we can't separate his death from the sinking of the Titanic. The article's scope (in summary) is people responsible for their own death via technological misadventure. If we were to move away from this, consistency would require us to delete half the figures included and write a different article altogether. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Changed:

"This is a list of people whose deaths were in some manner caused by or related to a product, process, procedure, or other technological innovation that they invented, designed, or substantially helped to create."

To:

"This is a list of people whose deaths were in some manner caused by a product, process, procedure, or other technological innovation that they invented."

I got rid of Heemeyer, and it is time to clean up this mess. If someone commits suicide while wearing the underwear they invented it should not be listed.

Polygnotus (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

In a "List of inventors killed by their own invention" it is silly to include people who a) didn't invent anything b) weren't killed by the thing they are falsely accused of inventing. Marvin Heemeyer was a mentally ill man who killed himself by shooting himself with a handgun. Handguns existed before he was born. Bulldozers existed before he was born. Even the armored bulldozer was invented before he was born (and it is silly to pretend an "armored" version of something is a distinct invention from its unarmored counterpart). Polygnotus (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

TelepathicTwelve wants to change what this article is about, and include people who didn't invent anything and were killed by something they did not invent. TelepathicTwelve should get consensus for that change here. Polygnotus (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you could start a new article, people who didn't invent anything and were not killed by the thing they did not invent is still a red link. Or perhaps people who designed a machine and died while operating it but whose death was not caused by that machine. Polygnotus (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

(Firstly, apologies for undoing your edit without checking here first. I accidentally hit the submit button early)

I would appreciate not being accused of changing things without consensus. Scroll up - you will find the previous discussions on these issues and the agreements that were reached. Always open to change, of course, but I have never imposed anything unilaterally.

When choosing how to define the article, and how to interpret the definitions applied, we must zoom out and consider the article as a whole. If we apply your approach consistently, we are forced to remove all the paragliders, the pilots, the racers, and the sailors. None invented the concept of parachutes, planes, cars, or boats; and their deaths were only "related to" (a phrase you have removed) their vehicles failing. Instead, their deaths were "caused by" (your sole metric) high-velocity impacts and drowning.

This is an open question for everyone: What gets at the heart of what the article aspires to present to its readers? Madmen who built contraptions that led to their ironic and tragic ends; or suffocating philosophical quanderies about what makes a "true" inventor? TelepathicTwelve (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, when I talk about the article's aspirations, I am talking about the sum of long-standing figures the article includes and the commonalities that bind them all together. Heemeyer's removal necessitates the removal of most other figures if we are truly going to be consistent - and THAT would be a different article altogether. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I added "or designed" back in (people often call a designer an inventor) but I think "substantially helped to create" is a bridge too far. And Heemeyer is another 200 bridges too far.

If I drive a car and I die because of a collision, it may be the blood loss that kills me, but at least there is a causal link between me driving fast, the car hitting an object and me dying of blood loss.

Heemeyer shot himself because he was mentally ill. There is no causal link between his temper tantrum ending and him killing himself; he just decided to kill himself when the dozer got stuck. Polygnotus (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

If causal links are king, then the vehicle would have to exhibit a design failure for an inventor to be "killed by their own invention". Otherwise they're just killed by bad driving. Applying your approach consistently would almost delete the "Automotive" section alone.

Heemeyer designed the vehicle to have no exit except for suicide. It's an intrinsic part of the vehicle's design that it was planned as a one-way ticket, for the same reason it would be to design a car that had no ability to brake. If you can't leave it, you're dying in it.

"Substantially helped to create" was just added to cover those who played a noted role in a larger project so that the article is not confined to lone wolves. I didn't think that would be controversial to be honest. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

"If causal links are king, then the vehicle would have to exhibit a design failure for an inventor to be "killed by their own invention"." This is not true, see for example Euthanasia Coaster.

"Applying your approach consistently would almost delete the "Automotive" section alone." Nope, like I explained already. If we would be consistent the article would be much shorter, but no one is arguing in favour of complete consistency.

"Heemeyer designed the vehicle to have no exit except for suicide. It's an intrinsic part of the vehicle's design that it was planned as a one-way ticket" He did not design the vehicle. He bought it for $16,000. Heemeyer brought food and water for a week. His temper tantrum lasted 2 hours. But he knew it would take a while for authorities to partially dismantle the machine so that they could arrest him. So he wasn't even sure if he was going to kill himself.

Polygnotus (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I was talking about an invention in which suicide was not a feature of the design, like motoring. Your Euthanasia Coaster example falls under the Heemeyer-clause of suicide being the intended consequence of the design. The authorities are on record stating that he knew he'd never get out - this source was provided to the entry. Like most designers, Heemeyer didn't dig up his raw materials but bought all the parts he needed to construct a vehicle to unique design specs required to carry out the task he set himself.

It's a quizzical stance that, though our definitions of inventor and cause-and-effect must be strict, consistency may be lax. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

It is (for a human being) a quizzical stance that consistency is a goal to strive towards, or even exists. Look around you. Polygnotus (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how you can assert that you can remove one figure under a certain set of principles but keep other figures in the same contravention of those principles because you don't care about consistency. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

There are 2 different discussions:

1) Is X an "inventor"?

2) Was X killed by their "invention"?

Calling people who designed a variant of something that exists already an inventor is already a bit weird, but if you fix that problem 99% of the entries on this list should be removed. Heemeyer welded some metal plates on a pre-existing bulldozer.

But what you are proposing is that we also ignore rule 2, and include people who where killed by (or died because of) something other than the thing they built/designed. If we do that, then we should include any designer who later died of cancer because they smoked too much.

So it is not true that Heemeyers removal necessitates removing other entries. Polygnotus (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

My version of rule 2) is, "Was X's death caused by or intrinsically related to their invention?". This is a perfectly natural extension to make and is nothing like your examples of dying in underwear you knitted, or after a lifetime of smoking. The invention has to have some immediate relevance to your death, a necessary factor without which you would have lived.

I mostly agree with you on point 1). If it really bothers people, the article could be renamed "List of people killed by their own contraptions" or some such, as this would more accurately capture what the article sets out to do as reflected by its current contents. But it seems like such an extreme action to take and I don't think there's any harm or even inaccuracy in the current title, so long as the article's opening line establishes and is honest about the interpetation it is using.

We can go back and forth all day. Thanks for the discussion, I'll stop for other voices now. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Heemeyer

His name is misspelled at the 3rd mention of him. 2001:4647:B30D:0:AC4E:B40:2596:34CE (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Reichelt Video

This video is, essentially, a snuff film-- even if the way this guy died is silly and the video is quite old, it's an explicit video of a person falling to his death. I'm all for wikipedia being uncensored, but should this be so high on the page, and so unadorned as to encourage clicking it without knowing what one is about to see? 128.114.255.222 (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure you've never seen a snuff film. The title of the article, the caption of the video, and the pre-roll and mid-roll all warn that this is a video about a fatal accident. There are far worse things on Wikipedia. See also WP:Censored Polygnotus (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

It made me so uncomfortable when the video used to be on autoplay. There is plenty of fair warning now, so seconding Polygnotus here. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Disabling autoplay in your browser is always a good idea. Cerebral726 rephrased the caption of the video to make it even more clear. Polygnotus (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed title change

Proposing changing the article's title to "List of people killed by their own technology".

There is often debate here about what qualifies as an "Invention" or "Inventor". This misses the point of the article, which is really about technology, about people who met their demise after embarking on some kind of technological misadventure. The article's title should accurately reflect the content of the article*, and it is not currently doing that adequately. To see what I mean, I have summarised some sections in the article:

The Automotive section entirely consists of bad drivers who didn't invent the car. Poorly operating your self-constructed vehicle is the epitome of technological misadventure - "Innovation" is nice but not required.

The Aviation section is well-populated with people who didn't invent the parachute. These people stitched rags together and then jumped at high altitude. That they thought they invented human flight or floating is great - this article is about people who were really confident that their technological misadventure would work.

Maritime is filled with people more accurately characterised as engineers or architects rather than inventors. The Titanic and the world's first offshore lighthouse are feats of engineering, not of invention.

In Medical, Bogdanov tried an experimental operation. Midgley Jr died in his elaborate contraption. Neither invented blood tranfusions or systems of ropes and pulleys, but both engaged in technological misadventure.

Regarding Popular legends and related stories: Under my proposed title change, this section would remain open for apocryphal stories and for people who for example popularised or represented a technology rather than played a role in designing or constructing it. It's not YOUR technological misadventure if someone else did the tinkering for you.

When figures like Stockton Rush and Heemeyer face the chopping block because they "invented nothing", stop to consider what makes them any different from anyone else in the article of lesser infamy who engaged in similar acts of technological misadventure and who also "Invented nothing" in the strict understanding of the term.

People might be concerned about the "gizmos and gadgets" approach I'm putting forward. To reiterate, this article is already about tinkerers who tragically tinkered too far, just consider all of the figures that are already here, rather than just the 21st-century ones who we saw on the news. The reader is not expecting us to do the hard work of determining whether a threshold of novelty has been crossed to earn someone the respectable title of "Inventor". Most of the designs are the opposite of respectable, and the article is just too light-hearted to be so serious.

"Technology" is intentionally broad to avoid future debates about what counts as "Technology". Colloquial understandings of such terms are more than appropriate for a pop-history article such as this.

\*The alternative is to do the reverse: Be subservient to the title and strip away the content of the article until it reflects the title. This would involve doing hard work to make the article poorer. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose If editors would remember our goals here, to write an encyclopedia and focus less on constructing justifications to make it worse, or with less clear titles, then we'd have a better article. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  If the current title remains (and I believe it should so long as people stop hyperfocusing on it) then one of two things need to happen.

  Delete all 90% of the non-inventors in the article rather than just one or two of them on a whim; or, better yet, consider that the article is taking a liberal definition of "Inventor" and that these endless definitional debates are inappropriate and miss the point of the article. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Endless debates are the lifeblood of Wikipedia. It is currently using a very nonstandard definition of "inventor". Like I explained before, Heemeyer's exclusion does not mean everyone else also needs to be excluded, and it is unclear to me why you think that is the case. Polygnotus (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

If you vote to remove a person you really should be considering how or if they fit into the article as a whole - considering the sum of all the figures included, he fits the mould exactly as he should. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. See above. Polygnotus (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Andy Dingley.
  Heemeyer did get killed by his own technology. The handgun and bullet he owned. The bulldozer protected him; it did not kill him. He could've played Candy Crush until the authorities had enough of the dozer dismantled to arrest him. Polygnotus (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  What is the justification for keeping the rest of the non-inventors if we intend to proceed with taking the title in its most literal sense? TelepathicTwelve (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I am probably the wrong person to ask that question (I haven't added anyone to the list). Polygnotus (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

You're also failing to consider again that the title works in conjunction with the article's opening statement. You are entirely focused on the title's "Inventor" when the lead uses the word "People":

This is a list of people whose deaths were in some manner caused by or directly related to a product, process, procedure, or other technological innovation that they invented or designed. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:INDENT. Heemeyer did not design the handgun or the bullet that killed him. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The article allows for immediately relevant contributing factors to the cause of death. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hypothetically, you could add him to a hypothetical list of people whose death was caused by mental illness. But there is no causal link between the dozer and his death. His death was caused by bloodloss which was caused by a bullet which was caused by him firing a handgun towards himself which was caused by mental illness. Building the "killdozer" (cringe) was a symptom, not a cause of his mental illness. Polygnotus (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

No link between the method of rampage and the tragic outcome? Just a freak coincidence I suppose. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

No causal link. Polygnotus (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I've already said causal links are not required, the article allows for immediately relevant contributing factors to the cause of death. Please read again the opening lead. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The lead section you wrote? Consensus is against you. It is up to you to get consensus for the contents inclusion per WP:ONUS. Polygnotus (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

That I slightly tweaked some months ago after attaining prior consensus, yes. Nobody save for you has ever advocated for the "What is on the death certificate?" approach. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I untweaked it. Now you can go get consensus here on the talkpage for the inclusion of Heemeyer. Polygnotus (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, the onus of consensus for changing the lead is on you. The current version is the result of a prior consensus and you've received no assent as of yet for direct causality only.

On Heemeyer, please respect the "Popular legends and related stories" for what it is: people who thematically fit the article but are either apocryphal or don't strictly fall into its definitions. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Abandonee and B3251 and myself are against inclusion of Heemeyer. If you want to include him you need to get consensus on this talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Where is this consensus that the lead can be changed in this way? Polygnotus (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

They argued against his inclusion on the grounds that he wasn't an inventor killed by his invention. Grand - however, there is already the subcategory "Related stories" for such people, hence my moving Heemeyer there and out of the main body as others wished.

The lead's consensus is found under the "Brainstorm a better title" section on Talk. Where is your consensus for wanting to remove the clause "related to"? That has major ramifications and warrants discussion. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

So Valjean made a proposal and then the lead was changed but the title was not? Don't you see how this will forever cause conflict? People will show up, compare the title with the lead and try to fix it. Heemeyer can be included after you get consensus for his inclusion. Valjean proposed: "List of people killed by their own product". Why was the title not changed? If you claim this is sufficient consensus, why not change the title of the article? Polygnotus (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I relocated Heemeyer to the "Popular legends and related stories" subcategory, perhaps you mistakenly thought I reinstated him to Automative against consensus? In good faith - were you aware that the article has a "Related stories" subcategory for such people?

The consensus for changing the lead and keeping the title received the assent of Valjean themselves and another - it was explicitly stated and agreed upon, read all the way through.

Titles are entry-points that broadly gesture towards what the lead narrows down. It's perfectly normal for writers, in their opening thesis, to define their title, their terms, and their scope. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's say we change the article title to "List of people killed by their own product" which is better than "List of people killed by their own technology" then who do we need to exclude? Marie Curie discovered stuff, she did not invent. Other than her and Heemeyer the rest of em can stay, right? Why did you spend all this time arguing about barely relevant stuff instead of simply changing the title? Stop focusing on Heemeyer and change the title, please. Polygnotus (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

You are asking me why I'm not advocating for changing the title in my "Proposed title change" topic!! So far the votes are "Opposed" and "Meh" so I might hold off for a while!! TelepathicTwelve (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Is changing the title to "List of people killed by their own product" and removing Heemeyer and Marie Curie an acceptable middleground for you? Please say yes and then we do that and if anyone disagrees we bury them in the dunes.Polygnotus (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I have previously argued against the word "Product" in Talk. It's far too commercial - the article has to maintain its technological slant. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Nothing is perfect, but is this an acceptable middle ground for you? You can always get consensus to change stuff later. Polygnotus (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Nay, I say. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

116 edits of which 72 here. Sigh. Polygnotus (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Irrevelant, unnecessary, unpleasant. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Polygnotus (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• I'm also against Heemeyer's inclusion: his armoured bulldozer bulldozed and it was armoured. That did not kill him. He did not invent 'suicidal rampage'.

I would though include Curie (she extracted and concentrated radionuclides in a scientifically novel manner, and I am unconvinced by the claim that she was perfectly healthy afterwards, but was killed by X rays). I would also include Thomas Andrews, architect of the Titanic: the purpose of the Titanic was not to sink, it malfunctioned. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Curie did invent techniques for isolating radioactive isotopes, so she can probably stay. There is a causal link between making an imperfect boat, it sinking, and drowning. Polygnotus (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Are you seeing that as reason to include or exclude Titanic? I see it as irrelevant, we just care that it killed the creator and that wasn't their intention: whether by bad design or by competent mischance shouldn't influence our inclusion. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Include. Whether by bad luck or ill design, the "invention" (loosely defined) needs to be the thing that directly or indirectly causes their death. There is a causal link between building a decent motorcycle, testdriving it, and getting killed by a drunk driver. My point is that in Heemeyers case no such causal link existed, he had plenty of food and water so he could just wait until the police had dismantled enough of the dozer to arrest him and then spend the rest of his life in jail. Polygnotus (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Keen to draw a distinction between "The main body of the article" and the "Popular legends and related stories" subcategory. Your points address the main body only. I have moved Heemeyer to the latter category, which is for figures tangientally related to the title. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Heemeyer is not a legend. Your editing over this is way into tendentious editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

He doesn't need to be a legend because it's "Legends and related stories". You can be either.

A man who died inside a vehicle he constructed without an exit is a related story to an article about inventors whose inventions killed them. We'd be getting into silly territory to start debating how "related" a "related story" has to be for inclusion into this intentionally broad subcategory.

Heemeyer's relegation to the non-inventors section fully satisfies the consensus here that he was not an inventor. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The events that led to Marvin Heemeyer's death is in no way related to this article; his death was not caused by anything he invented either factually or apocryphally nor was it caused by anything he purportedly invented (as is the case with Guillotin and Heselden). I very much disagree that Marvin Heemeyer should be listed in this article in any capacity as he meets no criteria that other entries currently present in the article already meet. - Aoidh (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Aoidh, Abandonee, B3251 and myself are against the inclusion of Heemeyer. People have tried to explain it, and if you don't get it you should still accept the fact that the consensus is not on your side. Stop wasting our time please. Polygnotus (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Me too, but I don't think TelepathicTwelve is interested in what any of us think. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You've thought wrongly. Nobody was considering the Related Stories category. It has now been considered. Thank you. I have not devalued any voice here; the same cannot be said about another user. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I swear I used to be able to count to five. Polygnotus (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Jack Parsons

Jack Parsons of JPL (inventor or rocketry and rocket fuels) seems an obvious addition but on a quick read have not spotted him. I'm assuming he was on this page at some point and was removed - but maybe not. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Parsons was not killed by his own invention though. He worked in a hazardous field, with high energy materials. He invented some similar materials (although propellants rather than explosives), but not the ones that killed him. He died from an accident that might have been anticipated, might be judged as tragic, but it was not ironic, which is the core of this article. Max Valier belongs here: he was killed by an application that he developed. Jerry Hurst doesn't belong here in much the same way as Parsons doesn't, even though he too died (more slowly) from the results of his exposure to some materials. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Academic Writing II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 March 2024 and 13 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sayam 2154 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: RavenofRavens.

— Assignment last updated by RavenofRavens (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion: Otto Lilienthal

What about Otto Lilienthal (1848-1896)? Pioneer of aviation. Broke his neck when his glider stalled and fell, died the next day. 2A02:908:170:5860:39EB:5746:A37B:C8EF (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thomas Midgley Jr.

Inventor of such things as leaded gasoline (to which he suffered lead poisoning during live tests he conducted to “prove” its safety. He also developed some of the first chlorofluorocarbons. But, germane to this page, on November 2, 1944, at the age of 55, he was found dead at his home in Worthington, Ohio. He had been killed by his own device after he became entangled in it and died of strangulation. Now, the coroner ruled his death a suicide, but I’m wondering if this incident would still fit in this page. 108.170.149.73 (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)