Talk:Lists of unusual deaths/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Tom Pryce

On June 17th 2014 I added Tom Pryce, Formula 1 driver killed by an extinguisher — he's been in French equivalent WP page Liste de morts insolites for ages. User Aoidh reverted this addition, saying "A car collision isn't unusual, especially without a source saying it is."

As mentioned on his WP page, Tom Pryce was not killed in the car collision (as opposed to the marshall he ran over), but in a head-on collision with the extinguisher the marshall was carrying. Being killed by a safety equipment sounds rather unusual to me — my guess is more people died by being struck by a rotor, like Boris Sagal, than by hitting an extinguisher, but I have no evidence supporting that guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herisson26 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I tend to agree with you. But this article requires all additions to be supported with sources which explicity describe a death as unusual or similar term. Maybe criteria over at Liste de morts insolites are diuffrent. But even if they were the same, I'm not sure if a French language source woud be permitted. An interesting question. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

it does not matter what language the source is WP:NONENG , but it does need to meet the requirements of being a reliable source WP:RS and will need to have an appropriate designation of "unusual" WP:OR -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The source at fr.wiki is actually an English one: Tremayne, David (2006) The Lost Generation, Haynes Publishing ISBN 1-84425-205-1 "Chapter 19 – A Moment Of Desperate Sadness". But no page number is given and e-book not available so a hard copy required. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• I added a citation to the work Thinning the Herd: Tales of the Weirdly Departed. This seemed clear enough as we accept reasonable synonyms for unusual such as weird. But this has been reverted again. Tsk. Andrew (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

  Don't see what's wrong with that. Do you have a page number? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Billie Ritchie

Just for the record, there is currently no mention of ostriches in his article: "Ritchie, who - due to a series of on-set injuries, spent his final years relatively inactive- succumbed to stomach cancer in the summer of 1921." Although this source says: "1919: Sustains internal injuries from an ostrich attack that would prove fatal." Also this source provides some background, which seems perfectly reliable. This source, which also decribes the ostrich-related death, is entitled "Cruel and Unusual Comedy" and is describes as "Film notes written by Steve Massa and Ben Model for the film series "Cruel and Unusual Comedy: Social Commentary in the American Slapstick Film". I think one might be forgiven for thinking that Richie's death was unusual The reason for removal, however, has been given as: "imbd trivia is user generated clearly not a reliable source and film buffs most certainly have zero cred in claiming unusualness of dea)". But I'm sure I've seen IMBD used in hundreds of wikipedia articles? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

List of chess-related deaths

FYI: List of chess-related deaths may be deleted. If you have an opinion about that, one way or the other, you might like to check out its AFD vote.- DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Deaths arising from rare events

In this edit the death of Kemistry was reverted with the edit summary: "such incidents are rare" !="such deaths are unusual". Is it possible for deaths arising from rare incidents to be anything other that unusual? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This source, quoting Central Hampshire coroner Grahame Short, says "The chance of a Cat's-eye being thrown in the air must have been minute in the extreme. It was a tragic accident." But it seems the death can't be added because the source does not explicitly say that the death was unusual. This seems quite bizarre. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The death has now been re-added, with three separate supporting sources, one of which is Hansard. But the general question still stands, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that the continuing reversions are bizarre. The three citations are:

1. Peter Nutt (13 Dec 1999), Cats-eyes: Safety Inspections, Hansard, Such incidents are extremely rare...
2. Leonara Rustamova (2013), Yorkshire's Strangest Tales: Extraordinary But True Stories, ISBN 9781909396333, This singular and tragic accident was an exception...
3. "DJ History: Kemistry", Mixmag, 25 April 2014, DJ Kemistry died in a freak accident...

Peter Nutt was speaking as a professional road engineer and chief executive of the Highways Agency. This authoritative statement that this was "extremely rare" ought to be enough. As we also have sources declaring the incident to be "singular", "exception", "strangest tale", "extraordinary" and "freak accident" the general view of the matter seems clear. The entry is acceptable and, to be sure, I have added yet another citation. Andrew (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

As usual, though, your added citation doesn't support the content you have added. It needs to describe the death itself as unusual, not other circumstances related to the death. Mixmag.net hardly counts as a reliable source, nor does a list of weird events compiled by a local high-school teacher. You need multiple reliable sources. So far, you haven't found a single one that is both reliable and contains the appropriate content.—Kww(talk) 14:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Has mixmag.net ever been raised at WP:RSN? But there are three other sources provided? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Two of those sources don't characterize the death as unusual. The third is by a local high-school teacher.—Kww(talk) 16:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Depends on your interpretation of "characterize". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

To the general question: of course. Brake failures, for example, would be categorized as rare, as brakes generally stop the car when pressure is applied to the brake pedal. That doesn't make death by brake failure a rare occurence.—Kww(talk) 14:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the example of brake failure is a rather poor one, since brakes do fail, rather more frequently than, for example, catseyes fly up off the road. Regardless of the frequency with which brakes fail, I would also suggest that such an event is more likely to lead to death, than is a catseye flying up off the road. But to the general question of "Is it possible for deaths arising from rare incidents to be anything other that unusual?" you have simply replied "of course" without any kind of logical argument. What exactly is your argument? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You've dismissed my argument without quite understanding it, because brake failures are a perfect example. A source may well describe brake failure as "rare", but that doesn't lead to the conclusion that death by brake failure is "unusual". Similarly, catseye failures may be "rare", but that doesn't lead to the conclusion that death by catseye failure is "unusual". The statistics surrounding the triggering incident are completely unrelated to the statistics of death. That's why the reliable source has to categorize the death itself as unusual before it can be included here.—Kww(talk) 15:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I find your argument utterly fallacious. As with many other previous examples, I believe that all four of the sources here see the unusualness of the death as so blindingly obvious that to explicitly state as much would imply that their readers were painfully witless morons. But I'd be interested to see what views other editors have. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

And your argument stands in favor of original research. If it's blindingly obvious that the death itself is unusual, certainly you should be able to scrape up a couple of reliable sources that directly characterize the death as unusual. If you can't, then it wasn't blindingly obvious to reliable sources. The only way to make the leap from "rare event" to "unusual death" is by a reliable source making the leap for you.—Kww(talk) 16:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You fail to see why even the most reliable sources are unlikely to use the word "unusual". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

And you fail to see that that is the best and strongest argument for deleting this article: its content can't be supported by reliable sources. I've always advocated simply deleting the thing, but some editors insist deleting each entry point by point. I have no idea why that is.—Kww(talk) 17:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

As the project has decided this is an article which should be kept, after seven (or was it eight?) AfDs, some editors insist or trying to improve it. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to find items that meet the inclusion criteria: multiple reliable sources that directly describe the death as unusual or some reasonable synonym thereof. The result of the AFDs was simply to give you a chance to do so: no one guaranteed success. —Kww(talk) 18:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

If an event is "extremely rare" and a death arises directly from that event, why is that death also not "extremely rare"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

See above. It's extremely rare for a heart to fail to beat: most do so about 2.4 billion times before failing to do so. Yet, heart failure universally accompanies death. The statistical analysis of the incident is completely unrelated to how often that incident leads to death.

In the particular case you restored in violation of WP:BURDEN, the primary problem is overcategorization. Single-car accidents caused by roadway debris are a mundane occurence, and a certain number of them lead to fatalities. Some are from rocks, others from nails, others from tree branches, some from lug bolts, etc. For each, you could describe the death as absolutely unique: "This was the only death in upper Slobovia as the result of a valve cover nut from a 1956 Hillman Imp" or "This was the only death in lower Georgia as the result of a bit of igneous shale". That the particular piece of roadway debris in this case was a catseye doesn't mean much. The roadway engineer is certainly right: catseyes don't normally do this. Nor do Hillman Imp valve cover bolts, nor rocks, nor tree branches, nor lug bolts. As an aggregate, "something flew in the window and killed the driver or passenger" isn't very rare or unusual, though.—Kww(talk) 19:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, all deaths are caused by the heart stopping beating - so no deaths can be described as unusual? You can aggregate any death into a class that is not unusual. That's missing the point. Are you seriously suggesting that each of the sources quoted would agree with you that Kemistry's death was not unusual? But of course, you have no interest in improving the article, your intention is to destroy the article by removing items one by one. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You twist my logic. Demonstrating that "x is rare, x causes y, therefore y is a rare case of z" is bad logic is trivially simple, so I supplied a trivial example. If you pose a harder question, I will provide a more sophisticated answer. My intent is to improve the encyclopedia by ensuring that material is well sourced and that original research isn't employed by editors. That improvement would seem to include the ultimate elimination of this article, true, but that doesn't make my intent malignant.—Kww(talk) 20:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not twisting anything. I'm saying that if death is caused by a very rare event, then it's an usual death. A heart stopping is not a rare event, as it happens to everyone, at least once. It's an unusual event for an individual. It's not a unusual event per se. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• The original case which started this page was that of Aeschylus. He too was killed by a blow to the head by an object coming out of the blue. In considering such cases and deciding how to present them, the sources seem to take all the circumstances into account. If it's a tortoise that does you in then you might be remembered for millenia. If it's just a stone then not so much. A cat's eye is perhaps not enough to make you immortal but it does seem sufficiently out-of-the-ordinary to generate comment and coverage. And when the victim is a notable DJ struck down in the prime of life, we seem to have the required combination of circumstances to generate recurring coverage. So, I think we're good here and I continue to support inclusion of this entry. Andrew (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I imagine that other editors may retort that an individual's notability, or indeed the scope of the coverage given to their death, is no indication of the unusualness of that death. Or maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate here. But has even one other case of death caused by a flying catseye ever been reported (in the entire history of the world, that is)? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course the notoriety of the individual doesn't count. And no, Andrew, we aren't "done" until you provide a reliable source that directly describes the death as unusual. Not says it's unusual for catseyes to be flung, but that that particular death is unusual.—Kww(talk) 22:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you accept that it is unusual for catseyes to be flung up? What is your logical argument for explaining that the death is not unusual? Surely the fact that a death should result is even (far) more unlikely? I'm not asking for you to re-spout the agreed criteria for inclusion. I'm asking for your personal explanation in terms of logic and reason. Just so that we can understand what it is. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether I think the death is unusual. Yes, I think it's weird to get killed by a flying catseye. However, the only thing that matters is whether the statement can be supported by reliable sources without using original research, and it cannot. My opinion, your opinion, and Andrew's opinion about the actual strangeness of the event are all completely irrelevant.—Kww(talk) 22:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you propose would be the argument advanced by a source that had a "reputation for statistic analysis of deaths"? An argument used, not by you or me, or Andrew, but by the "death stats experts". I'm suggesting that such a logical argument is hard to fine, or even imagine, because it would be utter nonsense. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This conundrum is precisely why I have always supported deletion of the page. There's no way to construct the argument. Each death is unique. It is only in the aggregate that some causes become "unusual" and others "mundane", and there aren't any reliable sources that try to take those statistical arguments about the group and apply them to individual cases. We can't do that, because it falls afoul of WP:OR. The best we wind up with is the random whims of headline writers, and sooner or later, I'm going to take each individual headline through an RSN discussion. There's no way to construct this article and remain with Wikipedia policies while doing so.—Kww(talk) 22:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You are implying, in the thread immediately below, that there certainly is a way, by using only appropriate sources. In the mean time, you'd better reserve your own little area at WP:RSN. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Death by being 'stoaned' to death by oranges

Does this one count? I am not sure how to add it in the the list without breaking the format, leaving citation right. etc. http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-08-21/man-pelted-to-death-with-oranges-in-south-africa/

"Two men are suspected of killing a farmworker by pelting him with oranges in South Africa, the Associated press reports. " GuySoft (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It isn't described in the source as unusual, so it shouldn't be added.—Kww(talk) 15:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Statistical analysis of deaths

A supporting source was removed in this edit with the summary: "Leonara Rustamova has no reputation for expertise in the statistical analysis of deaths" and another was removed in this edit with the summary: "mixmag.net has no reputation for statistic analysis of deaths". Since when has it been agreed that supporting sources should have "a reputation for statistic analysis of deaths"? I thought the agreed consensus was that sources should simply be WP:RS that describe the death as "unusual" or similar? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

We've been here before. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_162#Malmesbury.com and their expertise on analyzing death statistics and Talk:List of unusual deaths/Archive_11#Unusualness. Part of being a reliable source is having some expertise in the field being discussed. A reliable source about one topic may not be a reliable source about another topic. As it is, your latest reversion has inserted two unreliable sources and two sources that do not support the statement. How about coming up with a reliable source that actually directly categorizes the death itself as unusual? Not that it's weird for a road spike to come loose, but actually categorizes the death as unusual.—Kww(talk) 14:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

So what would be the acceptable source that has "a reputation for statistical analysis of deaths"? Perhaps we have been here before, but the text at the top of the article just says "This list includes unique or extremely rare circumstances of death recorded throughout history, noted as being unusual by multiple sources." It says nothing about reputations for statistical analysis of deaths. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Read up on what a reliable source is, particularly WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I don't make these things up. So far as I know, there aren't any reliable sources that categorize any individual death as unusual. It's not really the "text at the top of the article" that counts, it's the contents of the last RFC, which specifically excludes the kind of original research that you and Andrew are attempting here. The death must be classified as unusual in reliable sources.—Kww(talk) 22:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall the exclusive use of sources with "a reputation for statistical analysis of deaths" being a pre-condition of the preservation of this article. I'm not quite sure how any new editor would even be aware there had been a single RfD. Would it not save a great deal of reverting time if this was made clearer in the introduction to the article? The Talk Page text at the top of this page says: "... deaths for whom there are reliable sources (as noted by one person, these need to be high quality sources, not tabloid journals who regularly fling around these words for fun) that the death is in someway exceptional. All other entries (those for whom someone might say "Come on, this is obviously strange") should be removed." Again, no mention of "a reputation for statistical analysis of deaths". So the directions here are misleading? 'Context matters' says: "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Nothing about statistical analysis. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I take it you missed the part about " Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."—Kww(talk) 22:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I think most other editors, and more importantly most readers, would be happy to apply the common meaning of the word "unusual", used by reliable commentators, not a very narrow one based on some notion of statistical probability, applied by some fantastical expert panel of actuaries. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Which is precisely why I haven't taken any action against items where a major newspaper or similar news outlet has labeled a death "unusual". They shouldn't be included, but most people are willing to live with them.—Kww(talk) 14:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Most readers would probably be happy with pictures of naked women on every page as well, but because we are an encyclopedia and not a commercial site seeking the most hits to be popular, we follow policies for encyclopedic content and sourcing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Definition of the word "unusual"

Collins Dictionary [1] says this: "If something is unusual, it does not happen very often or you do not see it or hear it very often." Is that "quite a stretch" or a very clear definition? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So this death was first removed with the edit summary "doesn't seem quite unusual to die on the job". I think this, being a personal judgement about unusualness, is unacceptable. And besides, in my mind, it sounds a bit like "airport deaths are quite common" or "lots of people die at work". Surely, it depends on what job you do, and on the exact circumstances of the death? It was deleted again with the edit summary "quite a stretch from a vague "doesn't happen very often" to "unusual death"." But no, this is again a personal judgement. And it is also wholly contradicts the source. The first source, CCN News, says clearly: "A spokeswoman for Boeing said .... "It doesn't happen very often"." As can be seen from the Collins extract above this is the definition of unusual. If this kind of death is not unusual, perhaps we can see one single reported instance of it happening elsewhere? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The text at the top of this article says this: "Oxford Dictionaries defines the word "unusual" as "not habitually or commonly occurring or done"." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The source does not directly describe the death as unusual. That's a pretty simple concept. It describes something as not happening very often (most likely this kind of accident). Even if it came out and said "this kind of accident doesn't happen very often", it would be original research to extend it to "this death is unusual", because, as has been explained to you ad nauseum, describing something about the circumstances as unusual does not logically extend to describing the death itself as unusual.—Kww(talk) 21:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I find your argument quite vacuous. But why the "ad nauseum" exactly, Kww? Because someone disagrees with you? How does one separate circumstance from "the death itself"? What kind of "death itself" is this one? One where the guy's heart stopped again? They're quite common, aren't they. Or are you claiming this is boring old "death in the workplace"? I'm sure we could all think lots of well-populated common categories that this death would neatly fit into. How about "death caused by lack of life" - that should cover most of the entries here, shouldn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ad nauseum because after your view was rejected at the RFC you keep bringing it up. Look at the close again: " clear policy based consensus is to keep this list only to those deaths for whom there are reliable sources ... that the death is in someway exceptional. All other entries (those for whom someone might say "Come on, this is obviously strange") should be removed.". Find sources that say "this death is unusual/strange/bizarre/other synonym", not "these circumstances are unusual/strange/bizarre/other synonym". Whenever you say "the circumstances are unusual, therefore the death is unusual" you are not only violating WP:OR, you are simply paraphrasing "Come on, this is obviously strange".—Kww(talk) 21:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The source says "It doesn't happen very often". That's the definition of "unusual". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

But you are deciding for yourself precisely what doesn't happen very often and how its rarity might relate to the death. That's the definition of "original research".—Kww(talk) 22:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm deciding nothing. I'm quoting the source. Or are you suggesting that maybe the Boeing spokeswoman was talking about someone paying for her lunch in the staff canteen? Gee, how nice! My reading of her statement is "people don't get sucked into aircraft engines very often". A wild guess, I know, but one that I think other readers, not just me, might actually make too. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That's most likely what she was saying, yes, which goes to the rarity of the occurrence.—Kww(talk) 23:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Please explain the difference between "an occurence" and "this death". The source is saying "deaths by ingestion into aircraft engines don't happen very often". That makes it unusual. And, once again, how do you separate the death from the circumstances? Perhaps you can just tell, us in your own words, how this person died. Oh and what do you mean by " your view was rejected at the RFC"? And how would that be relevant here? Which RfC was that? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This RFC. The one quoted at the talk of the top page. The one where the consensus was that multiple reliable sources had to describe the death as unusual. I've explained the difference difference between a source describing the cause as rare and describing the death as unusual to you before, which is why the ad nauseum qualifier applies. "Brake failures are rare" does not lead to "Death by brake failure is unusual". Certainly, there are rare events that lead reasonably lead to describing the resultant death as unusual, being sucked into a jet engine may well be one, but it doesn't matter what you or I think. Since it is not an automatic connection, we need a source to make the connection for us. In this case, you have not been able to provide a source that describes the death as unusual or strange.—Kww(talk) 01:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume you mean "The one quoted at the top of the talk page". But I made no contribution to that RfC. So I don't quite see how "my view was rejected". Indeed the RfC does not address the question you raise here, but discusses the place of "editorial judgement". And I remain unconvinced that a rare event may lead to a non-rare death. I believe you are simply splitting hairs, so that you may continue in your quest to "destroy the article by removing items one at a time". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Since when is an RFC required to apply basic policy to each particular article? And since when was participation in an RfC a requirement for an editor to follow the outcome? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

That comment is addressed to me? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

don't bother adding content. it will be deleted.

a few editors protect this article with their own criteria: no matter how de facto unusual a death is, they WILL DELETE the entry unless the SOURCE specifically says that the death was unusual. you must provide a source which must use the word unusual in reference to the death. hopefully, saying this up front will spare many contributors time and frustration in the future. Cramyourspam (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The misleading aspect is that these same editors frequently use edit summaries which suggest that some kind of personal qualitative judgement has been made, e.g. "deaths by liver failiure are not unusual", "this kind of death happens every day", etc, etc. Such edit summaries are wholly unjustified and misleading. As you say, the criterion is that a reliable source must use the word unusual, or a synonym of this. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

aye, indeed. for that matter, i wish someone who knew how to bring in neutral ADMINS would do so. i know there is a process for that, but i don't know the tag to add to get it on the lists for such a review. Cramyourspam (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It's troubling that one of the regular editors here is an admin whose stated aim is to "destroy the article by removing items one at a time". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

wow. indeed, in the past, it has seemed that editors favoring (in my opinion) unique strictness (only if RS use the word unusual about the death may it be added) included: TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, Kww, NinjaRobotPirate, Dkriegls, North8000, Neljack, Abductive, pbp. It has seemed that those favoring reasonable flexibility (res ipsa or common sense consensus that a strange death is what a reasonable person might consider "unusual" even if the RS does not specifically use the exact word unusual) have included: Dream Focus, Andy Dingley, Martinevans123, cyclopia, Qwyrxian, Warden, sroc, AJHingston, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Cramyourspam, Herostratus. It would be good to include neutral ADMINS who are not on the list of usual suspects, in addition to --the usual suspects. This article is problematic because it seems like entries without strict and exact use of the word unusual get readily deleted by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom or Kww, get undon by the original poster, and then get re-deleted by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom or (able to help each other) Kww, and then 3RR rears its head and the case is closed. That's the m.o. on this article. Cramyourspam (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That seems a reasonably accurate summary. Although I have long favoured clear objective criteria, even though these may themsleves be problematic. Some editors, however, seem to want it both ways: yes, a source says a death is unusual, but this is overtunred on the grounds that there is a compelling argument, in abstract logic, or from "common understanding", that the source cannot be trusted and/or the claim is invalid. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you bothered to take a look at the RFC at the top of the page, or the last AFD? Nothing's happening here but enforcing community consensus on what it takes to go in this article. Yes, if the source doesn't directly describe the death as "unusual" or some reasonable synonym thereof, it gets removed. Yes, that means it's virtually impossible for this article to grow, and tends to make it shrink instead. That's because it's a bad topic for an article, not because there is any form of misbehaviour. The general problem is that very few sources characterize deaths as unusual: at most, they describe something else as unusual and editors commit original research attempting to link the two together. That's generally what happens in the cases that Martinevans123 discusses. If you review the last several discussions we have had, the problem is always that he is using a source that does not directly describe the death as unusual.—Kww(talk) 13:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Your comment is addressed to me? The AfD did not conclude that this was "a bad topic for an article", did it? That's your personal view getting in the way of fair editing. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

To both of you. Yes, "it's a bad topic for an article" represents a personal conclusion. The fact that the two of you are here complaining about the effect a rigorous application of sourcing standards to the topic has on the size of the list would tend to support it.—Kww(talk) 14:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not complaining in any way about the "size of the list". I'm complaning about unfair personal agendas. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

There aren't any unfair personal agendas that I'm aware of. My only personal agenda is to ensure that sourcing standards are rigorously applied. Yes, that will make the list tend towards zero length, but that isn't unfair, it's simply a natural consequence of the poor topic.—Kww(talk) 14:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

re: Kww's "Have you bothered to take a look at the RFC" --yes. that's where i got my list. the RFC i read seemed to be dominated by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom and Kww --which made me wonder about the RFC's quality. many posters here are not fixated upon patrolling this article long term, unlike the key couple members of the "strict" faction. Cramyourspam (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not a "poor topic". It's a topic Wikipedia doesn't how to treat properly. Why should any article "tend towards zero length" unless one or more editors are keen to see it disappear and have clearly said so all along. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

My feeling is that Kww and TRPOD are gaming the system. They literally follow the book when it suits them and they stop following it when it suits them as well. Oh, never blatant violations, the two guys are smart. It's always just on the border within the rules, but in such a fashion that it becomes tendentious editing. Their not-so-concealed aim is, since they couldn't delete this article at AfD, to sabotage it until it disappears naturally. Which is a blatant case of WP:POINT, as far as I'm concerned, but I'm sure they'll now answer "oh noooo, we're just following the rules and the rfc!". Yeah, sure, to the point of making a farce of every attempt at editing here. There is more important stuff than the little game played here, but this is not a nice show. --cyclopia^speak! 14:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The article was kept on the basis that it was possible to keep it within policy, and the deletion arguments centered around the fact that most contributors to the article had no apparent intention of following policy. The gaming is done by editors that claim that the article can be kept within policy when the article is at AFD and then either passively or actively break those same policies as soon as it is kept. That's the reason it's been at AFD seven times: six promises to improve followed by six failures for those improvements to actually occur. This time, the promised improvement of the article is occurring. That means elimination of policy-violating material and preventing more policy-violating material from being added. It would be nice if people simply wouldn't add policy-violating material in the first place, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.—Kww(talk) 17:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Quod erat demonstrandum.--cyclopia^speak! 18:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Most of the entries already removed were not suitable for inclusion in this page and would have been more appropriately placed at an article titled List of ironic deaths.--Auric talk 18:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Would support a new article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

And It would be nice if editors didn't dream up their own interpretations of what sources mean by "unusual" on a case-by-case basis. Since when has the criterion for including items here become "policy"? The closing remarks at the AfD said this:

"To the point that this list is subjective OR: It isn't, as long as the items in the list are referenced to sources calling the deaths unusual. If there are items in the list where this is not the case, they should be fixed if possible and removed if not."

Exactly how much effort is going into the fixing before the deleting? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I can only suggest that you read the words "to sources calling the deaths unusual" over and over and contemplate their meaning. When those sources are provided, I don't see anyone removing the material.—Kww(talk) 22:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant. But doesn't really address my question. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

to all: an editor who keeps deleting content from the article has twice tried to close off discussion on this thread by archiving the thread. to TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom in discussing the changes to the article, primarily made by you and another editor, discussion of your changes will necessarily appear. it is blatant POV that then YOU would close off the talk thread to further discussion by archiving it. you're cheating. Cramyourspam (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

closing the article to further discussion by "archive" process is being done by an editor discussed a lot in the thread. that's POV. bigtime. the editor says talk pages are for content and not about editor behavior. well, since the content-removal in the article (the point of this thread) keep being removed mostly by the editor in question and another one also appearing in the thread, of course their usernames and some speculation will appear. the editor in question seems out of POV to be shutting down this thread. i say this in order to keep open this discussion of the article and its content. Cramyourspam (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The appropriateness of the continuation of this mud slinging session are being discussed at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Reopening_a_talk_page_discussion_to_continue_making_aspersions_against_other_editors -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

POV in the very title of the entry on ANI, but maybe some actual neutral admins will look beyond that. Cramyourspam (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, open again? Perhaps Kww would care to actually answer my question before it's closed again. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

this thread was closed ("archived" suddenly) by an editor discussed in this thread --and then de-archived (un-closed) by me so the talk could continue here. the archiving editor then opened an admin ANI thread which hasn't gone very far. the ANI link ^^above is no longer a usable link, since the ANI has automatically moved off of the ANI front page with the passage of time. discussion there may continue, but the updated link now is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive853#Reopening_a_talk_page_discussion_to_continue_making_aspersions_against_other_editors so enjoy that everyone. Cramyourspam (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Tycho Brahe

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

Some accounts of his death claim that he died of a burst bladder because he had "refused to leave the banquet to relieve himself because it would have been a breach of etiquette". 121.44.7.104 (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Content requires a source that makes the specific claim without the interpretation of Wikipedia editors that the instance is "unusual" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, that explanation was probably just Kepler making a wild, uninformed diagnosis. As mentioned specifically in this article, bladder ruptures are caused by completely different things and there's other probable causes for his demise (which a cursory read of medical information will tell you, are ALSO not caused or influenced by forced continence). 201.190.31.64 (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Our understanding or interpretation of medical diagnosis/ frequency of ccccurence is wholly irrelevant. As was Kepler's. We simply need a WP:RS that describes Brahe's death as "unusual". That source may have arrived at such a decription my means of a consideration of the actual circumstances (or of the medical causes), or it may not. Or we may never even know how it arrived at such a description. But the description is all that matters to allow inclusion in this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC) p.s. but keen Brahe-watchers may find this Huff-Po report interesting: [2].

So OK, he can be included. However, I'd be wary of the vocabulary (i.e. not mentioning bladder rupture or specifying that it was Kepler's hypothesis). I mean, this is of course a list of unusual deaths, but given the plenty of reliable sources that point out fullness of the bladder never directly causes injuries, I think adding the traditional account verbatim would go against the spirit of factual accuracy (even the antiquity accounts could have happened by some freak coincidence) of the article. 201.190.31.64 (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

John C. Woods

OK, the death of John C. Woods was not unusual, simple electrick shock. But because myth says he died when fixing an electric chair (that would have been unusual!) how about like this:

• 1950: According to a myth, Master Sergeant John C. Woods, one of the executioners of Nazi war criminals, was accidentally electrocuted while constructing an electric chair; on reality it was an accident that happend on Eniwetok Atoll, when he was attempting to repair an engineer lighting set. --RicHard-59 (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This isnt a list of mythically unusual deaths. It wasnt unusual. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

While it's true this list does include "stories [that] are likely to be apocryphal", I have have yet to find a source that says Wood's death was unusual. Probably belongs in List of ironic deaths. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Vladimir Smirnov

Olympic fencer Smirnov was killed when the broken tip of his opponent's blade pierced the mesh of his face mask, as the two lunged towards each other, penetrating his eye socket and into his brain to a depth of 15mm, severing an artery. In Chapter 10 of Epidemiology of Injury in Olympic Sports, Peter A. Harmer of Exercise Science—Sports Medicine, Willamette University, Salem, Oregon, USA provides statistics from his meta-analysis of reports of fencing injuries, and reports:

"Since 1937, only ten deaths worldwide have resulted from penetrating wounds in fencing: all have been in men; 3 in foil, 6 in épée, 1 in saber; 6 occurred in competition, 3 in practice, 1 unknown; 7 resulted from a broken blade, 2 from an intact blade, 1 unknown; 7 penetrations were in the chest, 1 through the neck, 1 in the face, 1 unknown) (Parfitt 1964; Safra 1982; Crawfurd 1984, 1991; “Fencing match” 1990; “Fencer’s tragic” 1994; “Ukrainian fencer” 2004; “Fencer dies” 2005; “Smierc szermierza 2009”)."

He concludes: "mortal injuries are very rare".

The entry for Vladimir Smirnov was first removed with the edit summary "the source must describe the *death itself* as unusual. Not the accident, not the surrounding circumstances, but the death itself". It was removed again, following addition of the Harmer source, with the edit summary: "false logic: "this kind of accident is rare" does not lead to "this is an unusual form of death". Two different groups, different stats". Can we see an explanation for this logic?

I would contend that a death, described in a WP:RS book as "a freak accident", and by a sporting injuries expert in the field as one of only ten deaths worldwide, since 1937, that are all "very rare", counts as "an unusual death". This article is entitled "List of unusual deaths" not "List of unusual forms of death". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The main problem is one of differing statistical pools, and you persisted in your struggle against it the last time it came up. I don't know precisely how fruitful it is to rehash precisely why a statement of "brakes rarely fail" can't be held to inevitably lead to "deaths that trace themselves to brake failures are unusual". Still, on this one, I concede the point: I had missed the paragraph in the source that specifically discussed the epidemiology of fencing injuries. That's enough to bring it at least to borderline for describing the death itself as unusual.—Kww(talk) 23:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)ase

Please explain in more detail how "differing statistical pools" affect this death being unusual and its eligibility for inclusion in this article. And what are the other problems? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC) I'm off to consult my collection of Alistair Beaton books

10 deaths in less than a hundred years is orders of magnitude greater than "This list only includes unique or extremely rare circumstances of death recorded throughout history". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

By all means show us the other deaths of this type that have been recorded. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Well "of this type" can be parsed in a number of ways. One way would be "Fatal fencing accident involving a Spencer Model 223 foil piercing a face mask". Another way would be "Fatal sporting accident". The first is too narrow, the latter too broad, and where one wants to draw the line is entirely a subjective matter of opinion, really.

My subjective opinion is that if people are going to thrust at each others faces with sharp steel blades and protected only by mesh face masks, it would shocking and odd if this didn't end badly from time to time. Are we going to put in car racing accidents next? Herostratus (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

So what's your point? That "people thrusting at each others faces with sharp steel blades and protected only by mesh face masks" are actually dropping like flies, yet are somehow unrecorded in the RS that analyses such accidents and comes up with "very rare"? You can't have it both ways: if you insist on RS for other cases, you can't then OR your way into discounting such RS because they don't fit your own mindset that fencing accidents are as common as motor racing accidents? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree that this article leaves open to debate precisely what is meant by "a death", in terms of contributing causes and immediate circumstances. It might be too ambitious to expect such an article as this to provide a guideline. But such a phrase as ":10 deaths in less than a hundred years" appears somewhat meaningless without some kind of constraining context. The way things are at the moment, the criterion is that a WP:RS should describe the death as unusual (or similar descriptor). Simple as that. It does not help to start splitting hairs over whether it's the "circumstances" or the "death event itself" that has been described as "unusual". In common parlance I'd argue that "unusual death" is seen as a single entity. But I'm waiting to see what may be the statistical arguments to the contrary. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Hensley

"2012: Anthony Hensley, 37, drowned after he was attacked by a nesting swan, causing his kayak to topple. The bird continued to lunge at him preventing him from getting to shore before he drowned. John Huston of the Abbotsbury Swannery in Dorset said such incidents "are very rare"/[3]"

This was reverted with the edit summary "does not directly described the *death* as unusual or any reasonable synonym thereof". Let's all hear why that's a reasonable reversion. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Field & Stream calls it "unusual. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the new source. I'm sure we'd all appreciate an explanation of why the original BBC source wasn't suitable. Using more than a single source is usually welcomed here. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

", noted as being unusual by multiple sources." per the lead. Per WP:UNDUE. with multiple sources being necessary so that one writer being loose with the term "unusual" is not misrepresenting what is considered "unusual" and that we are actually presenting content that at least has a significant portion of analysis that it is "unusual". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are arguing for the additional inclusion of the BBC source or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

In any case, would "impossible" also qualify as described by Inside Edition? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Only just "seems impssible", Δρ.Κ.! You must be impossibly biased. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yet again Red Pen, you claim that something must be removed because there are no sources, but if it has sources then "they must be wrong".

Your argument is a simple one: you don't like this article, your answer is always to delete and only your judgement is the right one. You are hopelessly biased, have a real problem with WP:OWN and simply should not be editing here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd still like to see a response from User:Kww who removed the item, together with the BBC source. Not only does that source quote an expert in the field - John Huston of the Abbotsbury Swannery in Dorset - but it even provides historical context for his opinion - 600 years of that swannery, in which time it had never been reported. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

This is pretty typical of the problems with sourcing for this list: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17736292 does not describe the death as unusual, it describes the attack as unusual. Two different statistical domains. To bring up the simple analogy one more time, if you can find a source that says "brake failures are unusual", that doesn't directly lead to "deaths by brake failure are unusual". You need a reliable source to make that conclusion. It's further complicated by internal contradiction: the article lists a number of incidents of swan attacks, in fact including "According to ornithologists, the swan's aggressive reaction is typical for the species, the mute swan, when defending a nest." One outlier claims that such attacks are extremely rare. So, the article doesn't address the character of the death directly, and doesn't report the character of the incident consistently.

Now, what's a reliable source in the field of what constitutes an unusual death? A source that has a reputation in the field of mortality statistics? Not a blog at "Field and Stream". "Inside Edition" fails not only by that standard, but fails the " these need to be high quality sources, not tabloid journals who regularly fling around these words for fun" test listed in the big box at the top of this discussion page. When someone can find two reliable sources, each of which can be considered to have expertise in the field of categorizing deaths, both of which directly describe the death itself as unusual, it will be time to re-add this.—Kww(talk) 14:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Kww, I regard your argument about "two different statistical domains" as wholly vacuous and completely without merit. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a shame, Martinevans123. An inability to apply basic logic makes it relatively difficult to evaluate sources. I'm interested as precisely why you think that you can tie unrelated statements together without sources without running afoul of the basic problem we've had to address in this article: editors that connect "boy, that's weird" to "that's an unusual death" without reliable sources that explicitly and unambiguously make that connection for them.—Kww(talk) 15:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Basic logic?? Deaths from swan attack are wholly a categorical sub-set of swan attacks. Your pathetic bleating about "internal contradiction" is even less convincing. Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

And your most reliable source describes "swan attacks" as "typical for the species", describes another case that has been ongoing since 2010, and quotes John Faaborg as as being familiar with multiple similar events involving geese. I'm sorry that you see rational discussion as "pathetic bleating": the article does not make a direct description of the death as "unusual" or any reasonable synonym thereof.—Kww(talk) 15:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The article isn't called List of unsual animal attacks. I would imagine that deaths from animal attacks are, overall, statistically extremely rare. And this includes attacks from very ferocious animals like sharks and tigers. We're talking about swans here. And we're not talking about geese. Nor about contrary evidence drawn from geese experts. That's completely WP:OR or your part. Just as has been pointed out about above, with regard to Mr Red Pen, you maintain that something must be removed because it has no sources, but if there are sources then "they must be wrong". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't blame the failure to provide reliable sources that directly describe the death as unusual on the people that point it out. It's true that its very difficult to find such sources, which is why deletion of this list gets proposed so frequently. What you imagine and what I imagine are relatively inconsequential. Go find two sources that we could take to WP:RS/N and gain consensus that they are reliable in determining whether a death is unusual or not, where both of those sources directly describe the death as unusual or some synonym thereof, and you're good to go. If you can't do that, don't point the finger of blame at others.—Kww(talk) 15:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

But it's not a case of "blame". It's a case of making it clear, yet again, that your self-proclaimed agenda is that this article "should be destroyed." Or have you now changed that opinion? Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe the list to be essentially unsourceable, yes. Even as it stands, rigidly applying the inclusion criteria would remove most of the current content, and there's no reason to add even more problematic content to a problematic list. But, as I will point out again, the fact that the list can't be properly sourced isn't my fault: I'm just pointing it out.—Kww(talk) 15:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It rather depemds on what is considerd "a proper source" and on whether personal theories about "different statisical domains" are allowed to get in the way. Removing an entry because the expert concerned, in a WP:RS BBC source, did not use exactly the words "such deaths ere very rare" but only said "such incidents are very rare" smacks of blatant WP:POV. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I've never demanded a particular exact wording, only that the statement actually address the death. If the statement directly addresses the death and directly uses some synonym of unusual and comes from a reliable source, I haven't removed such content even if only one such source can be found. That the source says one thing and you wish to say "because it said that, this other thing must also be true" is not a personal theory of mine: it's simply that you cannot find an adequate source and are trying to justify the use of inadequate sources instead. Once again, go find two sources that we could take to WP:RS/N and gain consensus that they are reliable in determining whether a death is unusual or not, where both of those sources directly describe the death as unusual or some synonym thereof, and you're good to go. I don't understand why you are debating this instead of actually finding the sources to justify the inclusion.—Kww(talk) 16:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You are implying that the expert concerned, John Huston, was either unaware of the death or was choosing to refer only to the attack. That's quite ridiculous. (And even if he were, "simple logic" dictates that a death arsing from a rare event itself has to be rare, as it is always less frequent). It's very clear to all why you are debating this. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Pre-(edit conflict) coment: I can actually see, and even sympathise/agree with many of the arguments advanced by both sides. Kww is a stickler for the quality of the sources, and so should he be. Martin makes very good points as well. Kww makes good points about the blog, although an argument can be made `that the writer is an expert or regular of Field & Stream. The Inside Edition is also a tabloid and obviously prone to exaggeration, but their classification of the death as seeming "impossible" (Thank you Martin for the correction :)) reinforces that of the other two sources. Does that meet the criterion of the encyclopedic preponderance of the evidence? At that point I disengage. Since I sympathise with both sides of the debate I am not going to throw any weight around trying to influence things any further. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• This one is a keeper. I have added a source indicating that it was not just unusual but was a first. Trying to distinguish the medical nature of the death from the proximate cause seems inappropriate because the sources don't do this and it leads to original research, as discussed above. Such deaths are events in which the circumstances and details combine to make them both unusual and noteworthy. Andrew D. (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• A source, yes, but Wordpress blog named animalpeoplenews.org doesn't meet WP:RS by any stretch of the imagination. Got anything that actually complies with policy? As for your arguments about the inappropriateness of following sources, no. I'm doing my best to prevent original research, by insisting that the source actually describe the death itself as unusual. It's true that sources generally don't describe deaths as unusual: that's because responsible news sources don't do such things. Does that make this list hard to source? Most definitely, but there's no strong motivation to add material to this list.—Kww(talk) 17:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean " there's no strong motivation to add material to this list"? You're "doing your best" to destroy it, piece by piece, as you've previously said. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Berating someone for following and applying policy is unhelpful. Please find and discuss sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Three sources have been found, so far. This is the discussion. Characterising my comments as "berating someone for following and applying policy" is equally unhelpful. The discussion is about the interpretation of "policy". The fact is that both you and Kww would prefer to see this article deleted. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

" You're "doing your best" to destroy it, piece by piece, as you've previously said." is clearly berating a user and not discussing sources. "The fact is that both you and Kww would prefer to see this article deleted." is also clearly not discussing sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm simply reminding you and User:Kww that your agenda is clouding your interpretation of sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Your "simple reminders" have no place on this page. Please start focusing on content and sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Your destructive agendas have no place. I'm quite happy to focus on content and sources, as I'm trying to build something, not destroy it. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

And more personal attacks. Please stop making accusations about other editors and address sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

These are not "more personal attacks", but rather a fair description of you and Kww's opinion of this article, as very clearly expressed at the RfD and since. Or has your view changed? If you think these are "personal attacks" please take it to AN/I. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

No, no suitable sources have been found. The Wordpress blog is laughable, the Field and Stream blog not much different (unless you can demonstrate that Field and Stream has a reputation as a reliable source in the fields of categorising modes of death), and the BBC source doesn't directly describe the death as unusual (or even consistently describe the behaviour as unusual). This constant barrage of poorly-sourced material is the reason I believe the article is essentially unsalvagable, it's not that I reject material because I want it deleted. As I've said three times: find two sources that we could take to WP:RS/N and gain consensus that they are reliable in determining whether a death is unusual or not, where both of those sources directly describe the death as unusual or some synonym thereof, and you're good to go. Can I presume that the reason you are not taking me up on that is because such sources do not exist?—Kww(talk) 17:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Which source or sources would you say could be used as a "reliable source in the fields of categorising modes of death"? This was not agreed as a requirement for sourcing at the close of the last RfD. So I'm not quite sure you are implying that it was. Entries need to be assessed on a case by case basis; your beliefs about what is "essentially unsalvagable" is another straw man. I don't accept your interpretation of the BBC source. Perhaps an RfC is called for. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

On a case by case basis, Field and Stream blogs are clearly not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The reliability of a source must be assessed in the context of the claim it is making, as you say, which would mean that the source has to be credible in the context of declaring a death "unusual". That's not some weird thing I'm bringing in, but part of what we assess in determining whether a source is reliable or not. We don't particularly care about what the American Floral Association thinks about cancer cures, for example, nor do we care what the American Cancer Society thinks about floral arrangements. Further, the statement cannot be editorializing from the source (see "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact" from WP:RS), which would wipe out the F&S source even if you accepted that F&S was inside of its domain of expertise when commenting on whether a death was unusual or not. I'm personally unaware of any that truly meet the criteria, but previous RS/N discussions (to which I must accede) have allowed standard not-tabloid news sources such as the BBC to make such determinations. It's pretty unlikely that a sporting blog would achieve the same approval.

You do have cause-and-effect reversed here, and I wish you would stop with the aspersions. The reason I believe the article is a problem is because there are essentially no reliable sources for its topic domain and it is virtually impossible to correctly source entries. I don't object to the sources because of the article. Most articles that cannot be correctly sourced are deleted: that this one persists is a source of amazement to me, and yes, because it both exists and cannot be correctly sourced, it's going to be a constant source of trouble.—Kww(talk) 18:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Your view wasn't supported by the RfD. I didn't suggest the F&S source. I see nothing wrong with the BBC source. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That would leave you with one, even if you were right. If you can find a second, maybe that would be enough for me to stop arguing. Right now, you have one source that doesn't directly describe the death as unusual, so I don't understand why you persist in arguing instead of searching. Certainly, if this death is so obviously unusual, you will be able to find a reliable source that describes it that way. Unless, of course, reliable sources don't normally support such subjective categorisations.—Kww(talk) 18:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

In my view the BBC source does describe the death as unusual. Your insistence that it must "directly describe" seems to me unreasonable. But I'm open to the opinion of other, unbiased, editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Your view flies counter to reality, but, if I accepted it, you would have found one source. Where's number two? Like I said, even though the inclusion criteria here demands multiple sources, I typically don't revert if people can find even one good source. So, if you can find what you think of as a second source, maybe I will agree it suffices as a first. Why aren't you looking for it?—Kww(talk) 18:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

How do you know what I'm looking, or not looking for? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me, how about "why are you taking time from your fervent searches for reliable sources to substantiate this material in order to argue with me here?"—Kww(talk) 19:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Because I think you're wrong. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I already knew that. It's a shame that you want to apply original research to sources, but I'm certain that I'm on quite solid ground in rejecting it.—Kww(talk) 19:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please explain how have I have "applied WP:OR" to the BBC source? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This is getting repetitive, Martin. You are trying to extend "swan attacks on humans are unusual" (a statement which your source isn't even internally consistent about) to "this individual death by a swan attack is an unusual death". Your logic may be right in this case, it may be wrong, but the problem is that it is your logic. Once you find a reliable source that connects the dots and says "this death is an unusual death, resulting as it did from a swan attack", you'll be fine.—Kww(talk) 19:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The source says this: "But such incidents are very rare, says John Huston of the Abbotsbury Swannery in Dorset, where there are 1,000 swans but no recorded attacks on humans in the colony's 600-year history.". As far as I can see, "the incident" was the death caused by a swan. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I read "the incident" as referring to the attack, given that it follows up with "no recorded attacks", not "no recorded deaths by swan attack". An unambiguous source that directly described the death as "unusual" or some reasonable synonym thereof would certainly be handy for resolving this issue in your favour, wouldn't it? A shame that there don't seem to be any.—Kww(talk) 20:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That's your reading. You sound gutted. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The existence of multiple possible readings is the very definition of ambiguity, isn't it? How's that search for a reliable source that doesn't have that problem coming?—Kww(talk) 21:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

We should ask how many other people think it's ambiguous. I'm sure you'll be the first to know when a better source is found. Encouraging to see you are now being so much more positive. I expect you are looking too, so that the article can be improved. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't share the opinion that the article is improved by adding material, so the obligation to find a satisfactory source rests squarely on your shoulders. If you never find such a source, Wikipedia will not be worse off for the removal of this material.—Kww(talk) 22:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Surely all articles, that it's been agreed should be kept, benefit from have properly sourced material added to them? That's a Wikipedia principle, that overrides personal topic preference isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That presumes that all topics must grow indefinitely over time. There are very few topics for which that is true.—Kww(talk) 22:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we can assume that people will continue to die. And that some of these deaths will be unusual. Given how many people have died in the course of human history, I'd have thought this article might be judged a little brief. That aside, I'm really not sure why you call it "my logic". It's just logic. If a source said "A is bigger than B. B is bigger than C", I guess would you argue it did not directly say "A is bigger than C". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That is the point I have been making over and over, and I really don't know if you don't grasp it or if you grasp it but are just pulling my chain. You've given an example of a purely transitive property. If a is bigger than b and b is bigger than c, then indeed, a is bigger than c. "Unusualness" is not a transitive property when crossing statistical domains: "brakes do not usually fail when applied" does not directly lead to "death by brake failure is unusual" because the set of "brake applications" and the set of "deaths" are completely disjoint. Such a relationship may be true, it may not be, and we need a reliable source to explicitly make the connection. Your reasoning about the relationship is original research.—Kww(talk) 15:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I case you hadn't noticed, swans don't even have brakes. You've removed an entry on the basis of your own personal interpretation of the source and in the face of common logic. Swan attacks and deaths from swan attacks don't come from "different statistical domains". The latter is wholly a sub-set domain of the other. That's a fact. And if you are on a chain ,I trust it's a good strong one. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I removed an entry because no one was able to provide multiple reliable sources that supported its inclusion. I did not apply any original research to the source, and my explanations have been solely to attempt to explain to you how your explanations were original research. As always, find multiple reliable sources that directly describe the death as unusual or any reasonable synonym thereof, and you are good to go with restoring it. And for what it's worth, "attacking people" is a part of the set "swan behavioural modes", while "death by swan attack" is a part of the set "deaths". Can a reliable source tie them together? Yes. Did a reliable source tie them together? Not that you've demonstrated. The material can't be retained forever while you search for a source.—Kww(talk) 15:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

My interpretation is no more "original research" than is yours. You don't have some kind of monopoly on the truth. It is my understanding that "deaths from attack type x" is always a subset of "attack type x". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Go find a reliable source that explicitly supports your claim, and neither one of us will have to apply any logic at all.—Kww(talk) 15:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

In the mean time I've added it at Talk:List of unusual deaths/Sourcing issues. Other editors also seem to think the source perfectly good. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

How about this one?

"Two Dutch explorers studying melting Arctic sea ice have apparently drowned after falling through thin ice" http://www.globalpost.com/article/6537923/2015/05/04/dutch-polar-explorers-likely-drowned-canada-police <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Not described as unusual in the source, and I doubt that you will find a source that describes it as such. Arctic exploration is a hazardous activity.—Kww(talk)`

Requirements for inclusion

Seeing how much attention this page receives, it's understandable that people like to share stories they've heard. However, this page is only for deaths that are directly described as "unusual" or something very similar (or are uncontroversially notable), and not just any rare or strange death. If multiple such deaths have happened, as is the case with water intoxication, it likely does not qualify as extraordinarily unusual. These policies aren't to censor anything that might be funny (the page is arguably humorous); they are important because we can't just include any and all deaths an editor finds abnormal, or any death exaggerated by a sensationalist tabloid. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Italian girl of 19 killed-long-hair-caught-steering-wheel

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2709443/Beautiful-Italian-girl-19-killed-long-hair-caught-steering-wheel-car-veered-oncoming-traffic.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcin862 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not generally considered an acceptable source. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the story, but even if the source was a WP:RS, it does not describe the death as "unusual". Maybe you could find another source that does? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Surely the source doesn't have to explicitly say the death was "unusual"? Then this would not classified as an unusual death in 2015: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/valerie-weston-first-picture-ex-teacher-5448349 (I think there are a lot more unusual deaths that could be added to the list)

Another unusual death: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/salon-boss-freezes-death-after-6700334

Unsigned comment added by: 130.208.181.44 (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2015‎ (UTC)

The source has to describe the death as "unusual" or a synonym of that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Depressingly common?

My addition on the death of acclaimed film director Alan J. Pakula was reverted with the rationale object causing traffic fatalities are depressingly common. But I contend that something like a heavy pipe of unclear provenance flying through the windshield of a car and killing the driver is not really that common. The New York Times called it "a freak accident". Of course, the fact that the victim was independently notable by himself makes this accident more remarkable, but I don't believe this kind of fatal accidents is actually common. What do others think?  --Lambiam 19:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

If The New York Times calls it "a freak accident", it qualifies for inclusion. The actual circumstances, and even the victim's notability are, in fact, irrelevant for the purposes of this article, as are the personal views of individual editores, depressing or otherwise. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Usual practise is to require a couple of good sources describing the death as unusual, bizarre, weird or the like. This one seems quite a marginal case. For example, Britannica doesn't make any special fuss about his death. I personally don't think it makes the cut. Andrew D. (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Then Britannica has overlooked a notable aspect about him, whether or not they judged his death to be "unusual" (we'll never know). This source also calls it "a freak accident". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Appallingly common?

My addition on the death of actor Brandon Lee was reverted with the rationale gun fatalities are appallingly common. That is true – at least in the United States. But I contend that an actor being accidentally killed by a prop during a film shoot is quite unusual. His death is one of just six mentioned in an article on "celebrities in freak killings" in The Telegraph. What do others think?  --Lambiam 19:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I think all six qualify. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Brandon Lee is easy to find sources for. For example, the Hollywood Book of Death calls it a "freak mishap" and talks of "bizarre facts" (p.26) Some sources make something of his father's odd death too and associate the two. I would support inclusion of a joint entry. Andrew D. (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Monkey see, monkey do..

I'm leaving this incident here in anticipation of finding a corroborating source:

Rovelli was seated in his chair, with his menagerie of performing dogs and monkeys around him. His throat had been cut from ear to ear. His dogs whined pitifully at his feet. In the corner, one monkey was brandishing a razor.

“He had evidently fallen asleep,” said the Illustrated Police News in September 1876, “and while in an unconscious state, one of the monkeys had become possessed of his master’s razor, which [it] drew across the throat of the sleeping man.

“It is said that the acrobat had been seen to behave very cruelly to his monkey on many occasions, as the latter, from some cause or other, would not do as his master wished, and at times, when Rovelli was shaving, he used to go up to the monkey, razor in hand, threateningly, and imitate the movement of cutting himself. This was a most imprudent thing to do.” 9 astonishing deaths reported in Victorian newspapers

The 19th century section only has one entry at present, but there may be some we can add from Jeremy Clay's The Burglar Caught by a Skeleton: And Other Singular Tales from the Victorian Press --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 10:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hilarious. And with a sound Victorian moral to boot. But hang on.... you mean most deaths in the Victorian era were not considered completely "usual" after all? Am just waiting for certain other editors to claim that "astonishing" does not necessarily mean "unusual". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Y'know, I'm not seeing anything in the archives ruling out inclusion of fictional deaths (e.g. Mr Creosote, or these), and there seems to be no proscription against unusual non-human deaths (e.g. Topsy (elephant)) either, so could we include something like this? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 12:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a review is needed

The last case listen - at the time of this posting - should not be part of this list:

2015: Robin Wahlgren, 28, a Swedish student at the University of New South Wales and his Swedish friend rode a shopping trolley down a steep road in Randwick, Sydney with a speed limit of 60 km/h, reaching speeds of up to 80 km/h before hitting an oncoming car and getting flung out of the trolley. He died at the scene while his friend was seriously injured.[124][125] It was labelled as a "freak accident".[126]

=> what is unusual about this? If you sit in a shopping trolley going 80km/h and hit another car: you'll probably die. If you are in a car and hit another car in a frontal colission at that speed there is a chance of dying. This isn't an unusual death in all honesty. It is not rare (anyone who crashes into oncoming traffic at 80km/h while in a shopping trolley will most likely die. If I jump off a bridge or out of an airplane without a parachute, is that an unusual death? --81.240.44.97 (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you aware of the agreed criterion for inclusion? It's not just a matter of editor personal judgement. But, evenso, how many reports have you found of shopping trolley collisions with cars? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Meteorite death

The purported death by meteorite was added by an IP editor yesterday, and reverted with the edit summary "Very interesting, but it's not yet been verified that it was a meteroite. Scientists from the Indian Institute of Astrophysics are expected to visit the site on Tuesday to collect samples. Let's hold off until they make a statement". I agree with the reversion. There should be no hurry to add this absent confirmation of the early speculation. For what it's worth, the New York Times is reporting NASA scientists are "emphatic" that it was not a meteorite. TJRC (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Vet death

What about Erica Marshall, a vet who was treating a horse in a highly oxygenated environment when the horse kicked and its shoes caused a spark lighting the air leading to an explosion. Perhaps this is more common than I know of, but I think it might be worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E89:8E40:CDE2:1124:1BF7:938A (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Battista Fregoso (1380-1442)

This doge of Genova wrote a book about unusual cases of death, mentioned by Rabelais.Marcin862 (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Lady Killed by Windblown Beach Umbrella

http://wtop.com/virginia/2016/06/windblown-beach-umbrella-hits-kills-woman-in-virginia/192.5.18.31 (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, the TV reporter does describe it as "a very bizarre story", so it may be a candidate. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Gloria Ramirez

This page is linked in the article about Gloria Ramirez (who died in a strange way indeed), yet she's not in this list. 176.6.126.115 (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

She was previously discussed at some length, I think, and was deemed to be not supportable here - see Talk:List of unusual deaths/Archive 8. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Freak accident

Martinevans123, you say the deaths don't have to be unique, but the top of this TP states that "the clear policy based consensus is to keep this list only to those deaths for whom there are reliable sources ([...]) that the death is in someway exceptional." "Freak accident" is merely a nice way to call an unexpected unnatural death, without giving any hint whatsoever of it being exceptional. To illustrate my point: after just a minute of searching I've found 8 ([4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]) separate incidents, all from this week, that use the term. In your eyes then, where do we draw the line? Because as it stands the 2010's section is going to keep growing and you're reinforcing it. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde). Thanks for taking the time to open a discussion thread here. I'd be happy to discuss individual entries on a case-by-case basis. As the opening text at the top of the article says, deaths may be unique, but they do not have to be to qualify for inclusion here. They must be unusual and described as such in multiple sources. We certainly shouldn't expect to be adding to the 2010s section at a rate of 8 new entries a week. As regards the currently agreed criteria, there is also a requirement for sources to be WP:RS. I'm not convinced that your 8 examples here all come from such sources. Furthermore, some of the examples you have provided, don't even describe the details of the death. So I don't think they could be used as sources for entries here. I have to agree with you, however, that the phrase "freak accident" sounds very much like a tabloid sound-bite that has little objective value, and so should probably best be avoided. Nevertheless, I think it may be difficult to exclude certain phrases as "forbidden" in permissible sources. There has been considerable debate here over the years as to what are the best criteria to use for inclusion of items. The main focus has been to move away entirely from individual editors subjectively making this decision themselves. If you have any ideas, on how the criteria could be further tightened and made more objective, I'm sure it would be useful to discuss them here. Just a note also about deaths which are judged to be not admissible: as the note says in the top section of this Talk Page, these need not be deleted entirely, but may instead moved to Talk:List of unusual deaths/Sourcing issues, for discussion and in case better sources become available. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Martinevans123: Actually, after your reasoning, I am now reassured that you can keep this article from getting out of hand. Thanks for your detailed view. Cheers. 18:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for that vote of support. But it's not just me, I'm sure! And things often slip through the net, so by all means keep an eye out for any additions, especially anonymous ones. There is no point having this article unless it's kept in check in some way. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)