Wikipedia

Talk:Lists of unusual deaths/Archive 13

< Talk:Lists of unusual deaths
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Martinevans123 in topic Sucked into jet engine
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

Brandon Lee

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Where's Brandon Lee on this list? There's a discussion in the last archive but no real reason was given for not adding him. Practically every source that mentions his death notes how strange it was. Even a cursory Google search turns up RSes for it:

  • New York Times: "Referring to the bizarre death of Brandon Lee, he said: 'This latest tragedy is almost too much. I don't know what to make of it. It's almost like something unseen is taking place that's more than a coincidence.'"
  • Washington Post: "Hollywood was aghast yesterday over the sudden and bizarre death of 27-year-old actor Brandon Lee, who was filming in Wilmington, N.C."
  • Telegraph: "The accident that had just occurred may be the unluckiest in the history of Hollywood production, for a bleak variety of logistical reasons that only came to light afterwards. It was also among the eeriest and most tragic in a whole set of other ways."

Phediuk (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

In fact he appears in three separate archives of this Talk Page. But you're right, no reason is given for non-inclusion. The sources you provide above suggest he should be included. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I propose the following entry, which I will add in the absence of any objection:
-Phediuk (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Bruce Lee

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

May as well make a separate section for this. My quick search for Brandon Lee sources also turned up a number for Bruce.

  • CNN: "The untimely death of Brandon Lee, the son of martial arts legend Bruce Lee who suffered a bizarre death of his own in 1973..."
  • Theorizing Bruce Lee: Film-fantasy-fighting philosophy: "First, there is the still-surprising and contentious issue of his premature death. Then this was intensified by the equally surprising and unlikely death of his son, Brandon Lee."

-Phediuk (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Taylor Mitchell

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Taylor Mitchell was in earlier versions of the article. Her entry was removed, though as far as I can tell, no reason was given for doing so. Almost every story that covered her death mentions how rare it is--it's the only known fatal attack on an adult by a coyote, an incident comparable to Steve Irwin being offed by a stingray.

  • CBC: Has an entire section on "rare attack".
  • Explore Magazine: "As headline writers across the continent tried to marry some unfamiliar words—fatal, coyote, mauling—most people who spend time outdoors found it hard to believe that coyotes had actually killed a human."
  • The Guardian: "Still, despite the frequency of coyote encounters, attacks are rarely very serious, and deaths as a result are virtually unheard of. / All of this makes the attack on Taylor Mitchell an exception to the rule. Generally, not only do coyotes usually prey on small mammals, they hunt alone. That there were two coyotes in Mitchell's case points to the possibility that the animals – eastern coyotes – were part wolf, a predator known for pack hunting. The reasoning behind the attack on Taylor Mitchell is at this point still only speculation. Were the coyotes starved? Were they accustomed to humans feeding them? Nobody knows yet."

Will add this if there are no objections. Phediuk (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Sucked by engine

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Technicians sucked by jet engines seem to appear in the news from time to time. Quick search shows at least two such instances before 2015: [1], [2]. So maybe not that unusual in terms of including one particular incident. Brandmeistertalk 12:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

That may well be true (although I personally doubt that the actual statistics would supprt your claim). But the criterion for inclusion here is "described as unsual by multiple WP:RS." This was a requirement of the last RfD discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The first one is probably notable. Although the first recorded one (Sgt Daunt, Gloster Meteor) survived it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
For better or for worse, the criterion for inclusion in this list pays no heed to any notion of "probability." We are simply tied to narrative descriptions in reliable sources, whatever they themselves may be based on. (Sgt Daunt might one day get his own article, but he'd never appear here of course.) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Mum dies in tank of molten chocolate

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Surely this death should be included in the list: Mum dies in tank of molten chocolate after 'tumbling in when leaning over to pick up mobile phone' (http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/mum-dies-in-tank-of-molten-chocolate-after-tumbling-in-when-leaning-over-to-pick-up-mobile-phone/ar-AAly1yR?li=BBoPRmx#image=5): ""She was minced, only her legs were left," said one local source at the Sergiev-Posad confectionery plant in Fedortsovo, Moscow region." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.181.44 (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The source given for the entry was from the Daily Mail. Although that source described the death as "horrific" it did not claim it was unusual. That's the criterion for inclusion in this list. The MSN source you provide here says it was "a horror accident" and "her horrific death", so same problem. The circumstances sound quite unusual to me, although work- placed accidents with machinery are depressingly common. But a source which explicitly says "unusual" etc, would be needed. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Death by clothes

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So I guess this, death by clothes, wouldn't get it into the list, as there's already a similar entry (the first one): https://www.google.com/search?q=alicante+death+by+clothes&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:is-IS:IE-Address&ie=&oe= . Basically a married couple and their 12-year-old daughter died in Alicante after hundreds of kilos of clothing fell on top of them while they slept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.181.44 (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Red-hot iron

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"1327: Edward II of England, after being deposed and imprisoned by his wife Isabella and her lover Roger Mortimer, was rumoured to have been murdered by having a horn pushed into his anus through which a red-hot iron was inserted, burning out his internal organs without marking his body." The problem is liquid iron is not red, not even oragne, check out the melting pont and what Thermal radiation has to say about it. 83.13.239.255 (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

As a red hot iron, not molten iron, was used this is not a problem. Britmax (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

London Beer Flood

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

London Beer Flood anyone? 83.13.239.255 (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

That, in my opinion, should be included — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.181.44 (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Isadora Duncan, 1927

Latest comment: 7 years ago19 comments8 people in discussion

There have been literally hundreds of death similar to her death, in indian subcontinent alone[1]. These deaths include but not limited to:

  • the drape/scarf getting stuck in wheel of vehichle or some other sort of machinery, and working as a noose.
  • drape getting stuck in fast rotating wheel, thus giving violent jerk to neck, and breaking it. Death caused by broken neck, not by strangulation.
  • drape getting stuck in wheel, victim falling down, death by blunt force trauma tomthe head from the fall. [3] Kindly look second news deah of Pratibha Rajendra Bhosale.
  • being dragged by vehicle, death by strangulation on mid-day.
  • drape getting stuck in rotating wheel, pulling the victim down. Death by victim's vehichle, or some other vehichle running over victim.
  • Quoting: Experts at the institute said that in the past 5-6 years, they have witnessed about 30-40 cases where women were accidentally strangled by drapes getting caught in motorcycles, scooters, mixers, table fans, rickshaws and factory equipment.

Not just women, even men wearing mufflers and shawls have been strangled in freak accidents, AIIMS forensic experts said. drape deaths, dailymail

Further information: The dupatta (drape in english) has long been a symbol of modesty in South Asian dress.[2] Further information: Dupatta, and Shalwar kameez If one observes the pattern of clothing used in indian subcontinent, both by men and women. One would be able to understand that such accidents are not uncommon in that subcontinent.

usernamekiran (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-4138172/AIIMS-Dupatta-deaths-saree-strangulations-rise.html
  2. ^ Mark Magnier (23 February 2010). "For Pakistani women, dupattas are more than a fashion statement". Los Angeles Times.
  • @Usernamekiran: "you should have waited..." Should I, though? You said in describing your edit "Further information on talk page" where I found "Death by clothes" was the only possible relevant entry. Clothes falling on people is flimsy justification indeed for deleting poor old Isadora, can you blame me for reverting? Of course you knew you'd be adding further information to the talk page later, no-one else did. Best practice is to have the backup in place before referencing it in an edit.
Re your now-posted further information, three issues. Firstly the the pictures and the Los Angeles Times reference just show there are people who wear loose, flowing clothes. That is not in dispute. Secondly, consensus has determined that the Daily Mail is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited. The Daily Mail should not be used as a source. Volunteers are encouraged to review and remove/replace existing citations to the Daily Mail. "Literally" (the third issue) has a precise and unique meaning. You say "literally hundreds of death similar" - that's a minimum of 200. There may well be over 200 but I suggest to make that claim you should reference more than literally two.
All that said, I take your point. Isadora Duncan's death was certainly regarded as unusual in 1920's Europe. Is "unusual" an absolute in this context, or can something be unusual in one time and place and yet not so in another? Anyone have a defence for inclusion of Isadora's death? Captainllama (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Captainllama: yes, i agree about the talk page fiasco. I was going to add it as soon as i removed the content. But i couldnt do it because of some technical difficulties. And yes, i stand still on my statement, "literally". There have been more than 200 documented deaths. Even if you dont want to trust daily mail, it is fine too. I have already posted two other incidents. Making the incident of Isadora "not unusual", ergo her incident is out of the article. If you dont want to trust any of the sources that I provided, then kindly search it up on internet. You will find many similar deaths. usernamekiran (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd just point out:
I'm thinking, keep it. TJRC (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why I was pinged; I have no interest in participating in this discussion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Canada Jack: what do you think? I think Isadora should be removed.
@TJRC: @Captainllama:
All we need are multiple published sources considering her death to have been "unusual." We aren't really here to determine if indeed a death is intrinsically "unusual," just if there is are numerous published sources who said so. And just because the means of her death is not so unusual in India doesn't negate this - perhaps if she had died in India. If she had been eaten by a Bengal Tiger while strolling the streets of Paris, that'd be "unusual," maybe not so much if she was in rural India. (Being a bit facetious here...) Context is part of this too - a politician being assassination by a stabbing in 2017 would be "unusual," maybe not very unusual 1,000 years ago. Canada Jack (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I found the articles in both the Los Angeles Times and the Daily Mail quite informative and thought-provoking (although we have to treat the DM with extreme caution these days as, allegedly, it has been banned by a twisted oddball and 0.00018 per cent of his ginger friends). An article on Death by Clothes might indeed be an interesting one. But, as Canada Jack rightly says, the current criterion for inclusion is: "... 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", as per the conclusion at the last successful RfC. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Captainllama, TJRC, Canada Jack, and Martinevans123: i am quoting the wikipedia article itself:

This is a list of unusual deaths. This list includes only unique or extremely rare circumstances of death recorded throughout history, noted as being unusual by multiple sources. Note: some of the deaths are mythological or are considered to be unsubstantiated by contemporary researchers. Oxford Dictionaries defines the word "unusual" as "not habitually or commonly occurring or done" and "remarkable or interesting because different from or better than others." <end quote>

1: Isadora's death is neither unique or unusual, nor under rare circumstances as similar deaths are very common there. 2: definition of unusual: not habitually or commonly occuring or done. Remarkable because different than others.
Isadora's death fits in no criteria. The point here is, we should not be counting the "reliable sources" who say Isadora's death was unusual. It is plain logic, this type of death is common on the planet (hence not unusual), we shouldnt keep it here only because some reliable ignorant source says it is uncommon. There are other reliable sources describing similar deaths. —usernamekiran ( talk ) 20:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

1. Where? 2. The point is, here, that the last RfC decided the criterion for inclusion of items in the list. If you wish to open another RfC, to decide if and how this criterion should change, by all means open one. But you're also saying that the existing source, which describes the death of Isadora Duncan, is "ignorant" - so what's your criterion for ignorance? Do you have a source that ranks the causes of all deaths on the planet, by cause, and shows statistically which are the most unusual? Or maybe even one that shows the relative occurrence of deaths from strangulation/ broken neck by scarves, for the Indian sub-continent? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC) p.s. I found the gallery of pictures really good.
TL;DR, but essentially, Usernamekiran is saying he's done original research to determine that such deaths are not actually unusual. I don't see this as any exception to WP:OR. TJRC (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I think usernamekiran has come in good faith here, but fundamentally confuses the issue. For any particular "unusual" death, we could probably find numerous examples of people dying in that manner. That doesn't mean that cause is no longer "unusual." For example, if a famous person was struck and killed by lightning, most people would regard that as an unusual way to die. But in the United States, at least, several dozen people a year are typically struck and killed by lightning. (And, indeed, a google search can easily find a list of prominent or semi-prominent people who were killed by lightning - it's still an unusual way to die.) In the end, as has been repeatedly noted, as long as we have sources calling the deaths "unusual," then that is the main criterion for inclusion here. Canada Jack (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
nevermind. Maybe i am confused about the criteria. I will take a leave from editing the article from the fields other than my expertise. Thanks for the discussion everybody. Thank you @Canada Jack:, and thanks @Martinevans123:. Three of them are actresses. One of them is shriya saran. Try searching "shriya saran saree" on google images. —usernamekiran ( talk ) 00:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter whether "these deaths are unusual" or not. That is not the purpose of this article.
This article lists individual unusual deaths, and it matters that each of those deaths is unusual. So deaths by electrocution, airplane crashes or teleporter accidents are not unusual, but the first person to die by such a novel method would be. Isadora Duncan, as a death by "scarf in moving motor vehicle" was so. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree with editor Andy per the above comment. KEEP. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of unusual deaths. 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:

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, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of unusual deaths. 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:

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) 18:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding removal of Isadora Duncan

Latest comment: 7 years ago35 comments13 people in discussion

Topic of this RfC: complete removal of "death of Isadora Duncan (1927)".
Lead section of this article states:


This is a list of unusual deaths. This list includes only unique or extremely rare circumstances of death recorded throughout history, noted as being unusual by multiple sources. Note: some of the deaths are mythological or are considered to be unsubstantiated by contemporary researchers. Oxford Dictionaries defines the word "unusual" as "not habitually or commonly occurring or done" and "remarkable or interesting because different from or better than others."


A few days ago, I made this edit. Even though not "noted as being unusual by multiple source", there are way too many similar deaths in Indian subcontinent; making Duncan's death usual. Hence, i think it will be appropriate to remove Duncan's death completely from the article. One can see the citations provided there in the diff, and a few examples are provided below (all WP:RS). 2-3 sources may cause disturbance by graphics :

Scientific studies
News articles regarding deaths

(Some of the news articles might be repeated somewhere)

  • The deaths I am providing sources to, are only from India. And as per this source it is very common in India.[1]. These deaths include but not limited to:
  • the drape/scarf getting stuck in wheel of vehichle or some other sort of machinery, and working as a noose.
  • drape getting stuck in fast rotating wheel, thus giving violent jerk to neck, and breaking it. Death caused by broken neck, not by strangulation.
  • drape getting stuck in wheel, victim falling down, death by blunt force trauma tomthe head from the fall. [4] Kindly look second news deah of Pratibha Rajendra Bhosale.
  • being dragged by vehicle, death by strangulation on mid-day.
  • drape getting stuck in rotating wheel, pulling the victim down. Death by victim's vehichle, or some other vehichle running over victim.



Experts at the institute said that in the past 5-6 years, they have witnessed about 30-40 cases where women were accidentally strangled by drapes getting caught in motorcycles, scooters, mixers, table fans, rickshaws and factory equipment. Not just women, even men wearing mufflers and shawls have been strangled in freak accidents, AIIMS forensic experts said.[2]


In the light of these recent events of last 100 years, I think Duncan's death should be removed from this article now. If you think there is lack of sources, you will find some more sources in the section above. If you doubt me, or the sources I provided; then kindly search on internet for them.

On the reasoning/sources provided above, kindly provide your comments if death of Isadora Duncan should remain (KEEP), or should it be removed (DELETE)?

Thank you. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://zeenews.india.com/news/videos/dna/dna-aiims-issues-warning-about-strangulation-by-dupattas-and-saris-causing-death_1975405.html
  2. ^ http://zeenews.india.com/news/videos/dna/dna-aiims-issues-warning-about-strangulation-by-dupattas-and-saris-causing-death_1975405.html
@Captainllama, TJRC, and Martinevans123: informing you guys about RfC. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would agree with the lead, that for an "unusual" death to be included which has happened multiple times, then the method still must be so unusual as to be essentially unique - to the point where if the bizarre event occurred multiple times, such happenstance truly boggles the mind. If the incident in question had involved Miss Duncan being first strangled, and then stomped on by a unicorn and dragged behind a caravan of sentient vampire watermelons, then that might be unusual in the sense the lead describes.And in this instance, I would say being killed by an article of clothing is hardly unusual. Items of all sorts are caught in elevators, horse carriages, car doors, bicycles, poles, escalators, you name it, all over the world all the time. (yeesh, I'm going to make myself paranoid). But to hammer home my point a bit further, only if a death is so strange it might be included in a A Thousand Ways to Die episode, then should it be included as a main list item. Perhaps if there are strong feelings that more common but still bizarre deaths should have a section, for example spontaneous combustion, a separate section or page could be created for descriptions of general strange ways to die, with multiple examples for each method. Yvarta (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ok I will take up the baton as I was the original objector to Isadora’s removal albeit on somewhat different grounds which came about due to a lack of best editing practice. When the confusion was cleared I had a degree of sympathy for usernamekiran’s case but still felt it to be mistaken without being quite sure why. I posited that maybe time and place were contributing factors to "unusualness".

Eventually 5 editors replied: @Joegoodfriend, TJRC, Canada Jack, Martinevans123, and Andy Dingley: (two of whom usernamekiran pinged) with unanimous consensus to keep, for essentially two reasons:

  1. 1. all that is required for inclusion (as has been repeatedly established and stated) is that multiple sources describe the death as “unusual” or some synonym thereof.
  2. 2. context - time and place - do indeed impact upon unusualness.

Point #1 was addressed promptly and succinctly by TJRC giving five (count ‘em, 5) good quality reliable tertiary sources. That should have sealed it right there, but usernamekiran said “maybe they didnt do enough research. This accident is extremely common in india/indian subcontinent” which runs straight into point #2.

It matters not that something is commonplace given certain specifics. In the 1950s peanut allergies were almost unheard of, unusual, in fact. Nowadays all too common. A 5-day rainstorm is perfectly ordinary in Malaysia, in the Sahara less so. One might say that it is “unusual”.

Canada Jack and Martinevans123 both made that same point. Martinevans123 referred usernamekiran to the last successful RfC which decided precisely that criterion for inclusion, and invited usernamekiran, if they wished, to to open another RfC to decide if and how this criterion should change. Note please, usernamekiran was being referred to an RfC about a bigger matter than just Isadora Duncan, it was the RfC which settled policy under which her eligiblity and that of others had been settled. Usernamekiran was invited to open an RfC to question that policy, not an RfC about Isadora. However usernamekiran is of course free to open an RfC about Isadora if they wish, and indeed have.

Usernamekiran quoted “the wikipedia article itself: This is a list of unusual deaths. This list includes only unique or extremely …” etc etc, as if it lent weight to their argument (I don’t see that it militates either for or against the issue at hand). It is a descriptive title to tell the reader what to expect from the article, not an editor’s inclusion criteria policy.

For such a policy you must look to the talk pages where it has been, and continues to be, thoroughly masticated. If you look to the top of this page (as I did) you will see the Archive Index. Look back at well-argued questions of what’s meant by “unusual”, discussion of sources, hammering out of criteria for inclusion, a mesmerising sea of Wikipedia creation at its best. You will find, as did I, that the five sources from TJRC alone make Isadora’s death eminently eligible. Read on to discover why that is, why context is deemed relevant. The concerns raised by usernamekiran have been answered maybe a dozen times.

Usernamekiran finished last time saying “ nevermind. Maybe i am confused about the criteria. I will take a leave from editing the article”. Well that’s great. Humble acceptance of the unanimous opinion of 6 editors that more study of the background is required. Or so I thought.

So what’s this now? An RfC on Isadora Duncan’s inclusion? Ignoring the RfC referenced previously? Simply repeating the points that were dealt with last time? And ignoring how they were discussed and answered? Why? Are you trying to win? Please bear in mind that that Wikipedia is collaborative not competitive when I say “up your game”. Your enthusiasm is needed but this is wasting it.

Of course *Keep, it was settled long ago if you care to look, and this RfC was answered previously in talk and raises nothing new Captainllama (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I might remind you that tallying votes is not relevant to an RFC, except to perhaps the closing editor, and distracts from the central arguments at hand. I would like to note that I disagree with the premise that all that is needed for inclusion is for reliable sources to describe an event as "unusual." Lots of people use that term, with many connotations, and so in this case it is essentially useless. An opiate overdose might be unusual in a Buddhist monastery, but it is commonplace in my hometown. This is why I agree with the editor who raised the RFC, that "unique" should be the defining characteristic of what sets these deaths apart. An overdose in a Buddhist monastery is unusual, yes, but hardly unique. This is why I feel "time and place" do not matter in this context, instead timeless exceptional uniqueness. Otherwise any death described as unusual or odd could make it on that list. 'Described as unusual' is far too broad as an inclusion criteria and too dependent on subjective viewpoint, unless we made a list of "deaths that seem unusual to Indian monks," with a separate list for "deaths that seem unusual for suburban Americans." Yvarta (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Captainllama: I am simply trying to correct the factually incorrect things. Victory or defeat matters to me nothing. Instead of what happened in the past, why dont we handle the current situations?
  • The points: I provided you many deaths similar and some exactly similar to Duncan, with many reliable sources. And yet you are stuck on "Duncan's death is unusual".
  • Your criteria itself is flawed. "A death is unusual if multiple reliable sources mention it as unusual". Seriously? So Duncan dies, an RS calls it unique. Two months later, in the period of one month 10 persons die exactly the same way but nobody calls them unique cuz of Duncan. But you are forgetting the fact Duncan isnt unique anymore, she is one of the 11 victims of the same thing. Yet you keep on saying Duncan's death is unique. The death is not unique, ergo it should deleted from the list. Use some logic, and you will realise Duncan should be removed. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Yvarta:You might remind me, but it is not relevant. No-one has tallied votes in an RfC. I merely stated that in the previous discussion (in talk, not in RfC) initiated by usernamekiran’s edit six editors reasoned against his edit and none supported it.
I also note you disagree with inclusion depending upon reliable sources describing an event as "unusual." That too is not relevant here. This is an RfC on the inclusion of Isadora Duncan’s death, not an RfC on the criteria for inclusion. The criteria for inclusion has been settled, for now, by previous RfCs, and Duncan’s death clearly obviously amply and unambiguously meets the criteria. If you wish to challenge the criteria, then by all means initiate a fresh RfC with that agenda. If you do so and are successful in changing the criteria, then that is the time to come here and argue that Duncan should be removed for not meeting the criteria. Until then kindly refrain from muddying the water.
For others of a similar mindset I will simplify. The criteria for inclusion is not the issue here. The issue is whether Isadora Duncan’s death meets the criteria. The criteria for inclusion is a separate, larger issue, and if you wish to take it up please save time by looking at the archives to see what the currently settled criteria actually are. Duncan’s death clearly meets the currently settled criteria. Don’t come here arguing she should be removed because you don’t like the criteria, start an RfC to change the criteria. But research the history first so you at least know what you’re talking about.
  • @Usernamekiran:For crying out loud it is not MY criteria.!! If you don’t like the criteria, here is NOT the place to bring it up. This is an RfC on Duncan’s inclusion, NOT an RfC on what the criteria should be. If you don’t like the criteria then start a(nother - yet another) RfC on THAT. But first at least do the other editors who have honourably argued that point long and hard the courtesy of reading and understanding how we came to our current position. Not to do so is simply rude.Captainllama (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I guess Ms Duncan will always generate controversy. Let's say this: here death was remarkable. We know it's remarkable because many people have remarked on and probably still do. In fact, its one of the more famous deaths. At this point, Duncan is more famous for how she died than how she lived.
Everybody, eventually, learns about how Isadora Duncan died, usually when they're 14 or something. Very few people react with "So? Happens all the time in India". Maybe the do if they're in India. But most people aren't in India (although a lot are). They're usually like "Gee, how odd" or something. It actually is considered an odd an unusual way for her to have died among her people (that is, 20th century Europeans / Westerners).
Maybe think of it like this: if, down the line, the Supreme Court of the United States decides that Donald Trump must face trial by ordeal and this proves fatal, that (IMO) would be an unusual death, notwithstanding that hundreds of people have died that way. It would be unusual in his context since he doesn't live in 13th century Europe. Same deal for Duncan: unusal in her context of being a 20th century European person. Herostratus (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Captainllama: the criteria is not a "golden rule". Let's put the criteria aside. As I stated, it has been proved that there are more than 100 similar deaths, then why can't we user just a little logic/sense of our own and remove Duncan?
  • @Herostratus: Death of John F. Kennedy:
    Always generates controversy?: Yes
    Remarkable?: Yes
    Have many people remarked on, and still do?: Yes, and yes.
    Famous death?: Yes
    More famous for how he died than how he lived?: (comparatively) Yes
    I don't see Jack's death in the list.  
    Also, kindly look at Yvarta's comment above. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • OK. Well, you can make a case for Kennedy I guess. I wouldn't vote for it because "20th century American, shot" is not unusual, and "19th-20th American President, shot" is not unusual given the small class, and while "20th century American, shot by a high-powered rifle from above while in a convertible" is quite unusual, that's too specific.
I mean, I see what you're saying. Here's another take: people are going to expect to find Duncan here, I suppose. If they don't, they'll snort and figure we just have an incomplete list. I don't see the harm in being a little flexible about it. (If I thought people would expect to find Kennedy here, that might be a good argument for putting him in too. But while I don't know, my guess is that people won't expect to find Kennedy here.)
OK, I read Yvarta. It's not exactly that she's wrong, we're just coming from different places. "This is why I feel 'time and place' do not matter in this context, instead timeless exceptional uniqueness" is an valid and defensible opinion, I just don't agree with it, in this case.
We do apparently have to keep this article trimmed and keep people from adding their neighbor who drowned in the swimming pool or whatever. Duncan is one entry and so it doesn't matter much either way so the cost of being a little flexible is low, but if it causes the floodgates to open, that will be a problem. If we reach a state where people are bringing in tons of scarf-deaths and automobile-deaths and dancer-deaths and citing Duncan as the precedent and it becomes annoying, that'll be different. But we can revisit the issue when and if that happens. Nobody has asserted that its a problem yet. Herostratus (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
But Duncan's death is usual. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Edwardx: you mean, if five good sources describe it as unusual, the other deaths (also described by good sources) never took place? Maybe these people are living with Elvis. Also, nobody is stopping you from creating (inaccurate) content. You can ignore this RfC and carry on with creating (inaccurate) content. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Usernamekiran, I cannot see what point you are trying to make - what "other deaths"? And why the apparently ad hominem comments at the end? Edwardx (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Edwardx: the other deaths of exact same fashion, as per WP:RS. I apologise for the ad hominem comment. You indirectly stated that I was creating obstacles in the creation of content by this inaccurate argument. That made me angry. This is not an inaccurate argument. And you pinged my talkpage, not me. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, while I'm in favor of keeping the article, it's basically on a combination of 1) narrow grounds (it is unusual in context, same as a 21st century American death in a formal duel would be unusual in context), and because 2) it's famous, and so I think people will expect to find it here and it fits and there's no harm, which is kind of WP:IAR grounds.
However, I don't find the argument "Five good sources describe it as unusual" to be particularly worthwhile. An argument has been advanced and proved that it is not unusual, in a broad context which it is reasonable to adopt. Since it's not true (if you accept the broad context), who cares what reliable sources say? They're wrong and its just their opinion. If for some reason 20 notable and usually-reliablesources described Angela Merkel as being a 12 meter tall sentient jellybean, we still probably wouldn't describe her that way in her article, because its obviously not true. Reliable sources are a tool for figuring out what to tell the reader is true, but they're not an oracle, and no rule can force us to tell readers things that obviously aren't true.
Again, I don't think its obviously not true that Duncan's death is unusual. It comes down to opinion, what context you want to use for "unusual". Herostratus (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
So we should add content to fit expectations of readers, and avoid facts? —usernamekiran(talk) 15:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Why is she "expected" to be on the list? If she is known for her death, good work by angel of death, and good for Duncan's article. I dont see why it should give her death place in this article. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Just because others died in the same way doesn't make the death "usual", it still remains unusual compared to common causes of deaths, like heart diseases, traffic accidents or cancer. And Duncan is one of the famous victims, if not the only famous one. Brandmeistertalk 15:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Brandmeister: by that logic, all the other people who died this way should be added in this article. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

  Comment: here is a "reliable source" stating Duncan's death is common: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23986150 —usernamekiran(talk) 15:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

If among people who died like that there's one WP:NOTABLE, I don't think we should exclude him/her. Besides, that source says "the possibility of death from strangulation by a scarf getting caught in the wheel spokes of a vehicle was brought to the public's attention when the world famous dancer Isadora Duncan died" and that this is even sometimes called "Isadora Duncan syndrome" ([5], [6]). Brandmeistertalk 16:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Brandmeister: not sure whats your point here. Yes, "it (the method of dying) was brought to public's attention" by her death. Doesnt make her death unusual or unique. "It is sometimes called Isadora Duncan syndrome" because there more incidents like it to be called. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The point is because she brought it to public attention and this manner of death is named after her, they are another reasons for keeping. Brandmeistertalk 16:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between WP:OR and common logic. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per TJRC. Seraphim System (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Re: 'all that is required for inclusion (as has been repeatedly established and stated) is that multiple sources describe the death as “unusual” or some synonym thereof' – TH=hat's not good enough. If the "death type" has become more commonplace today, the sources that called it unusual back then are no longer valid, as obsolete. If this way of dying was actually more common than thought even back then, those souces are invalid, as unreliable in this instance (i.e., ignorant of the facts about such deaths).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Summoned by bot. Seems to fit the criteria. I'd suggest removing the second sentence as this death did not occur in South Asia. Coretheapple (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Coretheapple: In a newspaper, I read about a person died cuz his foot slept on his slippery terrace. He is the only person to die this way in that small village. People from this village call it unusual. Should we add it here? The list is not about unusual deaths in particular region. Thats the whole point. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Might be a typical way to die in India. In the US/England/Europe it's unusual. Pretty much all I have to say. Good luck with the article. Coretheapple (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Kanchan Nath- crushed by a palm tree

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Don't think it qualifies yet, but it may eventually do once enough sources are found. "Freak mishap" 181.115.9.167 (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The current criterion for inclusion is "noted as being unusual by multiple sources". So the description "freak mishap" counts for one source. You'd need to find a second, similar, source. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Dyatlov Pass incident

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should Dyatlov Pass incident be added to the list? Seems as unusual as the death of Elisa Lam, which is in the list. Danilcha (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I could be is you have a source that describes is as "unusual". The deaths seem to have been more "unexplained" than unusual, but I imagine many have characterised them as "very odd". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Spanish woman decapitated by lift

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You probabily want to add this one. It's very strange. Sadly this woman was crushed when she was lying in a portable bed when she was just finished doing labor and was being relocated from one floor to another.

Here (spanish) --> http://www.abc.es/sociedad/abci-muere-mujer-seccionada-ascensor-hospital-sevillano-valme-201708201717_noticia.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaumeAl (talk • contribs) 12:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

--223.24.101.237 (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Death by sauna

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article 'World Sauna Championships' includes details of an incident in 2010 where a Russian contestant died. That article already refers to here in the 'See also' section, but this page doesn't include the case. Maybe somebody more able and willing can decide if that case is relevant here? 80.146.191.155 (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know that death was unique. The problem is that the primary source given in that article does not describe the death as "unusual". So another source would have to be found. I'd suggest adding it to the holding list at Talk:List of unusual deaths/Sourcing issues. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of unusual deaths. 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:

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) 20:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of unusual deaths. 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:

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) 08:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

@EEng: You have missed the headline when translating "Стример World of Tanks нелепо погиб дома после игры" ("Streamer of World of Tanks died bizarrely at home while playing", the keyword being "bizarrely"). Unless there are no further reservations, I'm restoring this case. Brandmeistertalk 19:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I added trans-title to the ref, but Google gives "ridiculously". I'm no Russian scholar, so I can't dispute that. It's not ideal to hang inclusion on a non-English headline. I guess we must regard Izvestia as a WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I do have further reservations. The requirement, as stated at the top of this page, is "high quality sources", an unsigned five-sentence online post with an offhand word in a headline isn't that. EEng 21:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Native Russian speaker here, "bizarrely" is one of the accurate translations of "нелепо" in that context. Izvestia has the same quality, as the majority of other sources used in the article. If one doubts, WP:RSN is the way, otherwise it could not be discarded. As a side note, Daily Mirror merely confirms this case, that is it's not the news coming solely from a tabloid newspaper. Brandmeistertalk 09:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The Mirror is a tabloid. EEng 13:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't mind its removal in any case. Also, when put as a standalone word in Google Translator, "нелепо" is "absurdly" which is basically what I wrote. Brandmeistertalk 13:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
This Belarusian TV news source, Stolichnoe Televidenie, just calls it "tragic" [7]. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, with the 50-year anniversary of MLK's assasination coming up, it really makes you think how much this video gamer could have done for humanity had his life not been cut short when he fell down drunk into a glass cabinet. Tragic indeed. EEng 13:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Originally I had thought there was some irony attached to playing "World of Tanks" and then falling into a glass tank. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Or Trump getting sliced to pieces by his cabinet. Something like that. EEng 13:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Being among a Greek tyrant, a drug dealer, a cactus shooter, etc. he's not alone in that list, obviously. Not everyone had the occasion to die on top of Saint Helena. I'm sure MLK's anniversary will get a far more prominent place. Brandmeistertalk 14:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Article getting filled with crap again

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As usual, short-sighted users have been adding every freak accident story reported by the news media to this aricle. Tabloid sources desperate for material are not reliable sources for what constitutes an unusual death. Check the archives for the consensus that was hashed out some years ago. Abductive (reasoning) 20:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Would you class The Independent, or the BBC News, as a "tabloid that provides crap"? If "every freak accident story" featured in the tabloid press was added to "fill" this article, we would have been very much busier turfing it out. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

New Brunswick python attack

Latest comment: 6 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion

It's been added and removed twice now, and the source associated with it said nothing about it being unusual. In digging for other sources, I've been poking through the sources from the corresponding Wikipedia page. I have an article from CBS with a quote of "I can't believe this is real" and one from CBC with "this is, like, a one-in-a-million-shot deal that this would actually happen." If those sources were added in, how would everyone feel about including the deaths? Neither says "unusual" specifically, but that certainly seems to be the feel of the quotes. NekoKatsun (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Right. I think that applying some common sense is also applicable. Recorded death by a python attack is certainly unusual.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 17:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Specially when considering that several of the people in this list died by laughter, indigestion, or a combination of both.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 17:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
No - person killed by an animal that is capable of killing a person is a vast category of deaths. Each one may strike onlookers as unusual but they're not that uncommon within the world covered by wikipedia - news quotes of locales commenting on how unusual it seems to them aren't enough. It's tragic and horrible, of course, but the circumstances of death-by-animal have to be incredibly unusual for inclusion here - a snake escaping and attacking prey is not unusual. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
"Seventeen people have died from constrictor snake related incidents in the United States since 1978, including one person who suffered a heart attack during a violent struggle with his python and a woman who died from a Salmonella infection. Four babies sleeping in their cribs, as well as three other children have been squeezed to death by large constrictor snake" says the Humane Society http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/wildlife/captive/constrictor-snake-attacks.pdf - so not, alas, unusual - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the statistic. A pity that the Humane Society doesn't give us those instances as a percentage of all deaths in that country over the same timespan. Even if it did, of course, we don't currently use such sensible criteria for inclusion here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
So this article should have 17 different entries for people killed by pythons in the US? Plus X more for similar deaths around the world? And articles about each person killed by a crocodile and pet tiger and hippo (tons of those in Africa), etc. etc. ? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. Hence the need for the case to be more unusual. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
To me, it sounds like while the method of death may not be unusual in the grand scheme of things - as you point out - the strange and rare bit is the snake being unlawfully kept and somehow squeezing through a vent that was 1) apparently too small and 2) apparently out of reach. And then as it was slithering its snakey way towards freedom, the duct collapsed at the worst possible time and in the worst possible place. That's the unusual bit to me, the collection of improbable circumstances that led to the deaths. The snake shouldn't have been there, it shouldn't have been able to get out because of the height, it shouldn't have been able to get out because of the vent cover and size, the duct just happened to collapse, and there just happened to be a pair of children who wouldn't have been there on any other day. NekoKatsun (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, if there were 17 instances of reliable sources describing each one as "unusual". That's the current position. We have no agreed way of assessing what is "more unusual", whether you think that's needed or not. But by all means start an RfC if you feel you can take this forward. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the straw man, but I never stated that "person killed by an animal" was unusual. The source provided further supports the rarity of deaths by pythons, when considering that people dying from snake-related incidents (in the US) amount to 17 in 34 years, or .5 per year. Also, only two WP articles are related to death by snakes, these being the List of fatal snake bites in Australia and List of fatal snake bites in the United States. These articles only concern snake bites. However, the case presented by NekoKatsun refers specifically to death by snake strangulation, which in and of itself is pretty unusual (and a rare behavior by the python, according to sources in the 2013 New Brunswick python attack). So, yes, this incident seems like it should be included in this list of recorded unusual deaths. Regards.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 19:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
0.5 deaths per year, out of (how many?) annual deaths in the US, does indeed seem to provide reliably reported evidence of it's unusualness. But applying that statistical comparison would be WP:OR. wouldn't it? And who's to say these kind of deaths are not very common (and under reported) in other parts of the world? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This is neither an article on very unusual deaths nor somewhat unusual deaths. I don't understand what makes you, David, an expert on the commonality of unusual deaths. Martin is right that, as long as the source indicates that the nature of the death was unusual, then it should be included in this article. Death itself isn't unusual; we're all going to be dead, like it or not. The circumstance(s) leading to death is what is being considered as unusual. NekoKatsun is right that the kids' deaths by the Python was very unusual.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 22:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Good luck with that - if we're going to list any death around the world that is called "very unusual" by a news report we'll have to literally add scores, maybe hundreds, of items every day. Editorial subjectivity (a.k.a. "what makes you an expert?") is required to keep this admittedly borderline article from becoming a pointlessly massive trivia dump. Which it probably already is, to be honest. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Just to remind folks what is clearly written at the top of this page:
"... the clear policy based consensus is to keep this list only to those 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."
I've no particular view of the New Brunswick python "attack".It seems to me likely me that the phrase "one-in-a-million-shot deal", used by the former employee of the Reptile Ocean pet store, in the source provided by NekoKatsun, is likely to have been used in the common idiomatic sense rather than in the sense it might be used by a herpetological epidemiologist. That said, it sounds like a perfectly acceptable simile of "unusual" and so could be used to support the entry. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes I think this page should revert to its original form: List of people who died with turtles on their heads. That would certainly make for less arguing! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Turtles are people too, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
No, I remembered it wrong: It was actually List of people who died with tortoises on their heads - which makes much more sense. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, you know, as they say... "war happens". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

V. Kamaraj meteorite death

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is no confirmation that this was a meteorite.[1]

A small meteorite would quickly reach terminal velocity and not create an explosion as was claimed case in this instance.[2]

47.151.244.159 (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/it-was-not-a-meteorite-fall/article8311566.ece/
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event#Airbursts

Antiquity - Empedocles

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There's no mention in the article of whether Empedocles died or not. Does someone have a source verifying either case? Anrza (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The second source provided says: "Some academics think the story of his unusual death is a legend". Also, the list's note below the section says "Many of these stories are likely to be apocryphal". Brandmeistertalk 16:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

2018: Elaine Herzberg

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Does anybody actually consider Elaine Herzberg's death unusual? For the most part, it's just a high profile pedestrian death due to a car accident. Automobile accidents are some of the most common causes of death in our society.

I suppose it could be argued that it's unusual because it's the first self-driving car incident, but do we really wish to count 'first deaths' as unusual? I don't see e.g. the first automobile death, first airplane death, first death due to removal from life support, etc. Shouldn't we include those if Herzberg is left in on the basis of it being a 'first death'? Does this even count as a first death, since there have been so many deaths due to automobiles and self-driving cars are just a special type of automobile?

It could also be argued that it's unusual due to the fact it was high-profile or a large institution changed it's policy in response but... is that really enough to include it in this list? I don't see e.g. Matthew Shepard's death here. His death gained international attention, incited a decade of LGBT activism culminating in the passing of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act a decade later, and inspired numerous artistic works (plays, music, etc). I think Shepard's is just one of many that should be included in the list if this Herzberg is left in simply due to how high profile the death was or the fact that a large corp/govt changed their policies.

64.228.83.21 (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

At the moment, it's not just unusual, it's unique! So, I'd say yes it belongs. Maybe in five years, no. (Note that we also have the "first person killed by a robot"). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I note that the first source also says this: "Tesla Motors was the first to disclose a death involving a self-driving car in 2016 when the sensors of a Model S driving in autopilot mode failed to detect a large white 18-wheel truck and trailer crossing the highway. The car drove full speed under the trailer, causing the collision that killed the 40-year-old behind the wheel in the Tesla." But yes, Herzberg was the first pedestrian. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I mean, a lot of ways to die that are unique or infrequent in some capacity (probably more than we want to list here). Perhaps for something to be considered unusual there should also be something unexpected, odd, or bizarre about it? 1983: Jimmy Ferrozzo seems like an obvious inclusion to me because it's not just an infrequent type of death, it's also odd enough that I can safely say I've never thought about something like it happening. Hertzberg seems less unusual because, while self-driving car deaths are currently infrequent, they have been widely anticipated in tech circles for years leading up to the first event. It may be that the criteria for inclusion/exclusion in the page is unclear. 64.228.83.21 (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
You are aware, aren't you, of the notice at the top of this page which says this (my emphasis added):
"Thus, absent a clear majority in favor of an IAR position, and given the clear policy arguments in support of a normal WP:V approach, the clear policy based consensus is to keep this list only to those 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."
To summarize - after a great deal of discussion, at various AfDs and RfCs, that is the only currently agreed criterion for inclusion. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I am aware of that, and I am absolutely baffled as to why you think the part you emphasized is at odds with what I'm saying...64.228.83.21 (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
If everything in here meets the criteria, then that sort of implies this list is incomplete and should be marked as such. There are a lot of deaths that are "in some way exceptional" that aren't listed here despite having plenty reliable sources. I mean, President Kennedy isn't even on here. I feel like that's a pretty exceptional and unusual death with lots of high quality sources.64.228.83.21 (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Just provide the source(s) that JFK's death was "unusual" and we'll go from there. I would think it 99.99% certain this list is "incomplete", although I'm not sure what tagging it as such will really add. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Aaaand as I'm reading more and more of the AFDs I'm realizing I think I just want to back away from this debate slowly. This seems like a polarizing topic with lots of opinions on both sides and no clear solution.64.228.83.21 (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Herzberg's status as the only person to have been struck and killed by a self-driving car seems unusual enough to me personally, but the sources cited don't refer to her death as unusual (the BBC source even quotes someone stating that "the fatality should be considered in the context of all accidents"). I feel like this should go in the holding tank for now; I don't doubt that as time passes and more experts comment, this will qualify for inclusion eventually. And for what it's worth, the article is noted as a dynamic list that may never be technically complete. :) NekoKatsun (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Steve Irwin

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Martin, I'm not sure what the appropriate method of communication is on Wikipedia as I am relatively new around here. I was just curious as to the reason why Steve Irwin was removed from the list after I added him? Surely it is an unusual death in the bigger picture? Pgwolvsa (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I saw in the archives that the strangeness of his death is in dispute... I would argue that, even though to Steve Irwin it is not the most unexpected death, in the bigger picture of humanity and ways to die it is certainly unusual. Or do many people die from stingray attacks?Pgwolvsa (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pgwolvsa, thanks for asking. Subjectively I tend to agree with you. But it's quite simple - at Wikipedia in general we don't need to consider any "bigger picture of humanity" and for this article in particular the criterion for inclusion is a quiet clear: a "high quality source" (i.e. WP:RS) that describes the death as "in someway exceptional" (see the note at the top of this Talk page. Hope this helps. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, Martinevans123. I understand the criterion better now.Pgwolvsa (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Would this source count, for instance? Bizarre Death of Crocodile Hunter, Shears R, Daily Mail, 05 September 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgwolvsa (talk • contribs) 10:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The Daily Mail would not be a good source because they tend to sensationalise. Better would be:
  1. NYT – "deaths from ray attacks are unusual"
  2. The Telegraph – "his unusual and untimely death"
  3. National Geographic – "The doctor who treated Irwin described his death as 'highly unusual.'"
(... and because the Daily Mail is currently banned at Wikipedia, of course.) Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Heated Petanque ball explodes, killing person

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As of April 2018 there are at least two documented cases of people having been killed by an exploding petanque boule. Information about these cases, and the cause of the phenomenon, are discussed on my blog "All about Petanque" in the posts in this category: https://petanque.wordpress.com/category/equipment/exploding-boules/ StephenFerg (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Heated Petanque ball explodes, killing firefighter. September 3, 2017.

English

Thai

Should this death be included?

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Someone with more time and know-how on how to edit Wikipedia could perhaps add it, if it's acceptable: "First picture of mum killed after being 'sucked out of Southwest plane' during mid-air engine explosion" - https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/first-picture-of-mum-killed-after-being-sucked-out-of-southwest-plane-during-mid-air-engine-explosion/ar-AAvZI9A?li=BBoPWjQ

It's stated in the article: "Jennifer Riordan, a banking executive with Wells Fargo, suffered fatal injuries as a result of the bizarre incident on Southwest flight 1380." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C88:4000:D007:31AD:8209:FC11:1364 (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I personally deem this death to be quite unusual, and with the news article labeling it as 'bizarre' I believe it's strong enough basis to include; I've added it for now, but if others feel it is not the case, feel free to remove it and continue discussion on this page. TIA :) ◄Sandshark23► talk♦contribs 10:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree, sources support inclusion. I have the same "personal opinion", although that's actually wholly irrelevant here. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah, why did I even take 'personal opinion' into consideration here - silly me! :P ◄Sandshark23► talk♦contribs 13:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
-@Sandshark23: - This is not the first case (not that it is required), but you have National Airlines Flight 27 (1973) a passenger who was completely ejected and his skeletal remains were FOUND only years later. British Airways Flight 5390 (1990) where the captain (out of all important people on board any aircraft) was partialy ejected out of a window and died as a result. Since this story is recent, out of respect to the family i'd say to remove. They don't deserve seeing that name on a List of unusual deaths. I'd suggest an older story like the 1973 incident makes more sense, and that story is even more unusual. Bohbye (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
-@Bohbye: Good point..I still feel like it classifies though - @Martinevans123: helped me add the entry to the page; what do you think Martin? ◄Sandshark23► talk♦contribs 03:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Sandshark and Bohbye. I have sympathy for your view, Bohbye and yes, personally those other two cases seem to me to be at least as unusual. But the criterion for inclusion here is very clear: "... 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." We don't get to include on the basis of personal opinion nor exclude on the basis of respect for a deceased's family. All we need is sources that describe the death as "unusual" or equivalent. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The captain of British Airways Flight 5390 did not die, so is ineligible for listing here. WWGB (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
My bad, and crossed it out. Thanks for the correction. Bohbye (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I will ask here the same question I asked on another talk page, what would you do if 20 people died in that accident, all sucked out of the aircraft window. Would you list all 20 names? still very unusual, isn't it?. Trying to understand the difference. Bohbye (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Probably not. The Great Molasses Flood of 1919, which killed 21, is currently included here, but none of the victims are named. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Sucked into jet engine

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Even articles on this incident mention previous incident in India [8] [9], and there have been others worldwide. Abductive (reasoning) 17:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no place for WP:OR in this article, sorry. We just go by how WP:RS sources describe a death. Ad this is not a list of "unique deaths". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not OR, that's your definition of OR. Furthermore, I can find reliable secondary sources that say certain kinds of events are common. So, a primary source (a tabloid) says "freak!" and then secondary sources say "not freak". Secondary sources beat primary sources on an encyclopedia. Abductive (reasoning) 17:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that's a pretty common definition of OR. If the source is a tabloid, then I agree it should not be used. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lists_of_unusual_deaths/Archive_13&oldid=1259108776"