Talk:Lists of unusual deaths/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

specific example no. 2

Jacquelyn Kotorac, 49, a physician from Bakersfield, California, died of asphyxiation when she became trapped in the chimney of her boyfriend's home while attempting to break in.[221] - a Google search finds several other cases where a burglar died after getting stuck in a chimney, including a gem [1] in which the skeleton was found 15 years later ... so this one goes. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, she wasn't a burglar. But if there are several other cases, easily found, I would agree that it's not worth looking to see if a source could be found which describes it as unusual. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll: Inclusion criteria

Before changing the article, I would like to gather informally editors' opinions on updating the inclusion criteria and whether there are any policy based objections or alternative proposals.

Proposal: That in order to better meet Wikipedia:LIST#Lead_section_or_paragraph "The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list." and WP:UNDUE "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." and WP:BURDEN / WP:OR "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." / "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research;" the lead section of this article be changed from "This is a list of unusual deaths. This list contains unique or extremely rare circumstances of death recorded throughout history. This list also includes less rare, though still unusual, deaths of prominent people." to "This is a list of unusual deaths; unique or extremely rare circumstances of death recorded throughout history. These are incidents which have been noted in multiple sources discussing the topic of unusual deaths."

• support as proposer. The proposed wording change appears to address most of the policy concerns that have been brought up during the discussions.-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• Question, as I asked previously, what does "discussing" mean? Does that rule out simple lists and compendia? (and is it assumed that "sources" means WP:RS? or should this be spelled out?) And how is it decided what is RS? e.g. this could be reliable, but are those deaths really strange? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I was looking for a better word than "discuss", perhaps "multiple sources focusing on the topic of unusual deaths". I would see something like a "list of unusual deaths", if published in a reputable manner, as being exactly the type of source we would want. That way we are assured that the use of "unusual death" is indeed what we have in mind. (However, Tumblr is not a reliable source unless the account is from someone who has established credentials in the field of unusual deaths. WP:SPS)-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, another subsidiary question - what exactly are "credentials in the field of unusual deaths"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
      • click the link to WP:SPS.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
        • so you are saying that anything that's not WP:SPS is ok? I had assumed that there might be some professionally recognised qualifications, but wasn't sure what they were. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
          • I am not aware of any "certification for deathology", and so the standard WP:RS criteria apply. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Nor I. But pathologists, health and safety professionals, medical specialists (as suggested a few weeks ago), spring to mind. I think your suggestion represents a good start, and I might well support, but I am still mulling over its apparent restrictiveness and whether it would inevitably lead to an "agreed list of authoritative texts". So I am still considering. Sorry to have already jumped back into debate mode. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
              • I think that a general restrictiveness is required in order to produce an encyclopedic article and not just indicriminate collection of factiods. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I would be VERY restrictive with regards to sources, alng the lines of WP:HISTRS. Popular journalism, pop lit, blogs, websites and other sources written for etertainment rather that scholarly value are flat out. The sources will have to be:

1)very well referenced;

2)clearly discuss the deaths in question as unique or extremely rare and noteworthy (not just "unusual"- there are thousands of those every day);

3)written by someone with a clear claim to competence, such as academic historians or relevent medical professionals;

4)GLOBAL in scope, both chronologically and geographically; and

5)have a high impact factor as determined by sales or, better, citations; obscure, neglected publications, even by qualified scholars, are next to worthless.

There also have to be multiple such sources for each item, and the sources have to be independent of each other, and not derived one from the other.

There also has to be evidence of persistent coverage. News items that are never mentioned again are flat out, regardless of the number of sources. A good rule would be the ten year rule; a death that has not be substatially discussed in high-quality sources ten years or more after the fact can be presumed to lack noteworthiness.

That sets the bar pretty high, but set it any lower, and you'll just end up with an indiscriminate list of trivia. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, "less rare, though still unusual, deaths of prominent people" are flat out. For example, Pope John XII was stabbed when his lover's husband returned home unexpectedly to find them in flagrante delicto. A very unusual death for a Pope, but, unfortunately, an extremely banal death otherwise.

Barring very strict criteria and a substantial trimming of this list to 30 or so items at the maximum, I would agree with jc37 that the article should be deleted as an indiscriminate and unmanageable list of trivia. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Should we take this as a "No, I dont support the change"? or a "Go ahead and make the change but it is still going to fail the way that policies should be applied to the article"?-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

re your request for global coverage flies in the face that most unusual deaths are from America and preceded by "Hold my beer and watch this." -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

In terms of weird deaths from "hold my beer and watch this", the US is not even in the running, easy access to guns notwithstanding. Russia alone outpaces the US by several orders of magnitude. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No. It means that I would agree with the change, but only if the sources used are independently multiple and top-notch along the lines of WP:HISTRS, as I have outlined above (after all, this is essentially a history related article). If lower quality sources are used, then the list just becomes an indiscriminate list of trivia, and there is no place for that on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• I largely agree with User:Dominus Vobisdu about sources, and especially about the unusual-ness of deaths of prominent people; the mode of death would have to be unusual for all people. However, Wikipedia policy and guidelines do not support a set number of items, and, since "AfD is not cleanup", this list will not be deleted given that it could be curated correctly. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of reportedly haunted locations for a better understanding of what the consensus is for this sort of list. Abductive (reasoning) 17:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The thirty items or so would be among my personal criteria of whether the list was being curated correctly or not. Any more than about that, and you run into the connundrum of unusual deaths not being all that unusual. That would indicate that the list has become nothing more than a indiscriminate collection of trivia. It's more a signpost that something has gone wrong, and that the sourcing requirements have to be more strictly enforced. I'm open to discussion about the number of items that should set off alarms, but that is my starting point. Much more important for me, though, is the use of multiple sources of the highest quality. That should bring the size of the list down to the point where it could be managed effectively. A much bigger red flag to me is the use of popular journalism, pop lit, blogs and websites as sources. That definitely proves that something is wrong with the list. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Multiple reliable secondary sources should converge, Venn diagram-like, on a good list. Abductive (reasoning) 21:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It's been quite common for entries to be removed once it becomes apparent that the circumstances or mechanism isn't (or has become less than) unusual. There have also been several instances of entries added with less that "main stream" sources. Confirmed sources is an absolute must. BUT, I would like to see editors avoid slashing their way through the article without making an attempt to add a source first. All too often there have been several sources available, but the editor opts to delete the entry instead. --JeffJ (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

yeah , but that contradicts WP:BURDEN. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

for however long this straw poll, and the wider debate continues... what exactly is the basis for removal of new entries as given in the edit summary: 1) the subjective opinion of an editor that a mechanism or circumstance of death is "not unusual"; 2) the fact that no source is provided which states the death was unusual; 3) some other reason(s)? Might it not be helpful to at least establish this? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrong question, Martin. The question is why they should be included, not excluded. Basically anything that does not have a solid basis for inclusion is excluded by default. You're trying to shift the burden here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree, Dominus. I am merely aiming for some consistency that will give clarity to new editors who add items on the basis that they personally think they are unusual. Would it be equally acceptable for me to remove with an edit summary such as "Islamic protesters deserved to die" or "not unusual, I saw one yesterday". This is not "trying to shift the burden", it's just two sides of the same coin. It's just applying an agreed (or at least proposed) criterion consistently, that's all. Or are you really telling me that RPoD's personal opinion is a valid reason for deletion? Even he does not claim that (most of the time). Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Disagreeing with the edit summary, no matter how outrageous, does not give one license to restore the material. Material can be included only if it meets the criteria for inclusion. You are indeed shifting the burden. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Um, where did I say that it does give license to restore? The criteria for inclusion should not be subjective opinions. The criteria for exclusion should not be subjective opinions. How does that count as "shifting the burden?" Martinevans123 (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

one can challenge and remove for any reason- it is not prohibited to remove on the basis of my personal opinion alone (excepting edit wars and WP:POINT). however, one cannot restore content that is no appropriately sourced and NOT in violation of policy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

If that's policy so be it. But I still think it's misleading and particularly so here, in the midst of this debate. Just my personal opinion! I have never restored material simply because I disagreed with the edit summary, and I have never suggested that anyone else does so. I honestly believe that using an edit summary such as "source does not describe the death as unusual" gives a pretty clear indication of what is expected for it to be re-added. It might also be appropriate, of course, to add in some cases "not an WP:RS source". Just putting "not unusual" may be a valid challenge, but it's not a helpful or informative challenge. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Seeing no outright opposition I have inserted a modified version of the above, since asserting the version as proposed would lead to every item on the list currently failing to meet the stated criteria. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

specific example no. 3 - more complicated

2009: Jonathan Campos, an American sailor charged with murder, killed himself in his Camp Pendleton, San Diego, California, cell by stuffing toilet paper into his mouth until he asphyxiated.[215]

This source [2] describes suicide by toilet paper that it describes as unusual (ta-da!!!!) ... however, it's not Jonathan Campos, it's an earlier suicide by a mental patient. I don't have details because only the paper's abstract is available online, and I suspect the ID of the person won't be shown because of medical privacy.

So the question is: does the fact that the death is described as unusual but not for this particular case - mean this death can be see as unusual? I would say it would, so I'm adding this pubmed source as a reference and leaving it in. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the deaths here do not have to be unique. So unless there are obvious sources, probably later, describing multiple examples, it should be viewed as "unusual". But why isn't the article entitled "Unique or extremely rare deaths" ? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

@DavidWBrooks: That would run afoul of WP:SYNTH. You cannot combine two sources to make your own conclusion. Besides, I doubt that it's that unusual. The Craigslist killer tried to do the same thing, for one, and then there's this prisoner, who died after he swallowed a bible. Think about it: a prisoner does not have many options for committing suicide, and toilet paper is one of the few objects available, especially in isolation. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to say this doesn't strike me as unwikipedian synthesis, so to speak - it's a perfectly legitimate use of sources, IMHO of course. We can all doubt and think that something's unusual, or not unusual, but we're trying, hard as it is, to get sources that say yes or no. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

its textbook SYN "source A says death by toilet paper is unusual" "source B says John Doe died by toilet paper" therefore "John Does death is unusual." a source can only be used for what it explicitly says. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

How exactly can an one example be less unusual than the other? Do we wait for a reference to describe someone as "worlds fifth oldest man" before he appears a such in Wikipedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

while WP:OR may be used on the talk page to make and illustrate points, all content within the article itself must be directly supported by the statements, claims and analysis of the sources themselves. so your original research of "see someone calls death by TP "unusual" that is not sufficient for inclusion in the article because your source does not specify the incident you wish to include as "unusual". And your argument is also countered by the additional talk page OR that if there are multiple deaths by toilet paper in the 21st century alone, it most certainly NOT be a "rare or unique" event. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Martin, this is not a gray area. This is a very clear violation of the policy, without question. Read it: WP:NOR. And read WP:RS, and WP:HISTRS, too. It would also be worth reading WP:NOTE and WP:NOT. And keep reading them until you thoroughly understand them. Otherwise, you are unlikely to be able to contribute productively to the discussion here. A lot of what you've been saying is not supported by policy, and therefore irrelevant. Also, stop bottom-feeding. Don't ask "what are the worst possible sources I can get away with to keep items on the list?", but "what are the best possible sources we can use to include items in the list?". Be a shark, not a carp. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you think that "a lot" of what I've been saying is "irrelevant", and that you assume I have not yet read, nor fully understood, all of those policy guidelines. Your own rebuttal of David's suggestion is based laregly on your own (common-sense) personal opinion. I don't actually remember asking the question that you give above, and I have had no intention of doing so. One question I have tried to ask has been "in the absence of a best possible source, what is still acceptable?" For example, does WP:HISTRS mean that, because that TimeLife book is not written by scholars, it is merely an "opinion piece" that cannot be used? But it's not the actual event that is in doubt, only that it can be fairly judged as "unusual". Where are these historical scholars who give general opinions on unusualness? I have not yet found them. Please stop carping about my contribution. And why can't one be an octopus? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu and TheRedPenOfDoom, can you point to an example (or more than one) of a source that would you consider suitable to keep an item in this article? Not a general description of what it should be, but an actual cite for a specific death. That would be helpful. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It has been asserted several times (by those that say the article is appropriate) that the article would pass AfD because there are reliable sources that cover the topic. If it is the consensus that those sources are reliable and cover the topic, then those would be acceptable sources that would apparently meet the communities standards. I personally have no idea what those sources might be, I havent seen them in the items that I have checked. But they would certainly need to meet WP:RS at the minimum. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you prepared to look for any? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

RedPenOfDoom, you seem to be arguing that there are no sources, none at all, which would be considered reliable and would establish unusual-ness-icity of a death - none at all. Is that what you think, or am I missing something? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It has obliquely suggested above that the one new source I have provided to support an item - the TimeLife book Shadows of Death is one of the "worst possible sources". Do you agree with this appraisal? and if so why? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources that would be good would be those that meet WP:HISTRS or WP:MEDRS: books, textbooks and academic journal articles written by academic historians, sociologists, anthropologists, pathologists and medical examiners, and other acdemic scholars who specialize in recording deaths. Non-scholarly pop-lit books and articles from the popular press on this topic are written for entertainment value only, and cannot be considered serious scholarship, their authors are rarely qualified and recognized experts as far as the study of unusual deaths is concerned, and editorial oversight and fact-checking in that area are not very stringent. Such is the case with your Time-Life book. It's just a coffee-table book, fun to read on a snowy day or a rainy night, but that's about it. Don't get me wrong: they have their value, but only as entertainment. I like to read them too for shits and giggles, and I've even watched the entire 1000 Ways to Die series. Fun? Yes. Reliable? Hell, no. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in the Time-Life book that looks unreliable to me. There is a full list of acknowledgements and sources. Have you read it? All the incidents that I have looked at so far check out completely. The only question mark in my mind is over the reliability or rather the validity, of the term "unusual", that is used to cover all the contents. That's the tricky bit. My, my your "academic journal articles written by academic historians, sociologists, anthropologists, pathologists and medical examiners" sound very impressive. Could you give one single positive example, I wonder? But my question was addressed to RedPen so let's see what he says. After all, I'm just a "bottom feeder", apparently. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that some editors have decided this article is inherently un-wikipedia-ian (not unexpected; many have argued that in AFD debates over the years) and by demanding an unreachable level of sourcing ("unless the New England Journal of Medicine titles an article "Unusual Cause of Death" then it doesn't meet WP:something") they will kill it from below, so to speak. The lack of response to requests for positive examples in contrast to the speedy responses of "that one isn't good enough", leads me to this suspicion. But it's early days yet.- DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

uhhh, as far as I know, the burden of evidence is on the person who wishes to add or restore content to provide appropriate sources. the return to casting aspersions at editors motives rather than discussing article content is not a good sign.-- The Red Pen of Doom 05:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

hmmm, fellow editors not answering simple questions, repeated many times, is not that good either. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Your question was answered above. Several times, in fact. If you want this list saved, get to your nearest university library and start digging up sources for what you think can be saved. Right now, it looks like just about the the whole list is undersourced, and most items are facing the ax. We're giving you the benefit of a doubt that adequate sourcing exists for some of the items on the list, but your still dilly-dallying and hand-wringing. Your time would be better spent doing actual source hunting in a university library. Culling news stories from the internet is not going to help.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I was asking RedPen for his. I don't see that askng for confirmation of WP:RS is "dilly-dallying and hand-wringing". But please don't give the benefit of any doubts, thanks. While it's raining and snowing, my time is better spent enjoying my new coffee-table book. Oh, and you forget to tell me which section of the University library I should be heading for - what's that Dewey Decimal Classification code for strange deaths, again? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

WHAT THE FUCK OTHER DEFINITION OF RELIABLE SOURCE CAN YOU POSSIBLY BE LOOKING FOR OTHER THAN THE WIKIPEIDA DEFINITION TO WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN DIRECTED MULTIPLE TIMES AND WHICH YOU HAVE LINKED YOURSELF????????? -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

hmmm, tasteful use of red pen there. But glad we have now all agreed that "2. Where scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works should be used." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The definition does seem to support your Time-Life book as a source, even if some of us find it dubious. That is a slippery slope, however, which explains the caution of our scarlet-penned pal: we don't want this article to become a copy of every "list of funny deaths" book in the world. How do we differentiate? It's a tough line to walk, but saying "all books are non-reputable sources" seems excessive. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I raised this as a general issue several weeks ago. But my persistence in trying to get a straight answer about claim validity from this one source has led to accusations of "irrlevance", "bottom feeding", "culling news stories from the internet" etc., etc. True, this is not a book one would expect to find in a University library. But in a local library? certainly. It's not a dodgy internet SPS, it's very professionally produced book, with sources and credits. Because it has lots of big pictures, yes you'd expect to find it on a coffee table. But I don't personally see why some coffee table could not ever be WP:RS. NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE SHOUT AT EACH OTHER ABOUT POLICY!!!!! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

here's one that stays

OK - an example that stays, if this article does exist: Acton Beale, 20, died after falling from a balcony in Brisbane, Australia, the only person known to have died while participating in a fad known as "planking".[232] The source, a reputable newspaper, describes it as: "This is thought to be the first time someone has actually died from the growing craze in which people lie face down in an unusual place before taking pictures and uploading them onto the internet." First-ever is about as unusual as it gets. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

"Careless young person dies after falling from balcony while goofing around?" Banal, and not at all rare or unique. Nothing in the slightest "unique, or very rare" about it. "First ever" deaths are also a common occurence, and the list deaths due to fads is unexhaustably long. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

"unexhaustably long" for an article sounds quite reassuring to me! Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, so Dominus Vobisdu thinks no death is "unusual" since they can all be categorized in some box which can be defined to contain other deaths. (He was stabbed to death by the last living dodo? Lots of people are killed by animals!) That's one indirect vote for blanking the article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The one thing that I can't argue against is multiple mentions in high-quality sources that conform with, for example, HISTRS. Show me those, and your item is a shoe in. Show me popular journalism, pop lit, websites and blogs, and your item is out. Yes, I'm skeptical that adequate sourcing can be found for a limited number of items, and pretty convinced that such sourcing doesn't exist for the vast bulk of them. But I'm remaining open-minded for the time being that a well-sourced list can be constructed, rather than an indiscriminate mish-mash of trivia. I'm giving you a chance to prove that it can. Take advantage of it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be telling us that "popular journalism, pop lit and websites" can never be WP:RS. Is that right? No website sources? I think I may have seen one of those used as a souce on another article or two. And how big's our "chance" exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, your argument would remove 9/10ths of the sources on wikipedia, which is loaded with news reports and the like. You seem to be establishing an unnecessarily, and artificiablly, high bar for sources here - presumably because you don't really think this article should exist. If that is your opinion, you should state it instead of using the old "I'm open-minded" hedge. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

overeating death

I have removed a deaths due to overeating (1751: Julien Offray de La Mettrie) since lots of them exist (http://amog.com/offbeat/101504-timeline-overeating-deaths/) but after a moment's though thave left Adolf Frederick, King of Sweden, who also died of overeating, because of a sourced comment that "he is thus remembered by Swedish schoolchildren as "the king who ate himself to death."" ... dunno if that makes it unusual or just notably semi-unusual. It's close. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

One might well think that being remembered by a whole nation's children would add notability. But I suspect some editors would still demand that he were remembered as ""the king who, very unusually, ate himself to death." (in Swedish, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 07:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, this article isn't List of notable deaths, so there is something to that argument. I'm torn on this one. (If it kills me, I believe that "death by wikipedia-editing uncertainty" would classify as unusual). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Be assured that I'll search those University library shelves to find you described as such. But don't count on ever getting onto my coffee table. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Dynamic list

I replaced the "dynamic list" tag with "expand list", largely because the dynamic one isn't italic, which made it visually confusing - it wasn't clear what was article and what wasn't. I wasn't able to italicize it, either; something about that tag formet. RedPenofDoom is concerned that because "expand list" doesn't specifically mention sources, it would contribute to cruft, and he has a point, so it is now tag free ... in case anybody was wondering. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Have yet to see an entry for "death-by-BEANS", but I think RedPenofDoom is probably right. While many lists might benefit from that tag, given the history here, and the recent efforts to improve, it's not quite so straightforward. I have no idea what the "optimum" size for this article might be. Does anyone have any idea how many unusual deaths have ever been recorded as such? Perhaps an impossible question. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed another one

Don't know how this one has survived, since even the writeup makes it clear that it's ironic (at best), not unusual:

1938: Ödön von Horváth was killed by a branch falling down from a tree, in June 1938, on the Champs Elysees in Paris. The branch fell because the tree was struck by lightning during a thunderstorm. The irony of it: Only a few days earlier, von Horváth had said to a friend: "I am not so afraid of the Nazis … There are worse things one can be afraid of, namely things one is afraid of without knowing why. For instance, I am afraid of streets. Roads can be hostile to one, can destroy one. Streets scare me." And a few years earlier, von Horvath had written poetry about lightning: "Yes, thunder, that it can do. And bolt and storm. Terror and destruction."

- DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Quite agree. I can't even see that much irony. Certainly not compared with poor Molière, who would certainly be spinning in his grave. Well, coughing anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

More firsts

More deaths that are, pretty much by definition, unusual and sources:

1753: Professor Georg Wilhelm Richmann, of Saint Petersburg, Russia, became the first recorded person to be killed while performing electrical experiments when he was struck and killed by a globe of ball lightning that hit him on his head.[40]

1830: William Huskisson, statesman and financier, was crushed to death by a locomotive (Stephenson's Rocket), at the public opening of the world's first mechanically powered passenger railway.[50]

1869 Mary Ward, a passenger in a steam car built by her young cousins, including the future steam turbine inventor, Charles Algernon Parsons, fell from the car and was crushed under its wheels, making her the first person to die in a road accident involving a powered vehicle.[55]

1912: Franz Reichelt, tailor, fell to his death off the first deck of the Eiffel Tower while testing his invention, the overcoat parachute. It was his first ever attempt with the parachute.[64]

1945: Scientist Harry K. Daghlian, Jr. accidentally dropped a brick of tungsten carbide onto a sphere of plutonium (known as the Demon core) while working on the Manhattan Project. This caused the plutonium to come to criticality; Daghlian died of radiation poisoning, becoming the first person to die in a criticality accident.[97]

1967: Cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov became the first person to die during a space mission after the parachute of his capsule failed to deploy following re-entry.[117

1971: Georgy Dobrovolsky, Vladislav Volkov and Viktor Patsayev, Soviet cosmonauts, died when their Soyuz-11 spacecraft depressurized during preparations for reentry. These are the only human deaths outside the Earth's atmosphere.[118]

Of course, you could argue that "lots of people have been the first person ever killed by a new invention, and therefore their deaths are not unusual", but I think that would be reductio ad absurdum. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

1912: Franz Reichelt - to avoid duplication, I'd be happy to see Reichelt just at List of inventors killed by their own inventions, before another editor removes him with the edit summary "deaths from high buildings not unusual". He get's star billing over there! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That raises a question of how (or whether) this article should/can handle unusual but similar-ish deaths - "performer dies in midst of public performance" is the classic example. Could we have an intro paragraph pointing to articles about these? (Is there a List of performers killed while performing article, or something like it?) That would help the wheat/chaff separation issue. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

But, of course: List of entertainers who died during a performance - you'll find our old friend Tommy Cooper over there. Perhaps the planking first ought to be at Darwin Awards? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've added those two to the introduction, so we can weed out duplicates from this list. Now I really need to get back to work! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

They already appear in the See also section, as does Darwin Awards. But I realise that it is quite a long way from the top of the page to the bottom! So they are useful also at the top. I wonder if such lists ought to be specifically mentioned in the eventual guidelines for adding new entries. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Embarrassingly, I hadn't noticed that see also ... I think we should move it to the top, which is unusual (but not unprecedented) in wikipedia layout. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Your embarrassment suggests that ordinary readers would be greatly helped. Sounds very sensible. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

1967: Cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov and 1971: Georgy Dobrovolsky, Vladislav Volkov and Viktor Patsayev. I think first deaths are notable by definition - but sources which describe them as "unusual" might be even less likely to be found, I fear. Nevertheless the sources for these are quite scant, even in their own articles. Factually there can be little doubt, but unless we can get an agreement about "first deaths" I am concerned that these will be lost. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I argued a variation of this. The gist of my argument was that a first occurrence of a death by a particular mechanism is always going to be unusual. For example, the planking death is unusual (although I argued against its inclusion) because of the new phenomenon of planking. Similarly, the first death by plane crash was unusual in its day. But over time we may find that more similar deaths occur and the original death is no longer unusual, so we remove it. --JeffJ (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Test case

1979: Freda Wilson, 53, of Aukland, New Zealand, poisoned herself with arsenic (traces of which she knew would be discovered in a post-mortem), so that her husband James, whom she had discovered was having an affair with a younger woman, would be convicted of her murder. Freda had been complicit in James' murder of his first wife Nora (of which he was widely suspected), by means of strychnine poisoning, fifteen years previously, and knew that his denial of killing two wives consecutively would never be believed. James was duly charged with Freda's murder, which he emphatically denied, but broke down under police questioning and admitted to killing Nora. Wilson was tried, however, for Freda's murder and was found guilty. He died of a heart attack in prison less than a month later, still denying that he had killed Freda. A later investigation revealed that Freda had shared her plan with her best friend Jessica Lacey, who had been sworn to secrecy.

Source: John Dunning, Strange Deaths, London, Arrow Books, 1981, ISBN 0 09 941660 3. Dunning has written over a thousand accounts of true crimes. See also a primary source: Lethbridge Herald, 11 September 2005, page 8. Any comments? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"True Crime " books especially in the mid part of the century when he was writing were the tabloid journalism of bound printing. And if someone has cranked out 1000 books, you really have to question the level and quality of research behind them. The book would be marginal in my estimation. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Mid part? This book was written in 1981? and last re-printed in 1991. Poorly researched?! So you think the newspaper account is made up as well? Shouldn't Dunning be considered in some way an "expert"? Have you actually read his résumé? He has selected only 15 accounts for this book, which is entitled "Strange Deaths". What makes you think he's written 1000 books? Arrow list six others. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

sorry, i read "1000 accounts" as "1000 books" and I wasnt stating the the particular book was from the mid century, it was that if he had written 1000 true crime books, given his death date, he would have had to have been writing them in the mid century to reach that total. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

.. stranger things have happened. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

How much do you want to bet that Max Haines got his "primary source" story from this book. I can find no contemporary accounts, and Max Haines' column appears to be of the same factual quality as "Dear Abbey", aka the urban legend machine. Gigs (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That's quite possible, in which case it should be discounted. Except that it should be discounted anyway, for apparently being a primary source. I was more interested in seeing any valid objections as to why any of the incidents in Dunning's book should not be included here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If we can't find contemporary coverage of the crimes, then I think we should assume his book is of the same quality as the TV Show "1000 ways to die", which is almost completely fiction, even though they present it as fact. Gigs (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This needs a better search, then. And the 14 others also. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Woman kills by squeezing man's testicles

I was surprised how this story is not in the listings yet. A woman squeezes a man's testicles and he dies, all over an argument over a parking space. Source here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/woman-squeezed-mans-testicles-kills-parking-china_n_1457487.html I will let someone else add it, that updates the page on the regular. There are a lot of other sources out there on this story, if a person prefers not to use Huff Post. Stopde (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

source doesnt identify it as unusual. in fact we had another death by testicle squeezing that now appears clearly not unique. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It was the same incident. But entries don't need to be unique. --JeffJ (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless your incident about a Chinese person in a parking lot is the same as the Renaiasance stable boy in Spain, then it is two different incidents. and "This list includes unique or extremely rare circumstances of death " - if there are multiple proposed incidents of the same type, then one questions whether this could ever be anything other than an indiscriminante list. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You were vague in your response and there was another entry about the parking lot incident. If the only other incident we've encountered dates back to the Renaissance, then it appears that this type of death is extremely rare. --JeffJ (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

to quote someone in your opinion'. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You're deflecting. I qualified my statement with "If" and "appears" because we've not seen evidence to the contrary, just as I provided you with a list of awards to support my statement of journalistic recognition. Often when I've deleted an entry based on it's lack of "unusualness" I cite other examples of similar incidents in an effort to promote consensus that the entry was, in fact, not unusual. Given that you only cited one other example of death by crushed testicles, I made the qualified statement based on the evidence presented. If you disagree with my position you should offer further evidence to support your position thereby promoting consensus otherwise the lack of recorded incidents could demonstrate it's rarity. I would also argue that this would be the yardstick applied by any reliable source should it claim the death as unusual, so I didn't really go out on the limb there. That aside, let's not dwell on the testicle incident, as I'm sure others have similarly died without someone recording it for posterity. My original intent was to point out that incidents need not be "unique".--JeffJ (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Consensus sources

Does anybody have copies of The People's Almanac and The Book of Lists? One or both of these had lists of unusual deaths, and I recall them being well-curated tertiary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 18:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If those sources do indeed include "unusual deaths", then they would be reliable sources in my opinion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I was just going to mention this (Book of Lists) and I'm glad that not only is it deemed reliable but other people know about it as well. I stumbled across this article today and noticed some missing entries from the first Book of Lists. I have since been trying to find the first one and it looks like my house has been robbed (I love books and have a ton of them). I found the second edition and third edition, but not the first one. I grabbed some of my other trivia books to see what they have (I hope to find some that are in a book and sourced in the bibliography or footnotes). I'm new-ish to Wikipedia, so if someone wouldn't mind looking over my work, I would really appreciate it :) I think I have found a project for the weekend!BookBard (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone could reasonably object to the use of either of these sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I have found a few other instances of unusual death in the second edition (I'm going through and marking things I find before actually doing any editing), and they have some unusual causes of death by subject, which gave me an editing question. If there are a number of people who died in a similar way that is unusual, does that get a whole new list or should it be added to this list or both? One of the sections is "7 People Who Died Laughing", and I see there is a link to a similar list on this (List of unusual deaths) article. Again, I'm new-ish to Wikipedia and I'm not sure what the precedent is. BookBard (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Our inclusion criteria for this list are currently being discussed below and are far from being settled. That said, we don't normally include non-specific classes of unusual death here. If multiple people died from the same specific unusual event, that's a different matter, and we do include several of those. Gigs (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed there is a lot of discussion going on here :) Thank you for answering and sorry if I'm being a bother; I just want to make sure I'm not stepping on any toes. BookBard (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward developing real criteria

Can we all at least agree that we need at least one source for each story that declares a death story "unusual", either explicitly, or by means of context, insofar that the source primarily deals in stories of unusual events or deaths? It seems to me that we can all agree to that as a bare minimum, subject to further refinement in the future. I'd like to take a quick straw poll on this here. Gigs (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Red Pen has already proposed more than one source, and most people agreed. That's why we have the current article header text that we do. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. Sorry I'm behind the curve on that one. We should probably add a talk page header as well, with expanded inclusion criteria. Gigs (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. But consensus on this has been between only about four or five editors, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

For a single-article consensus, I think that's probably sufficient. If someone challenges it we can revisit it, but there have been enough people who have expressed concerns about original research and indiscriminate inclusion criteria that any challenge to it should be proposing something better to replace it. Gigs (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Mass application of WP:OR to begin soon

As another reminder, it has now been a month since the reminder that over two weeks had passed since the editors here have been notified that content of the article will be coming under closer scrutiny.

Still seeing no organized effort (or really any effort at all) to address the concerns, editors should not be surprised when large sections of content that fail basic sourcing requirements (such as having the sources identify the death as unusual rather than Wikipedia editors ) are removed from the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

How much do you think will be removed? I performed a similar surgery on "list of city nicknames" once. Need to have some kind of objective criteria before doing it. Gigs (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Of the 6 or 7 that I had specifically challenged before, only one had any type of language that could be considered being the source calling the death "unusual" or "rare", so incombination with generaly questionable Reliability of the sources, it could be a whole lot. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Before you start hacking away at the article again, we should reach a consensus on news sources. Specifically, the difference between newspapers that employ "tabloid journalism" and newspapers that are printed in a tabloid format. --JeffJ (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

There are two issues (at least). One is the reliability of sources. The other is the question of WP:OR. I will remove each failed item individually. If there is a question about my assessment of either reliability or OR, then the individual removal can be challenged and individually discussed. But since in the 6 weeks since notice was given there have been no good faith efforts to address the concerns, I see no reason why I should wait any longer. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

My concern is that you have your own opinion regarding source reliability. You consider a national award-winning newspaper to be an unreliable source, but have not provided any objective proof that the Daily Mail fabricates or embellishes its stories. If you can cite reliable sources to support your position I will happily reassess my position. Otherwise, I must consider it as WP:OR on your part and would revert any deletions made on the argument that this source was unreliable. The Daily Mail may not be the only reliable source that employs the tabloid format (e.g. Toronto Sun), so I would recommend that editors here carefully research the cited source before dismissing it as unreliable and eliminating the entry on that basis. --JeffJ (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

a very easy way to prevent me from "hacking away at the article" is to show that you are intent on improving the article by providing appropriate sourcing. I have in good faith provided notice and allowed time for people to begin to address the policy violations in the article - and have seen no evidence of good faith effort back. If there is good faith effort in progress, I will continue to wait. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) I am in favor of excluding all news wire sources as evidence that something should be included here. Even reputable news outlets reprint "unusual death" stories as non-journalist human interest pieces, with no fact checking, just copy and paste from the wire service. In turn, the wire service often puts them out with little fact checking because they aren't serious journalism, and they know it. I don't think we should be concentrating on categorizing different types of newspapers here, I think we should concentrate on the type of story it is, and the type of coverage it has received. Likewise, TV shows like "1000 ways to die", heavily fictionalize these sorts of "amazing stories", the same way that Ripley Believe it or Not sometimes did. This type of coverage extends to some types of books as well. Gigs (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I have suggested, indeed bought my own copy of, two books, but have yet to see any convincing argument as to why they should both not be considered as WP:RS and of use as sources here by virtue of their titles. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I've asked before, and ask again - please give examples of a legitimate source for an 'unusual death' article. Don't say what you think is bad - that's easy to do! `- say what you think is good, what is sufficient. When the sword of "without a good source, I'll kill it" lingers overhead, failure to give examples of good sources smacks of almost-bad-faith. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I have been clear that I am skeptical that there can be objective standards set up that would allow us to build an encyclopedic article based on Wikipedias policies and standards; and that those who have claimed "sources exist" are the ones who need to supply the sourcing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like you're rubbing your hands in gleeful anticipation, having made up your mind in advance that no source is good enough so you can kill this article one item at a time. This article has long needed serious weeding and whacking, which nobody (as you accurately note) has been willing to do, so have at it ... but remember, there isn't any consensus to completely rub it out. Of course, if you remove an item saying "the source isn't good enough" and I think the source is fine, I'll happily return the item and we can discuss the specifics like the gentlefolk we are, members of the high-minded salon that is wikipedia! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The overall inclusion criteria are a third issue that is pretty much completely seperate from the general application of WP:OR for the many incidents where the sourcing says absolutely nothing about the death being unusual. The consensus had appeared to be heading towards a "incident included in multiple sources discussing 'unusual deaths'" and if that is where the consensus lands, even more pruning will be coming. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

And I believe that Gigs has expressed the most stringent view of required sourcing. Gigs, can you provide guidance as to what you think would meet a consensus agreement as appropriate reliable sourcing? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we should focus less on the reliability of the source in the traditional sense and more on the nature of the story.

• Is it a "human interest" puff piece, widely reprinted, but with little apparent fact checking?
• Has it been verified by a site that specializes fact checking these types of stories like:
  • Darwin Awards - excluding their unverified personal submissions and older "grandfathered" stories of questionable veracity
  • Snopes
  • Mythbusters - Only if they share background information that their researchers found of actual events. Their declarations based on their contrived experimental results are irrelevant for inclusion purposes.
• Clearly we need an exception for historical accounts that are widely believed to be apocryphal. We already have a note that they are, so I think we are OK there. It should be easier to find sources declaring these "unusual".
• Book sources should be verified against contemporary accounts when possible, such as with the above discussion.

This may give you more of an idea where I'm going with this. I don't think it's going to be as simple as determining reliability of sources in the normal sense, because of the nature of this subject matter and the tendency for reliable sources to print very questionable stories (Like the Ripley's example I gave earlier, printed in many newspapers for years). As well, I think we can use "implication of unusual" from coverage in sources that primarily cover unusual events, as long as they are known for fact checking. Gigs (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

So, you'd be happy for us to use an account that appears in a book entitled, for example Strange Deaths, but only if the facts could also be corroborated by a contemporary account? Is that right? p.s. could you tell us what "snopes" means? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak to a complete hypothetical, but yes that is basically what I am proposing with regard to book sources. Snopes refers to [3]. Gigs (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well Dunning's book is far from hypothetical (although you seem to think it's probably fiction). There's also The Fortean Times Book of Strange Deaths (ISBN 1-907779-97-3) which does give a source for each one of its reports (21 Chapters' worth). Also, sorry to dive off topic here, but is everyone now in agreement over the contribution to notability of the personal fame of the individual? Or is this now to be treated as irrelevant? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

And could RedPenofDoom possibly enlighten us as to what exactly is "the other crap" that is, apparently "going to be removed soon", as mentioned in his last edit summary? Has he got a reliable scatalogical source for his assessment? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want a bright-line test, that's not what I am proposing. I'm proposing objective source-based criteria that every item could be evaluated against, but there would still be some subjective judgement in the application of those criteria. It would be an improvement over what we've done so far, which amounts to yelling "is not", "is so" at each other whether something is unusual or not. I think Red Pen's most important core point is that we do need some external source telling us that a death is unusual, even if it's only implied by the context (like the title of the book, or the theme of the website). Gigs (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable, although I think you'd be hard pressed to get Red Pen to agree to "the theme of the website". I'm still unsure how we avoid the construction here of a prescriptive "list of permitted sources". And I am asking you here now for your clear personal opinion of that Fortean Times "mag book" - it's very cheap if you'd like to buy yourself a copy! (and how else would you decide, of course?) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If it's anything like the Fortean times web site's column for strange deaths, I don't think it would be a very good source. It seems to be a mostly indiscriminate aggregation of all the "strange death" articles they could find in various newspapers, with no additional fact checking. The key to my criteria is that the source did additional fact checking. Straight Dope would be another column that is generally known for independent fact checking, and I think the inclusion of a description of a death there would usually qualify it as unusual. Gigs (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

How exactly, do we judge "independent fact checking", for a book or for a website? I had thought you wanted every editor to check the facts for themslves. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If the web site or book offers analysis and commentary above and beyond what amounts to aggregating, reprinting , or paraphrasing the news reporting, that's a good sign that there was independent research and fact checking involved. I don't think they would be that hard to identify or agree upon. Gigs (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see that Paul Sieveking and his chums over at FT have chosen not to include any such lame and useless editorial padding (which would, of course, be the very last reason one would ever buy such a book - the same goes for the Time Life book I have mentioned earlier). In fact, I am finding it hard to even imagine what such a publication as you describe would look like. But, nevertheless, am still very keen to get your clear personal opinion, informed by actually reading a copy of that book. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't plan to buy a copy of that book. Requiring a source that does additional fact checking and potentially provides commentary and analysis isn't a completely made up standard. It's very similar to our notability standard, except applied on a different level, considering the news reports as primary sources, and the third parties doing some level of fact checking and analysis as our secondaries. There's no need to point out that news are generally considered secondary sources, it's just an analogy. Gigs (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm just saying that this type of "list" book usually steers clear of any commentary, regardless of how well the facts may have been checked. But it's not always easy to tell how well it's been fact-checked - even if you have a copy. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

If you can think of another way to satisfy my concerns about the veracity of widely reprinted wire stories, I'd be open to hear it. Maybe we shouldn't care about the truth of the stories here. I mean we do include stories that are accepted as apocryphal already, but mostly ones of historic importance. Gigs (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I wish I could. I think, certainly for anything before about 1700, some other strategy has to be applied - for me very notable myths deserve a place. There might even be a case for two separate articles. Cases like the death of Molière, which I have argued strongly for, seem to me to fall somewhere between these two "ages". But I am a die-hard inclusionist, as I'm sure Red Pen fully realises. For some strange reason, I am reminded of a a very worthy quote I have recently seen somewhere: "Verifiability in reliable sources is absolutely critical. But elevating that to a religion which rejects truth is a huge mistake." Wonder who said that, haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh, yeah that is one of my favorite Jimbo quotes. Gigs (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible inclusions

Yesterday I went through the second and third "Book of Lists", and marked a few unusual deaths. I was getting ready to put some up, but it looks like there are some new rules, so I think I should maybe ask here first before putting anymore up:

(Book of Lists 2)

1. Stonewall Jackson, in a chapter/section called "10 Commanders Killed by Their Own Troops". If they had to make a chapter about it, it seems like that makes it unusual enough.

2. Col. David Marcus, in same chapter/section. Shot while urinating in a field during the night, one of his sentries thought he was an Arab because he was wrapped in a bed sheet. This was in 1948

3. Georg Wilhelm Richmann, in a chapter/section called "16 Notable Persons Struck By Lightening". 1/3 of his article on Wikipedia is about his death and if it isn't named as an unusual one, it is named as a first. Some people in this chapter, some died.

4. There is a list called "15 Composers Who Died In Unusual Circumstances". Some are already in the article and I was going to add this as another source, some do not seem that unusual other than the fact that someone famous died this way (ex. assassination), some were confusing, but there were a few I thought could be added. Should I write down who I would like to use from this list?

5. There is a list "9 People Injured or Killed By Their Scientific Experiments". Same questions as #4.

6. Captain Kidd, "The Hanging of Captain Kidd" is in the list "12 Notable Events That happened Under the Influence of Alcohol". Again, if they made a list, it seems to me that it is unusual.

7. List "5 Persons Who Died Playing Cards". Some aren't unusual, these people didn't die from playing cards, just while. Wasn't going to use this one, but if someone is interested, let me know.

8. List "7 People Who Died Laughing".

9. List "9 Timely Deaths", mostly people predicting and being right about their deaths. Wasn't going to use it, but again, if someone is interested, let me know.

10. List "11 Deaths from Strange Causes", I'm guessing this is okay to use? ;) Again, some of them don't seem to quite "work" (someone died from taking a bath, doesn't give any other specifics about how person died), some are confusing, some are already listed (was going to add reference).

11. List "10 People Made Famous By Their Deaths". Not really unusual deaths, but I thought I'd mention it if someone is interested.

12. Hessian Wolf Boy (1344) in a list "17 Children Who May Have Lived With WIld Animals". It says he died from an enforced diet of cooked food.

(Book of Lists 3)

13. List "19 Stupid Thieves", someone accidentally shot and killed themself on a robbery.

14. List "6 Unusual Duels". There was one that seemed to work for this list on Wikipedia. There was a duel in two hot air balloons and someone died.

15. List "18 Health Experts and How They Died", there were a few ironic ones.

16. List "13 Strange Deaths" (see earlier similar list questions)

17. List "14 People Who Died While Performing" BookBard (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The main problem, as things stand, seems to be that you marked them as "unusual", but not the author. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) if there is a whole chapter or list of people who died in similar circumstances, then it is obviously NOT a unique circumstance for a death and not rare enough that our list would be anything other than an indiscriminate collection of trivia. The 13 Strange Deaths / 11 Strange deaths might be a possibility if the only similarities are that they have been judged "strange" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

But good question, RedPen. Can two or more unusual deaths ever be more unusual than one? I think they probably can, even if unrelated. But especially here, where we are at the mercy of the descriptions added by book authors and newspaper editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

And the headlines say....

Today's featured headlines

• "Sex-ed from porn and posing half-naked 'to feel sexy like Megan Fox': Shocking documentary reveals how the digital age is influencing girls as young as 12 "
• "'I wanted to punch Obama': Romney's son says he felt like 'taking a swing' at President after he called his father a 'liar' during TV debate "
• "Man arrested for bigamy after his second wife finds out he's still married... while paying first wife's bills "

and

• EXCLUSIVE: Family of troll behind sick Creepshots forum of sexual images of young girls brand him 'evil and nasty' . . . and reveal how they live in fear of him

it is a tabloid not only in format, but in content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, but it's been recognized with several awards including the National Newspaper of the Year in 1995, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2003 and 2012 by the British Press Awards. --JeffJ (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The headlines speak for themselves as to what priorities the paper has. I am pretty sure "disabled lady dies in accident at home" is not going to be winning them any Pulitzers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

In your opinion. --JeffJ (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

And your opinion is that that the article is in contention for any awards? I would be willing to give some pretty good odds on that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not my opinion. I've already listed for you the National Newspaper of the Year awards and provided you with the link to the Daily Mail's other journalism awards, but here they all are:

The Daily Mail has been awarded the National Newspaper of the Year in 1995, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2003 and 2012 by the British Press Awards.

The Daily Mail journalists have won a range of British Press Awards, including:

"Campaign of the Year" (Murder of Stephen Lawrence, 2012)

"Website of the Year" (Mail Online, 2012)

"News Team of the Year" (Daily Mail, 2012)

"Critic of the Year" (Quentin Letts, 2010)

"Political Journalist of the Year" (Quentin Letts, 2009)

"Specialist Journalist of the Year" (Stephen Wright, 2009)

"Showbiz Reporter of the Year" (Benn Todd, 2012)

"Feature Writer of the Year - Popular" (David Jones, 2012)

"Columnist of the Year - Popular" (Craig Brown, 2012)

"Best of Humour" - (Craig Brown, 2012)

"Columnist - Popular" (Craig Brown, 2012)

"Sports Reporter of the Year" (Jeff Powell, 2005)

"Sports Photographer of the Year" (Mike Egerton, 2012; Andy Hooper, 2010, 2008)

Other awards include:

"Orwell Prize" (Toby Harnden, 2012)

"Hugh Cudlipp Award" (2012; Stephen Wright/Richard Pendlebury, 2009; 2007)

--JeffJ (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

and todays headlines are:

• What on earth WAS this? Man photographs 'UFO' floating in the clouds moments before ten dead birds appear in garden
• "On an economy drive, Chancellor? George Osborne charged £160 after being caught in First Class carriage with a standard train ticket "
• "The scummy mummy: Barmaid, 33, went out partying and left her two young children alone in the house with no food, no money and a dead dog and parrot "
• "Boss who marched a dishonist employee to police with sign around his neck faces bankruptcy after being forced to pay £5,000 compensation (and £40,000 costs) to the THIEF "
• "Primary school teacher, 43, who won Songs Of Praise award died after falling down the stairs while drunk "
• "British firm produces petrol from air in breakthrough that 'could solve the world's energy crisis' "

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping us up to date on the headlines, but what's your point? --JeffJ (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

the same as I stated on your talk page "it is a tabloid not only in format, but in content." The reliability of Daily Mail to assess and present actual unique and rare deaths rather than screaming headline seeking only to grab attention is minimal at best.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

So because you consider the headlines as sensational you are going to assume that the articles are fabricated? Again, it your opinion and you still haven't cited any reference to support your position, whereas I've provided an extensive list of awards received by Daily Mail from their peers. Do you dispute the awards, or are you now just being deliberately obtuse? I was also able to find several of the stories you listed reported in other mainstream news sources. --JeffJ (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's hard for any reasonable person to deny that the Daily Mail combines reliable journalism with sensationalism. That makes it difficult to judge the reliability of any individual item. It's not reasonable to dismiss something simply because it appeared in the Daily Mail, but it isn't reasonable to include it without careful thought and consideration, either.—Kww(talk) 16:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

And "careful thought and consideration" may go like this: Headline = "Freak accidental death of pole-dancing milkman". Consideration = "that's a sensationalist headline". Result = DM not usable to support a death in this list. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

(/ec)I never said anything about "fabricated". While the paper may have won awards for particular articles, it is very clear that not all of the content of the paper is of award quality and that from the headlines they choose to feature, in fact a substantial quantity of the content is devoted to stories of the screaming red headline tabloid quality, and the particular article in question most certainly does not fall into the award winning article category. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

If you have no question about the veracity of Daily Mail's reporting of the facts, who cares about how they phrase their headlines? If it's a reliable source, it's a reliable source. You're trying to exclude it because you don't like the way they word their headlines? --JeffJ (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem seems to be that the description of a death as "unusual", "freakish", "strange", etc., is usually part of a headline? And that goes for the broadsheets, too. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your point. Can you expand on that? --JeffJ (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

/* 2012 */ Restoring Randy Lee Tenley entry - Consensus requested on inclusion

I would like to invite the editors participating in the maintenance of this article to discuss the merits of including the entry on Randy Lee Tenley in the 2012 section. A single editor has taken it upon himself to delete the entry, even though it appears to meet the basic requirements of an unusual death (a man is killed while attempting to pull off a Bigfoot sighting hoax). I would appreciate if other editors weighed in on the merits or problems with this article. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

no local consensus can override site wide policy. WP:V and WP:OR. The source does not make any claims about the death being "unusual or rare" and therefore we cannot do so based solely upon our personal interpretations.You have been given notice that repeated inclusions of such material in violation of policy will lead to your being blocked. Please stop. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

update - sorry it wasnt you that I gave the message to, it was User talk:12.53.198.26-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I have never heard of anyone being struck by cars and killed after standing on a road wearing a bigfoot costume. So it sounds very unusual. But even if we all thought it was very unusual, we can't add it here unless there are independent third party sources which explicitly describe it as unusual. That's the consensus that has been reached, after quite a lot of discussion. If you think this is a wrong approach you very are welcome to express your view, but not to just add anything that you like to the article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

For example, if a reputable news report about the death quoted an investigating police officer/sheriff saying something like "I've worked at least 500 fatal accidents in my career, but I've seen anything like this." then there would be room for argument; on the other hand, if a bystander was quoted as saying "I've never seen anything like it!" then it would be very unlikely to meet the criteria, since the average schlub at an accident scene has no context to lend weight to their opinion. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Points taken, thanks to DavidWBrooks and Martinevans123. I appreciate the intelligent input. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Interpretation of a source calling something "extremely rare" and evidence of multiple other acts

If a death by javelin is called "extremely rare" by a source, but we have other sources which show that such deaths are not actually anywhere near "unique"

• Kuala Lampur in 1981
• Anapolis 1948
• Berwick 1959
• Los Gatos 1959 - apparently a particularly bad year to be around javelin throwers
• San Francisco 1927
• Dallas 1929
• Czech Republic 2004
• track and field death by shotput 2005

do we still want to include it? or is the commentary just editorial fluff that makes our article simply an indiscriminate collection of trivia? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That seems unnecessarily condescending. Your argument *here* for exclusion is sound and I support it. What I did not support was the removal based on your original summary that stated "WP:OR source does not call it unusual", which was false. By all means, remove entries that are not unusual, but don't just make up a reason for your summary. You might also enjoy this essay.--JeffJ (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Addition

I am not that familiar with the rules, practices, and conventions of this page. So, I will ask here at the Talk Page. Would this recent death (see the link) qualify as an unusual death and, thus, be eligible for inclusion in this article? If so, would someone please add it in? Thanks. Here is the link: Maddox Derkosh Bled To Death From Wild Dog Mauling In Zoo: Autopsy. Thanks again. 64.252.134.177 (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

There are serveral deaths from animal attacks in zoos every year, so no its not unusual. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delahanty

"1903: Ed Delahanty, the Hall of Fame outfielder, died under mysterious circumstances when he was swept over Niagara Falls. He was apparently kicked off a train by the train's conductor for being drunk and disorderly. After getting kicked off the train, Delahanty started his way across the International Bridge and fell off the bridge.[61][62]"

1. "Kicked off" isn't encyclopedic language.
2. Worse, it appears twice
3. The blurb suggests he dies "mysteriously", uses the term "apparently" to describe the part that presumably could have been verified and then goes on to definitively state the facts around the death in a way that doesn't seem very mysterious.

Then, there's the "unusual"ness of this death. Apparently, more than 7,000 people have died by going over Niagara Falls. Can we just delete this entry? --Dweller (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think so. This entry was the subject of much discussion on this page, although apparently it has been archived; check those first, to see if there's an argument we haven't thought of. (My only disagreement with your post: "kicked off" is a perfectly fine usage, widely understandable; just because we're an encyclopedia doesn't mean we have to be overly formal.) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Archive 7 discussion

I was not able to revive the article there in Archive 7, so I had to re-create this discussion. I am confused why the article on the man's testicles being squeezed was not added to the main article? The discussion there about the two that contributed to my discussion, was talking about how someone else had died that way, but there are multiple deaths that are repeated in the main "unusual deaths" article. For example there are several criticality incidents of radiation that are reported by different persons, and there are several instances of self-immolation (for example, one was by a Czech student, and one by a Vietnamese man). Why is the testicle death only given one instance, when other deaths are given several instances in the article? Besides the situation involving both were different, as the original testicle death did not involve a parking spot argument. Stopde (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that there are currently in our list multiple events of the same type that are supposedly "unique" is more of an indication of the improperness of those entries actually being representative of being "unique" rather than any reason to add yet another duplicitive non-unique death to the list. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Not so. If the source references for each described them as as "unusual", we'd have to include them both, wouldn't we? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

We do not "have" to do anything. But it is really clear that if whatever legitimate criteria we establish for identifying truly unusual deaths allows multiple incidents of the same type, then we do not actually have criteria that identify truly unusual and unique deaths. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, so a self-contradiction, after all. Makes all those weeks of vigorous debate over criteria seem that much more worthwhile? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Citation Error

One of the ancient deaths cited is:

'212: Lucius Fabius Cilo, a Roman senator of the 2nd century, "...choked...by a single hair in a draught of milk".'

-The source is cited as Pliny the Elder (Natural History 7.7)....but Pliny the Elder lived and died in the 1st century AD, how can he report a death in the 3rd century AD? And I've found nothing in Book 7 chapter 7 here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D7%3Achapter%3D7 . Cornelius (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not mentioned in the wikipedia article about him, either. I'd say kill that item! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarabelle Lansing

I am surprised that this death has been removed on the basis that the "source does not call it unusual", especially as it has a whole wikipedia article to support it - Aloha Airlines Flight 243. One would hardly expect such a description from NTSB. Yes, it was indeed the splitting hull that was the "significant event in aviation history". And yes Lansing's death was an unfortunate consequence, not a cause, of the accident. One is left pondering how many other deaths there have been, as part of "significant events in aviation history", that are deemed not to have been "unusual". In fact, one might very easily argue that these deaths were unusual, even though we might struggle to ever find a source that described them as "unusual deaths". This is the persistent problem of not being able to include deaths that everyone has deemed are too obviously unusual to be described as "unusual". But I think this one, in particular, is a real humdinger. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

you have it part right, it is yet another example of the fact that there are not actually any objective criteria established and applied for which an encyclopedic and not "trivia" article can be created. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, but you seem quite happy to use the consensus-agreed rule-of-thumb that "if source does not say "unusual" we have to remove it?" Martinevans123 (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

re: "if source does not say "unusual" we have to remove it?" - consensus could not come to any other conclusion and be compliant with WP:V / WP:OR.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Airborne wildlife/domestics

Beware of leaping deer

Cows, resolutely earth-bound

Very common for car to hit deer, propel it airborne into second car:

• Deer goes airborne, crashes through car
• Freak accident with deer claims two fatalities; injures two children
• MVC W/ DEER THROUGH CAR
• Fatal chain-reaction crash: Vehicle strikes deer, sending it through windshield of another vehicle, killing Bridgeport woman
• Did You Ever Hear the One About the Decapitated, Murdering, Flying Deer Head? <--three cars

I think that all such have been proven to be common. Abductive (reasoning) 03:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

A cow is not the same thing as a deer. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even bother looking for anything besides deer, You are in danger of 3RR. Give it up. Abductive (reasoning) 03:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Airborne bear kills two Abductive (reasoning) 04:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You have described airborne domestic animals as "very common", yet you support this by citing examples of deer. Deer are not cows. Deer are not domesticated. Deer are infamous for road traffic accidents, both for their habit of leaping across roads, and for their upward mass distribution encouraging the bodies to fly around when hit. Neither of these apply to short, stocky cows. Nursery rhymes about the moon besides, cows are not noted for their jumping. Nor for going airborne when hit by other vehicles.

RedPen seems to regard "flying" as inconsistent with "airborne". I can't imagine why. Nor why he sees deletion as always preferable to copyediting.

Also being killed by a cow in a place named "cowtown" is somewhat ironic, although I agree that it probably indicates a local abundance of cows and thus makes cow-mortality a little less unusual.

Fundamentally though, we have a newspaper source (which neither of you have yet challenged) that describes this verbatim as a "freak accident". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

A primary source, when challenged, is insufficient for a Wikipedia article. I am challenging it. Also, your single-minded fixation on the species of airborne death is asinine. Abductive (reasoning) 07:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

These are not primary sources, they're the online channel of the San Francisco Chronicle.

You and RedPen have removed or challenged this content for three unrelated reasons now:

• That "airborne" is different to "flying" (notwithstanding the opportunity to simply copyedit)
• That cows are the same thing as deer
• That the San Francisco Chronicle is a primary source.

You're wrong on all three. No doubt you will produce a fourth and fifth, as you think of them. The two of you clearly have zero interest in accuracy or actual application of the policy for building an encyclopedia, this is just a playpen for you. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I think RedPen is probably looking for something really unusual. But I do agree with you 100%. Although, allegedly, bears typically "fly in the woods." Didn't take long to get round to flying asses... Martinevans123 (talk)

a truly "airborn" death by cow (or deer for that matter) would genuinely be unusual and worth wordsmithing. However, "A cow was hit by a speeding car on the highway and the expected physics took place with transfer of energy causing the cow to be flung forcefully into another car where the also expected conversions of mass at high velocity into force that caused a car accident resulting in death" is not at all "highly unusual" and not worth anyones time attempting to wordsmith it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The use of the word "unusual" in the supporting source is a "useful" rule of thumb which is still being applied here. National road death statistics might reveal how unusual such deaths are, if they contained a sufficient granularity of cause. If they did not, then I'm not sure how a definitve decision could be reached. But I don't see clarification of argument as "wordsmithing". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

At one time I lived on a dairy farm (I shovelled plenty of shit, but I wouldn't claim I was a dairy farmer). Cow+car accidents did unfortunately happen from time to time. Cow+truck accidents were known too, which were rather similar, only messier. Cows come to pieces if you hit them with a big enough truck. They don't leave the ground. At no point did I see a cow fly, hear of a cow flying, of have any indication that anyone nationally had ever got a cow significantly airborne as the result of such an accident (let alone punt it into another vehicle). RedPen can claim that cows get frequent flyer points, Abductive thinks that cows are just deer you can milk. Neither though have cited any further instances of cows going airborne, or these airborne cows causing further accidents, let alone further fatal accidents. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, it's the ones you never hear about that are the really unusual ones. There are hundreds of those, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)