Talk:List of unusual deaths

• There is a holding tank for content, removed from the article due to poor sourcing, which may have been included in the article for a considerable time: Talk:List of unusual deaths/Sourcing issues. Following talk page discussion, and in line with WP:STALEDRAFT, it has been agreed that any content in this holding area not sourced within 6 months from addition should be removed.

no need to use the actual word "unusual", you can think for yourself

The article is called List of unusual deaths, not List of deaths that just happen to have the word unusual included in a news story about them. There wouldn't have been all the coverage of a man got from dying while eating cockroaches, if it wasn't an unusual and interesting story. The dictionary defines "unusual" [1] as

not normal or usual

different or strange in a way that attracts attention

not commonly seen, heard, etc.

Does this story not meet the definition of unusual? It was different or strange in a way that attracts attention, thus, it was unusual. Dream Focus 18:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR is the applicable policy. It really doesn't matter if you or I think it's unusual, it only matters whether a reliable source has described it that way. The logic of "it must have been unusual or they wouldn't have talked about it" is virtually the definition of original research.—Kww(talk) 18:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Consensus can be formed on this talk page on what should be on the list. It isn't original research, its common sense. You are allowed to think for yourself, and not just mindlessly quote things. WP:OR says at the top "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." And the word normally links to Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means#Use_common_sense. Please read that. It clearly applies here. Does anyone sincerely doubt this was a "different or strange in a way that attracts attention?" That is the very definition of unusual after all. Dream Focus 18:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

What I'm certain of is that "List of deaths that Wikipedia editors think are weird" is a really bad article to have.—Kww(talk) 18:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

What you believe is a bad article is irrelevant. I'd like more opinions on this so we can form a proper consensus. Dream Focus 18:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Judgment of something as "unusual" CANNOT be a matter of "editorial judgement" by Wikipedia editors. such analysis and commentary is clearly NOT permitted by core content policy WP:OR. This is a pointless discussion because even if consensus here decided to toss out that policy WP:LOCALCONCENSUS, it cannot. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to follow it for 100% of the situations that come up. WP:OR clearly states that, as I have already quoted multiple times. That wouldn't be there without a reason. If consensus is that this is one of these cases, then it can be ignored. Dream Focus 21:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• As I mentioned already, WP:OR says "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." And the word normally links to Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means#Use_common_sense. Read that link, the part about editorial judgment. Dream Focus 19:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

the "ignore all rules" has the important caveat "if it improves the encyclopedia". Creating a precedent of ignoring basic policy to add clutter to an already bloated article with content that Wikipedia users think is "unusual" is not going to improve the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Our opinions on these deaths are completely irrelevant. You've been here long enough to understand the prohibitions on original research, DF. I don't understand why you fail to see the applicability here.—Kww(talk) 19:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note that most of the things on the list don't have references that call them unusual. Do we erase over 90% of the list? Dream Focus 02:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Show some that don't describe the death as "unusual", "strange", "weird", "bizarre", or some reasonable synonym. The list has been purged of most offenders.—Kww(talk) 02:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• • The second guy on the list, Arrhichion of Phigalia, doesn't have anything in the single referenced source that use the word "unusual, strange, weird, bizarre", etc. The 4th guy on the list, Mithridates, has no reference except to a dead link to Bostonleadershipbuilders.com, which seems an odd website to be considered a reliable source for any information about ancient Greeks. Many references are to books. Has someone honestly searched through all of these? Dream Focus 02:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Arrhichion was easily repaired. TRPoD worked on the list earlier, and I've focused mainly on keeping it from sprawling back out of control. It used to have many more entries with significantly worse sourcing. It's not perfect, but that's not a reason to continue to make it worse.—Kww(talk) 03:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

i started going through. people complained. we created a holding pen. people didnt source from there either. i will probably start more closely examining some again soon, but if you want to take the lead, feel free. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm against removing something only because you didn't find those keywords. I was just pointing out that much of the list would be eliminated if we used that as the only method of determining if something was notable. Dream Focus 09:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

That is the perennial issue with this whole article: it fails WP:LIST in not having objective criteria that allow any editor and any reader to know what is or is not within the scope of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

applause to Dream Focus. i comment more against the unique restrictions two or three users are putting on this article --in the next subsection. Cramyourspam (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

since you may have missed it, WP:OR and WP:V and even WP:MOSLIST are project wide policies and guidelines and the application of project wide policies/guidelines to this article is not "unique"; NOT applying them, however, would be and would require a consensus to show that doing so improved the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Should the following entries be allowed?

Is there consensus that these entries are "unusual" even if the exact word isn't used? Should they be allowed on the article or not? This is a matter of editorial judgment. (see above discussion if you want to argue that point). Dream Focus 18:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

SInce Dream Focus can't quite seem to get the point, I will make it again. This is not a matter of editorial judgement. It doesn't matter what he or any editor thinks. His efforts to circumvent policy with a straw poll seeking editors opinions, rather than sources, is invalid. Unless a source describes the death as unusual, it would violate WP:OR to include it.—Kww(talk) 19:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Kindly keep this in the section above and respond to what I said there twice already. Dream Focus 19:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No. Attempting to bypass WP:OR by seeking editorial opinion about whether something is "unusual" or not is just an effort to bypass policy. You started this section after two editors had pointed out that your logic was fundamentally flawed. You then rearranged the discussion after it was again pointed out that your logic was fundamentally flawed. If you want to encourage people to look for sources that state things are "unusual", "weird", "bizarre" is no problem. Falsely stating that that inclusion is matter of editorial judgement is a problem,—Kww(talk) 20:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I started this section at 18:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC) when you were the only editor who might disagree with me. It wasn't until 19:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC) when a second person showed up who agreed with you. It is editorial judgment. Click on the link at WP:OR where it says "Normally" and read through that. Dream Focus 20:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You had to wait a whole ELEVEN MINUTES to find out there were more than one person who disagreed with you (and only because I was edit conflicted in removing your re-insertion of content from the main page. Kww was just too fast. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Excuse my misstatement: you created the poll when I objected, but you didn't attempt to rearrange the discussion to suit your tastes until after two people had. Sorry, the argument that policy needs to be endlessly and exhaustively rediscussed because policies are normally followed doesn't hold a lot of water. This is a clear-cut case of attempting to characterize material in a way that no source has characterized it. Look above: if people think something should be included, it's normally listed with a request for sources, not opinions. There's even Talk:List of unusual deaths/Sourcing issues as a holding ground for cases that need sourcing.—Kww(talk) 20:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Rearrange it to put the argument in the proper section. You are arguing this and disrupting my poll here with something that was being discussed just fine in the section above. WP:OR links to this:

Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation. Our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers. Being able to articulate "common sense" reasons why a change helps the encyclopedia is good, and editors should not ignore those reasons because they don't include a bunch of policy shortcuts. The principle of the rules—to make Wikipedia and its sister projects thrive—is more important than the letter. Editors must use their best judgment. Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy.

Hopefully something written there will sink in. Dream Focus 20:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Certainly: generally, when someone has no logical leg to stand on, it's convenient for him to describe his personal opinion has being "common sense". Surely, you've read WP:NOCOMMON. No, I'm not trying to "disrupt" your straw-poll: I'm simply explaining to you why it's invalid.—Kww(talk) 20:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You dismiss the policy of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules by linking to a essay. Dream Focus 21:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

while you merely dismiss half of the policy itself!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I did not dismiss the policy at all, simply pointed to the part saying it didn't have to always be followed. Dream Focus 21:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

you dismissed or completely failed to address the conditional that must be met before ignoring the rules can be considered: doing so must improve the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

* 2012: Edward Archbold, 32, a man of West Palmm Beach, Florida, died after winning a cockroach eating contest. The cause of death was determined to be accidental choking due to "arthropod body parts."

• Support inclusion. Dream Focus 18:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • your "support inclusion" is based on what policies and what sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• do not include: fails WP:OR - there is only the opinion and interpretation of Wikipedia editors that this is "unusual", no reliable sources have made such analysis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Here it is tagged under the section "Bizarre". Here is called "Weird News". I think it qualifies. --cyclopia^speak! 19:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• That's one. Got another source?—Kww(talk) 19:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Uh.. he just listed two sources. Dream Focus 19:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Missed that. OK, two sources, "weird" and "bizarre". That's sourcing, not original research.—Kww(talk) 19:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• There is no evidence that the death by asphyxiation by things being put in the mouth is what is being called "bizarre" or "weird" by those tags, rather the stories are calling the general practice of eating weird things for prizes weird. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• This seems a bit too paranoid. It is clearly the combination of things that is deemed unusual. The contest alone wouldn't have passed a couple lines on the neighbourhood's newsletter. The fact a guy died because of this is the news. --cyclopia^speak! 08:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

* 2013: João Maria de Souza, 45, was killed when a cow, believed to have escaped from a nearby farm in Brazil, went onto his roof during his sleep, causing the room to cave in and the 3000-pound cow landing on him. He died soon afterwards due to internal bleeding.

• Support inclusion. Dream Focus 18:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

  Note that the BBC mentions [2] two previous times a cow fell through a roof, it says "There were no casualties in the two previous incidents." This is the first time someone apparently died this way. Dream Focus 19:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• do not include. Fails WP:OR - there is only the opinion and interpretation of Wikipedia editors that this is "unusual", no reliable sources have made such analysis. Clombering sources together to create such analysis is also clearly not allowed by policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC) I will no longer oppose the inclusion of the death by cow as sources that meet the current minimal requirements have been produced. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Two sources here too. The Telegraph: Police in Caratinga, Minas Gerais state, have launched an inquiry into the bizarre death. ; Timaru Herald: Surely there can be no stranger or more unlikely ways to complete your allotted days on this planet than to be killed by an accident- prone beast falling on you while you are sleeping in your bed. (there may be more, these are just the first two I found) --cyclopia^speak! 20:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• And there we go: sourcing, the foundation of WP:V.—Kww(talk) 20:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

References

• Comment. As sympathetic as I am to the goal of keeping list articles well sourced and free of marginally relevant entries, I think it's possible to go overboard in such efforts. "Unusual" is a really common word—there's nothing even remotely esoteric about it—and it seems to me that death by choking on cockroaches or by cows falling on one's bed are patently unusual and would be considered so by nearly everyone. Whether or not the cited source uses the word "unusual" or a synonym to describe such incidents, it seems probable that the unusual nature of the death provides the reason behind the source reporting the incident in the first place. It doesn't quite rise to the level of "the sky is blue"-type statements where verification isn't needed, but I think it comes close. Policy wonkery aside, what is the content-based argument against inclusion: that choking to death on cockroaches is a usual way to die? As for editorial discretion, Wikipedians exercise it all the time, using consensus to decide on borderline cases, and I don't quite see how doing so constitutes original research. Rivertorch (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"its a slow news day - we need some filler" is equally as likely a reason for the story running. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No, things like this get coverage around the world because they are weird and interesting, not because of a slow news day. Dream Focus 21:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

sensationalism does not an encyclopedia make. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. Wikipedia is filled with articles about famous models, actors, and musicians. The top ten most popular articles are often sex related or something about Batman. If something gets significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject manner, then it doesn't matter if you believe it was just a slow news day or whatnot. That does not invalidate the coverage. Dream Focus 21:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Batman gets coverage on slow news days and fast news days over months and years of time. death by cow gets coverage on one slow news cycle till the next sensationalistic piece of clap clap is slapped up to fill in. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

"Clap clap"? I Googled it and found some music videos and a site for chlamydia-positive singles. LOL. Of course articles on unusual deaths are filler for slow news days, but what conclusions are we to draw from that? Most of the deaths listed in this article are perfectly newsworthy and wouldn't be reported, slow news day or not, if they weren't unusual. In any event, the topic of unusual deaths seems like a fascinating one. Taking off my editor's hat and pretending i'm a "mere" reader, it occurs to me that the topic is one I'd like to read about, and my expectations about sourcing would be simply that Wikipedia had verified that the listed deaths actually occurred at the place and time and in the manner stated; I wouldn't expect Wikipedia to omit entries because the writer(s) at a particular source neglected to characterize a death as "unusual" using the word itself or an approved synonym. Putting my editor's hat back on now, I must say I hope our readers expect us to use judgment and good sense about what to include and exclude, rather than just mindlessly regurgitating information based on the presence of keywords. Rivertorch (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS Just because it hits a newspaper does not make it encyclopedic. And whether or not readers "expect us to use judgment and good sense", policy WP:OR / WP:V / WP:UNDUE dictates that article content must be based on sources and not on the opinions and analysis of Wikipedia editors (with any exceptions based on the conditional that there is an actual improvement to the encyclopedia).-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, none of the policies you cite conflict with what I wrote above. Look, we can wikilawyer this till we're blue in the face (ha! would our deaths qualify as unusual, do you suppose?) but it's really rather pointless. At its essence, this really is a content dispute—the sort of inclusionism-deletionism thing that I go out of my way to avoid (being neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist). It seems to me that in the absence of any actual evidence that any or the core policies is actually being violated, the question should be resolved based on local consensus. If we need to have an RfC to get more editors' opinions, we can do that, although I'd prefer not to be the one to set it up. Otherwise, I guess we can just bicker about it interminably. Rivertorch (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There is evidence of core policies of [[WP:V] and WP:OR being violated when editors include content that cannot be verified as having been deemed "unusual" by a reliably published authority. Local consensus cannot over-ride that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

while articles must be policed against true nonsense, this is the only article i've encountered which has this odd demand that inclusion must include a citation of a reliable source which calls the method of death "unusual". when an existing WP article about someone shows that they died in a a way which a reasonable reader could call unusual, that res ipsa could be listed on the list of unusual deaths. Cramyourspam (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If the "reasonable editor" is me, then sure. ;-)

but i dont think that there is actually any way that "reasonable editor considers unusual" would meet Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Selection_criteria which states that "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources." so that editors know what to include and exclude and readers know what to expect to find in the article.

The very discussions on this page show how far differentiated "reasonable" editors can be on what they consider "unusual", which easily fails the "unambiguous" and "objective" requirements. That this article has more discussions about the application of policy to particular content probably goes more to show how the basic concept of the article is a flawed one.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If the basic concept of the list is truly flawed, then perhaps you should nominate it for deletion. I don't think it's flawed—it's just a bit subjective, like lots of other things. Cherry-picking passages from an MOS page (which, like all MOS pages, prominently bears the advice to "use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions") really doesn't get us anywhere. Guidelines are supposed to reflect actual practice and convention, which is that editors use their judgment both in determining whether inclusion criteria are met and in determining the criteria in the first place (and, when necessary, modifying them). We do this every day, not just on lists but on various articles. Sometimes it's helpful to define the parameters for inclusion, as is done on List of major power outages. We can't quantify "unusual" in that way, of course, but maybe we could come up with some wording that's a bit less restrictive. How about it? I trust you don't actually think that a cow dropping through the ceiling and crushing someone is an example of a usual death. I think it would be considered unusual cross-culturally, even universally; don't you? Rivertorch (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

it is not just a bit subjective, it is completely subjective. and yes, like all policies and guidelines, there are times when we might not need to follow the MOS; however, doing so is subject to the conditional "if it improves the encyclopedia". As for having a goal that we come up with inclusion criteria that are "less restrictive" than basic content policies of WP:OR and WP:V - what exactly would the "improvement" to the encyclopedia be?

i have been pushing for a year to try to get some criteria that are less subjective and there has been no progress made (see the voluminous archives). Feel free to start a new section where you lay out some of your options.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC: What qualifies?

• Can editors determine on a talk page what qualifies as an "unusual death" and should be in the List of unusual deaths or must the reliable source specifically use the word "unusual" or synonymy in it?

• Since we aren't convincing one another, need to just bring in more people to participate in this discussion. Please let everyone state their opinion. If you disagree with them, there is no need to repeat what you said constantly in response to every single person who says otherwise. Just state what you believe once, and its fine, we can see it.

As I mentioned before, the dictionary defines the word unusual as [3]

not normal or usual

different or strange in a way that attracts attention

not commonly seen, heard, etc.

• If a talk page discussion determines there is consensus that something is an unusual death, can it be added to the list, even if the word "unusual" isn't in the article? Would this qualify as original research or just common sense? If it is original research, would the disclaimer at the top of WP:OR that says "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." apply here? The link attached to the word "normally" says to use common sense and its acceptable to ignore a rule. "Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution." Dream Focus 18:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• 1) WP:OR and WP:V are clear: content must be in the sources and not the opinions or analysis of Wikipedia editors, therefore, YES the reliable source must be the one that specifically calls out the death as being unusual.

2) In addition, WP:UNDUE comes into play with Wikipedia editors voices and opinions standing in and misrepresenting based on their opinions rather than what the experts in the field determine to be unusual.

3) the WP:LSC "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. " and WP:NLIST "Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group.]" guidelines on inclusion criteria are clear - they must be objective. Requiring the source to have the word "unusual" or synonym is (mostly) objective and far more so than "the group of editors that was around that day thought it was".

4)The ability to Ignore the rules, comes with the important but frequently ignored conditional that when you ignore the rules you are improving the encyclopedia. There is no evidence that an even greater bloated trivia list of junk that a bunch of non experts decided was "unusual" is in any way an improvement to the encyclopedia.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

@User:Rivertorch I have never said that " random journalists are 'experts in the field' ". But that again goes to the faulty basis for the whole article, in that while a bunch of Wikipedia editors are most certainly not "experts in the field", neither are most of the sources used in the article and the criteria, instead of being loosened to add Wikipedia editors' opinions should, rather be tightened reflect the opinions and published work in the field and NOT just a random news clipping where a journalist happens to use the word that we can verify. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

@User:Rivertorch again: " Our readers will come to this list looking for a list of unusual, quirky, interesting deaths, ". The readers may come here for a lot of things. WP:NOT we are NOT a lot of things. We are an encyclopedia. If they are coming here looking for things that our editors thought were fun and quirky, they are coming to the wrong place for the wrong reasons. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your replies way up here until now. I'm going to reply here, rather than way below, because all this scrolling makes me dizzy. You used the phrase "experts in the field". If you weren't referring to the writers of articles used to source these entries, exactly who were you referring to? I'm dubious that there are any experts in the topic area of unusual deaths per se. It isn't an academic discipline and it isn't a field that lends itself to scholarly inquiry, as far as I know (not outside of some very narrow categories, anyway). I certainly wouldn't claim that Wikipedians are experts, but I think we're probably as capable as anyone of deciding whether a cow falling on a bed constitutes something unusual. As for WP:NOT, it's a policy I've cited quite a few times to quite a few people. I'm sure we're fully agreed on many things that Wikipedia is not, but if you think there's always a bright line, then we'll have to agree to disagree; we're certainly not a traditional encyclopedia, and I for one am not quite ready to slam shut the gates on various kinds of reliably sourced content that our readers might reasonably expect to find here. Uh-oh, there's that word, reasonably, again. You and I may have very different ideas about what is reasonable and what isn't, and I guess that's just the way it is. Thanks for starting the RfC. Rivertorch (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

as far as "we're probably as capable as anyone of deciding whether a cow falling on a bed constitutes something unusual."- the policies say we most certainly are not. per other policies such as the various aspects of WP:NPOV : WP:UNDUE / WP:VALID / Good research / WP:BALANCE "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. " (we have people arguing that the least quality sources are all that we need) " treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. " "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship." "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. " clearly requiring the source to make the assertion of "unusual" is required, but merely the bare minimum. the nature and quality of the person making the assertion, the context in which they are making the assertion etc all need to be incorporated in the criteria if we are to come anywhere close to being policy compliant on this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Editorial judgement does not extend to expanding upon sources. Our personal judgment about what is unusual doesn't matter: the only thing that matters is whether a reliable source categorizes the thing as unusual. WP:IAR is not intended to allow small groups of editors to declare certain articles exempt from sourcing policy.—Kww(talk) 18:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Just delete the whole article: The fact that this discussion even needs to be had bespeaks the chronic problems we have with this list. There is no such thing as a "usual" death; there is no cause that accounts for at least 50% of all deaths. pbp 19:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• It is not "expanding upon sources" to deem an item appropriate for a list if it meets common-sense criteria, and the focus here on WP:NOR and WP:V is misplaced. The question is not one of sourcing, or at least it shouldn't be; no one is suggesting we draw any conclusions for any entry on the list beyond what the sources say. The question is merely about how to decide what items are appropriate for inclusion in the first place, and reliance on a given source's use of certain keywords ("unusual" and its synonyms) is a hit-or-miss proposition. A newspaper reporting that someone crushed to death by a cow that fell on his bed is unlikely to explicitly characterize the death as "unusual" because it may safely assume that its readership will intuit that without being told.

  Fortunately, neither WP:NOR nor WP:V demands that sources using specific words exist to permit inclusion of content in an article. Wikipedia editors are expected to use good judgment in deciding these things. We are not mindless robots following an if x, then y flowchart. Will there be borderline instances where editors may legitimately disagree? Of course. But there will be many more instances (like the cow falling on the bed) where no one could reasonably argue that the death was not unusual.

  WP:UNDUE is a red herring. For a list such as this one that briefly mentions noteworthy events, the existence of a reliable source reporting a clearly unusual death should be sufficient to indicate suitability for inclusion. It also should be noted that this is a topic that doesn't lend itself to expert opinions, and the argument that random journalists are "experts in the field" and that we should be hung up on their choice of words on a given day is frankly absurd.

  WP:MOSLIST is a guideline, and like all guidelines it should be applied with care, not blindly followed to the letter when doing so would be illogical. This is an unusual list—I cannot find any other list on Wikipedia that is quite comparable—and we need to look at what serves our readers, not what serves our convenience. Our readers will come to this list looking for a list of unusual, quirky, interesting deaths, and I cannot imagine any of them could care less whether a random writer at a source we cite happens to deploy something from an approved list of adjectives. I'm optimistic enough to think we can agree most of the time that something either is or isn't unusual, and I honestly cannot fathom how decimating the article based on random journalists' word choices is in the best interest of building a comprehensive encyclopedia. Rivertorch (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Whether a RS uses the specific word "unusual" should not be a concern, so long as it is verifiable that a death is unusual as that word is most readily understood. "Unusual" is not the only way to express that concept, and so we shouldn't fret over some other wording that breaks down to the same thing. postdlf (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• No one has ever suggested requiring the exact word "unusual" to appear. No one has objected to "Weird", "bizarre", "strange", etc.—Kww(talk) 20:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think the words used to describe the death are less important than the nature of the source itself. If a web site/news column/TV show is devoted to "weird news" or "unusual deaths", or "stupid criminals", or such, then the credibility of that source should be immediately suspect. Such media is infected with many stories of dubious veracity, some of which get repeated in more credible sources such as newspapers who often reprint stories with little fact checking. The subject matter at hand here is an area that strongly overlaps with urban legends (which are often reprinted in many "reliable" sources), and we need to take that into account when we look at sourcing. It would greatly concern me to have a standard based on what words were used to describe a death without a strong consideration of the veracity of the story itself. Gigs (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Lighten up. It's one on Wikipedia's huh-whaddya-know articles, and people like writing them, people like reading them, and it's not like the article is sucking away data from the other articles or using up our limited supply of paper. It's referenced and not an embarrassment to the project or anything. As to original research, relax. What we don't want is someone stringing together facts (probably but not necessarily cherry-picked) and coming up with a new slant on some historical event and that sort of thing. I wouldn't worry too much if demises that a reasonable person might consider to be odd or funny or shocking or weird are stretched to fit under the rubric of "unusual". It's kind of semantic paper-shuffling to worry too much about that, in my opinion. All that said, it'd be reasonable to AfD the article if someone wants to, or rename it. These articles can be a maintenance problem, mainly a trimming problem, and there are a bunch entries that are too uninteresting or mundane to be in it, in my opinion. That's a different issue. Herostratus (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• In my experience, reliable news sources hardly ever explicitly describe an event as unusual, bizarre, etc – they just report the facts. A semi-random check of some of this article's sources seems to confirm this; there are one or two which quote a spokesperson as saying "this is really unusual", but I can't find any in which the source itself makes that claim. So the proposed selection criteria seem fundamentally flawed, and result in a pretty arbitrary list. On the other hand, I don't think it's acceptable for editors to decide amongst themselves which deaths are unusual. We're not experts in the subject, and what seems unusual to us might in fact be fairly common. So I suppose my answer to the RFC question is neither. It would be a shame to see this article deleted, though. Perhaps an alternative might be to move it into WP-space, where the rules aren't quite so stringent. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Lighten up per Herostratus, but also keep it on a short leash. I am a bit conflicted on this article, since on one hand I feel there can be a reasonable consensus on deaths that are practically unequivocally unusual, even if no source explicitly deems it so. On the other hand, I am worried a lot about legitimating WP:OR - here it is of little or no harm, but I don't want to soap the slopes. To whoever calls for deletion -the article is going to stay. It is controversial but lots of AfDs hovered between "keep" and "no consensus". Also, it is so popular that it has been called an "unforgettable entry" by Time magazine, and deleting it would only show how far removed is the project from the real world of our readers. Not that being popular is an argument for retention per se, at all, but it oughts to be considered among other things: WP is at the service of readers, and if our readers want something, we have to consider it, provided it is in line with our goals.

I think the best course of action is to deem this article a tightly controlled, short-leashed IAR exception to WP:OR. Call it an experiment. Having sources which deem the entry unusual, bizarre etc. should be mandatory when adding directly to the list. Entries without this requirement should be instead be posted on the talk page, and inclusion decided by consensus for each one. --cyclopia^speak! 08:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

the conditional for IAR is that it "improves the encyclopedia". Can you specify what improvement you see happening because of the ignoring of the rules? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

We made a mistake ignoring the rules to let this article stay. The recent back-and-forth of what should stay and what should go proves that this article is more trouble than it is worth pbp 23:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict), TRPoD: That we don't miss obviously relevant entries that basically every reader would expect just because the coverage doesn't explicitly call it like that. That is clearly an improvement. --cyclopia^speak! 23:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

readers "expect" to be able to add articles about their dog, to promote their favorite candidate, to wallow in slander when a piece of merchandise fails to live up to the unrealistic properties extolled in the commercial, however, we dont break our policies to allow that. Why would we break our policies to add content to an already bloated article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

"We made a mistake ignoring the rules to let this article stay". Maybe, but the article's here, and it's apparently been AfD'd several times without success. It'd let that go and deal with the fact on the ground: the article's here. It's a big encyclopedia and it has some odd corners, see Wikipedia:Unusual articles, and it's not the end of the world. If we renamed the article to List of deaths that a reasonable person might find unusual, odd, macabrely amusing, ironic, or otherwise interesting we'd maybe not have to squabble about terminology. That name's too long, but let's just act as if that's the name, because that, after all, is what the article really is, and List of unusual deaths is a reasonable stand-in for that that most people will understand. Rules are OK, but there's no need to be pedantic when there's no great harm. Science will survive the existence of this article. Herostratus (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Changing the name to reflect the actual current state would still not address 1) the fact that sources and not wikipedia editors are required to make any analysis that appears in an article and 2) would further simply clarify that fact that it is an indiscriminate collection of information. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Those are two different issues. As to the first, you're being pedantic in my opinion. As to the second, you have a point, but. The article exists and will continue to exist, for good or ill. Given that, how to keep it in best trim? Requiring a source to have used the term "unusual" or one of some agreed-upon near-synonyms -- "bizzare" or "wierd" or whatever -= or just a turn of phrase that we feel justified in interpreting as meaning "unusual" would make the collection of data even more random. Because then we're at the mercy of the reporter's writing style and the journal's editorial style rather than our own collective judgement, and so here's the situation we'd likely have: "Wow, here's a death that's clearly really bizarre, but the reporter didn't say so and decided to just let the facts speak for themselves, so we can't include it. On the other hand, for some reason a reporter decided to call this other rather mundane death 'wierd', so we're bound to include it." I don't see how that's an improvement. Herostratus (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

There is never any policy or interpretation that binds us to include any particular piece of data. But for your example, including content solely because a single journalist happens to use the unusual is countered by WP:NPOV and its subpolicies that that we do not give WP:UNDUE weight to something that is not supported by Good Research.

But even if we were, that would just be even more of an incentive to attempt to get some type of inclusion criteria that actually addresses all of the policy issues currently haunting this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure we're bound to include data. We can't leave France out of List of countries in Europe even if we want to, and so on. In my opinion, you should go light with the policy-based stuff. Rules, like laws, are blunt instruments, and WP:OR wasn't written to cover articles like this. Instead of saying "We should do such-and-such because of the wording of a rule someone laid down for our serious historical and scientific articles", try "We should do such-and-such because it makes the article more useful for the reader" and so on. That's more likely to win my heart. Herostratus (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Its a little ludicrous at the least to compare something like "A journalist called an 80 year old man who died of a heart attack unusual so we must include it in the List of Unusual Deaths" with "France is a country in Europe and so we must include it in a list of countries in Europe." Similarly dont include Freedonia or East Prussia on the list of countries in eurorpe because that list has objective and clear criteria. And NPOV will clearly prevent someone from attempting to push the heart attack incident into the article even with the lousy level of criteria that currently exist. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm with pbp, Delete the whole article. Unless we can find an good academic source that provides clear measurable inclusion criterion, the article just becomes a lighting rod for WP:OR and sources that just wanted to use a shocking descriptor. I understand that the list goal is to use the mathematical concept of unusual, but how do we parse that from writers who just like it as a catchy descriptor without conducting OR? A Quick Google search shows that reliable sources like Discovery are including deaths that are being labeled unusual simply by narrowing the descriptor of the death so it only fits that one incident. I saw a death by Diarrhea (second most common cause of infant deaths worldwide) being describe as unusual because they narrowed it down to diarrhea by poison. I think there needs to be a serious search for an academic source to support this list. Pending that, it should be deleted. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

And to take an example from this list: "William Kogut" who "committed suicide with a pipe bomb". Should we include this guy? Or this guy? Or this guy? I could keep going on. I mean the only way we consider William Kogut's death unusual is if we narrow it down to the type of pipe bomb. But I bet you I could find that each one of the suicides used a somewhat unique pipe bomb, given that they were home made. This list just doesn't stand up on it's own with the inclusion criterion of "Did the report use a synonym of unusual". Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously its strange because he used "packs of playing cards and the hollow leg from his cot" to make the pipe bomb. That's obviously unusual. Regular pipe bombs aren't unusual at all. Dream Focus 01:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

so, per you, it is the bomb that is unusual, not the death. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Dream Focus, pointing that out suggest to me that you missed the entire point of my post. It only becomes unusual by describing increasingly more detail of the death. It's not enough to say "Suicide by pipe bomb". That isn't unusual. We have to say "Suicide by pipe bomb made of playing cards and hollow leg from his cot" (I bet the explosive chemicals weren't unusual). Well, we could due that for almost any death. I could say "Death by gun at 3 p.m. on Friday the 13th in Malmo Sweden". I bet that has only happened once or twice ever, and would likely get the "unusual" synonym added in the news story. But in the end, it's just a another death by gun. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with pbp, but since we have the article, we might as well try to improve it. I would favor a more strict method that uses reliable sources. There are undoubtedly multiple books that could be sourced for something like this. Maybe someone should just go to the library and grab some kind of trivia book. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I hate to say it but IMHO this article should get deleted. Even though it has interesting material. Aside from the wiki reasons, questions like this are purely subjective and unresolvable when there is a dispute. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Require reliable sources. As others have mentioned, Wikipedia policy requires that reliable sources independent of the subject exist to support inclusion of material in the encyclopedia. I have yet to see a compelling argument for the exemption of this article from that policy on the ground that it would make the encyclopedia better. On the contrary, I'd suggest it might even make the encyclopedia worse by opening the gates to a jumble of improperly sourced material included by editor consensus. Items should be included only if a reliable source says the death was unusual, bizarre, strange or in some other way out of the ordinary. --Batard0 (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Require reliable sources per WP:V and WP:NOR. I do not agree that it would be appropriate to invoke WP:IAR here. We should require a very good reason to set aside two of our core policies, and I do not see how this would improve the encyclopaedia. This is a list involving a vague and subjective criterion. Deciding ourselves whether a death is "unusual" is a recipe for endless and unresolvable arguments, when we could be doing more useful things. Much better to leave it to reliable sources to decide. Neljack (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Consensus If there's a dispute about an entry then it seems obvious that this will be resolved by the consensus of a discussion on the talk page, just as we are doing here. If the consensus of such a discussion is that an entry qualifies then that's that. Of course, editors will tend to refer to reliable sources in making their determination but the details depend upon the particulars of each case and there's no exact formula for this. Warden (talk) 09:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Trimtime!

There's a lot of cruft here. Gotta keep it trimmed! Just going back to the 1940's, and skipping some marginal ones, here's some that ought to go or probably ought to go. If no compelling counter-argument develops I propose to delete these ones.

Definitely need to go, IMO

• 1974: Thomas Bayliss died after being run over by two semi-trailers and a pickup truck on State Road 64 near Bradenton, Florida. None of the three vehicles stopped immediately after the accident
  • Man struck and killed by truck on highway. No story. Drivers didn't stop because they thought they'd hit an animal, not because they were heartless psychos or something interesting.
    • Remove --cyclopia^speak! 07:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Remove I don't see what's the deal here. zubrowka74 17:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• 1977: Tom Pryce, a Formula One driver at the 1977 South African Grand Prix, was killed when he was struck in the face by a track marshal's fire extinguisher. The marshal, Frederik Jansen van Vuuren, was running across the track to attend to Pryce's team-mate's burning car when he was struck and killed by Pryce's car. Van Vuuren himself was torn in half as the car ploughed into him at a speed exceeding 270 km/h (170 mph).
  • Race car driver killed in a crash during a race (also an official was killed). Car racing is dangerous! No entry.
    • Remove --cyclopia^speak! 07:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Keep per sources found below. --cyclopia^speak! 13:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Keep "..one of the most bizarre, tragic accidents in the sport's history." (BBC), "..a bizarre accident.." (The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Formula One), "..of the most horribly bizarre of accidents" (NY Post) -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• 1990: Bo Díaz, a 37-year-old former baseball player, was killed at his home in Caracas on 23 September. A satellite dish that he was adjusting on the roof of his home fell on him and crushed his neck and head against the base of the dish.
  • So what? people are killed in home accidents all the time, particularly when working on the roof. Nothing particularly bizarre about it being a satellite dish. Diaz was an OK catcher but no superstar.
    • Remove --cyclopia^speak! 07:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Keep : It's not that odd but it is described as unusual. zubrowka74 17:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• 1999: Jon Desborough, a physical education teacher at Liverpool College, died when he slipped and fell onto the blunt end of a javelin he was retrieving. The javelin passed through his eye socket and into his brain, causing severe brain damage and putting him into a coma. He died a month later.
  • He slipped and fell onto a (somewhat) sharp object. People do. Sometimes it's a javelin, sometimes it's a rake, whatever. No entry.
    • Keep - A physical education teacher killed on the job by a javelin sounds odd enough to me.--cyclopia^speak! 07:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Remove per sources below by TRPoD. Well, I stand corrected (Indeed, I never got that Ph.D. on Javelin Thanatology). --cyclopia^speak! 13:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
      • your expertise on the unusualness of deaths by javelins is questionable, good thing you have a dayjob.

• 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

delete ample evidence above that the single source used in the article assessing the situation as a "freak" accident is giving such interpretation WP:UNDUE prominence. and neither source says that he died from the javelin, the BBC source [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/365923.stm , after three weeks in a coma, he developed a chest infection which caused his condition to worsen. " seems to imply that it was death from other causes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Unsure Yeah, a javelin, no big surprise. The unusual part seems to be that the blunt end killed hit. But whatever. zubrowka74 17:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
• Pointed remark Hmm, so that's a grand total of nine deaths, RedPen, in the 24 years between 1981 and 2005. Out of how many deaths worldwide, in total? What percentage might that be, I wonder? And all worthy of new reports, apparently. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• 1994: Gloria Ramirez, suffering from complications of advanced cervical cancer, was admitted to a hospital in Riverside, California. Before she died Ramirez's body apparently released mysterious toxic fumes that made several hospital employees very ill.
  • Interesting, but Ramirez presumably died from complications of her advanced cervical cancer. The fumes are a separate issue, not the cause of her death (as far as I know) and nobody died from them.
    • Keep - This is a very unusual death in that the circumstances are extremly unique. Dying by cancer is one thing, dying by cancer while intoxicating nurses and physicians with stuff chemically cooking in your own body is another. --cyclopia^speak! 07:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Keep It was not caused by cancer. It was caused by the toxic gasses in her. I edited the article to reflect what the source said. Rather long article about the investigation. [4] Dream Focus 10:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Keep, as it's been said the whole situation surrounding her death is unusual, not the cause itself. zubrowka74 19:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    • delete - " on April 29 to reveal the autopsy results, coroner Scotty Hill announced that Ramirez had died of cardiac dysrhythmia triggered by kidney failure stemming from her cervical cancer." blah blah blah there was new evidence that toxic chemicals might be involved. "The Riverside Coroner’s Office apparently agrees--it released the Livermore report last November, hailing its conclusion as the probable cause of the hospital workers’ symptoms. " - but not of Ramirez death. "Andresen’s team is going to conduct more experiments and check Ramirez’s blood again" but " the theory has provoked a backlash from other scientists.". The source does NOT conclude that Ramirez death was unusual. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Hmmmm. It seems TRPoD is correct -- Dream Focus, your ref says "coroner Scotty Hill announced that Ramirez had died of cardiac dysrhythmia triggered by kidney failure stemming from her cervical cancer." But the DMSO explanation came after that. But it says she was brought to the ER because of cancer-related kidney failure, and only when oxygen was applied there was the DMSO converted to dimethyl sulfone, which then converted to the nerve gas dimethyl sulfate, but apparently that didn't kill Rameriz -- "[I]n her warm blood, the dimethyl sulfate was unstable and quickly fell apart into its hydrocarbon and sulfate components. There was not yet a sufficient amount of nerve gas to harm the paramedics. When Susan Kane drew blood at the hospital, however, the cool temperature had slowed the breakdown of the dimethyl sulfate. Appreciable amounts of it built up in the syringe, and some of it vaporized out of the blood. This was the gas that poisoned the emergency room staff", it says.

However, this then raises the question: can the immediate circumstance and aftereffects of a death lead to its inclusion here? Suppose I die in a mundane car crash, but a bus swerves to avoid the accident, tips over, and the bus occupants fly through the air and land (injured but alive) in the cars of a working ferriss wheel, in exact alphabetical order. The only death is my mundane one. Does this qualify? I'd say no, but it's an interesting question (but possibly a slippery slope). But let's give TRPoD the win here. Herostratus (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• It is an usual death because of things involved, not just the possible cause of it. The article goes on to show the initial coroner's report may not have the actual reason for her death. It says "presumably from cancer-related kidney failure". Research was done to figure out what else had happened. The poison gas that was produced in her body could've been what killed her. It certainly harmed everyone else around that breathed it. Dream Focus 04:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

  Also note the reliable source does call it an unusual death. "Micozzi is a forensic pathologist who has helped investigate dozens of unusual deaths." He was called in to investigate this, because it is an unusual death. Dream Focus 04:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

  Oh look, more evidence. In the article for the woman, Gloria Ramirez, "The Ramirez family's pathologist was unable to determine a cause of death" and links to an article ANATOMY OF THE "FUMING WOMAN" from the New Times Los Angeles Published: 05/15/97, which goes into detail on how they messed up things so badly that future examinations weren't able to determine the cause of death. Dream Focus 04:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Arguable

• 1960: Alan Stacey, Formula One race driver, died in a crash during the Belgian Grand Prix when a bird flew into his face, causing him to lose control.
  • Racing Formula One cars is dangerous. There's a lot of things that can go wrong -- something on the track, bird, tire blows out, whatever.
    • Keep - Of all things that can go wrong, birds on your face seem among the least common.--cyclopia^speak! 08:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Keep That is clearly an unusual death that belongs on the list. Dream Focus 10:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • delete 1) the source says the only evidence that it in any way related to a bird is a claim by a mechanic - that is not a reliable source. 2) even it it was a bird, " Of all things that can go wrong, birds on your face seem among the least common." is WP:OR, 3) the source does not identify it as "unusual" so it fails WP:V. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment. TRPoD is correct. "Colin Chapman, builder of the car, held to the idea that a bird had struck him in the face, knocking him cold." This is the only source we have listed, and that's all it says. No bird was found or seen as far as I know, just one person's rank speculation Furthermore, Chapman would have incentive to direct speculation away from a possible fault in the car -- which is the other possible explanation offered (by the author of the book cited, and which also seems to be speculation), that the gas tank split open, spraying Stacey with gas and causing him to lose control. Or Stacey could have a heart attack or seizure or struck something on the track, or whatever. We can't use this, period, since the source doesn't support the material. If it's kept, we have to change it to "undetermined reasons" (which I would guess makes it pretty mundane for a race car driver). Herostratus (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• 1966: Worth Bingham, son of Barry Bingham, Sr., died when a surfboard, lying atop the back of his convertible, hit a parked car, swung around, and broke his neck

• • Erm. Car accident. He had something sticking out his car (pro tip: don't do this!) that hit something. I bet this happens to someone several times a year. Bingham himself was not notable although his dad was, somewhat.
    • Undecided Can't decide how this is common. Should look more.--cyclopia^speak! 08:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• 2002: Brittanie Cecil, a 13-year-old American, was struck in the head by a hockey puck shot by Espen Knutsen and deflected into the crowd at an NHL hockey game in Columbus, Ohio. She died two days later in the hospital.
  • Remove --cyclopia^speak! 08:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• 2011: Jose Luis Ochoa, 35, died after being stabbed in the leg at a cockfight in Tulare County, California U.S., by one of the birds that had a knife attached to its limb.
  • Keep This is a weird incident indeed, not a simple random fatality as the one above. --cyclopia^speak! 08:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Keep A chicken with a knife killing someone is an unusual death. Dream Focus 10:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I dunno. Spectators get hurt at sporting events all the time, and some are killed. We've got these two, then there's the guy who fell at the Braves game and here's a gal who was killed by a ball and I know people have been hurt bad (not sure if killed) by flying bats. Then there's car racing which has had tons of spectator fatalities, and there's all the people at that air show a couple of years back. Here's another guy killed at a hockey game, albeit via homicide. I wouldn't include these.

• 2004: Ronald McClagish, from Murrow, Cambridgeshire in England, was trapped inside a cupboard when a wardrobe outside fell over and made it impossible for him to get out. McClagish survived for a week before succumbing to bronchitis, which he had contracted when he removed a waterpipe in an attempt to free himself and the cupboard was partially flooded.
• 2006: Mariesa Weber, a petite 38-year-old woman, asphyxiated when she became wedged upside-down behind a bookcase in her bedroom while trying to adjust a plug on her television set. Her family, believing she had been abducted, searched for eleven days before finally finding the body
  • I suppose it's not super common to get wedged into the furniture and die (as opposed to outright killed by falling furniture, which is common), but it's happened twice it appears and probably more. Here's a person got stuck in a chimney. Here's another. Here's another. Another. And there're more if you look. And that's just chimneys. So I dunno. I'd delete them.
    • Tentative keep - After all these are not chimneys. It is true it seems there is at least a third incident of the kind [5]. However, circumstances here seem to make them stand: in one, the death was actually due to his attempts to free out; in the second the fact that family couldn't find her body in her own home for 11 days. --cyclopia^speak! 08:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
      • delete weber fails WP:V and WP:OR source does not call it unusual. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• 1983: American author Tennessee Williams died when he choked on an eyedrop bottle-cap in his room at the Hotel Elysee in New York. He would routinely place the cap in his mouth, lean back, and place his eyedrops in each eye.
  • Stuff like this happens every day. The only reason for including it would be that it's Tennesse Williams, who was a legitimate big star. I don't think that fame of the deceased is a formal criterion, but it's apparent that there's some de facto criterion along the lines of "(fame of deceased) x (oddness of death) = (value of having an entry)", which is OK I guess. Williams was very famous (a high multiplier) but his death was extremely mundane (a low multiplier). If the article was List of unusual celebrity deaths maybe it'd be different, but IMO mundane demise means no entry. Herostratus (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Remove --cyclopia^speak! 08:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with removing all of these except for the man at the cockfight and just maybe Tennessee Williams. The usual thing at cockfights is that birds die, not people, and being killed by a fighting rooster (knife or no knife) seems unusual indeed. Maybe it wasn't unusual, but apparently the BBC thought it was; they have plenty of things to report, even on slow news days, and it's hard to imagine they bothered to report the death of an unnotable man in a foreign country for any reason other than its being unusual. As for the playwright, yeah, people choke to death on objects every day. Mr. Williams's habit of putting the cap in his mouth sounds unusual, at least; whether the death that resulted from it was by extension unusual also is a judgment call, and I don't feel strongly either way. Certainly, his death would have been reported widely regardless of how it occurred. Rivertorch (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

re the cockfight and BBC- there is no evidence that the BBC thought it was "unusual". All we have is that they printed it. They could have printed it because they thought it was "funny", that it was "horrifying", that it would be "a good stick in the eye to show how stupid those Americans are", that "we havent run any stories that will rile up PETA in a while". To assess motive upon the publisher that are not explicitly specified in the source is not something that we can use as a basis to include content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I would think common sense would apply here, but whatever, I found another source that uses the word "weird" to describe it. [6] Dream Focus 15:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

What measurement is being use in the above debate?

• The above deletion debate is emphasizing the WP:OR arguments that make up this list. Examples: "sounds odd enough to me", "birds on your face seem among the least common", "Can't decide how this is common", "I bet this happens to someone several times a year", "This is a weird incident indeed", "I would think common sense would apply here, but whatever, I found another source"
• "I found another source" should be the only argument for inclusion. We should not be in the business of trying to decide whether or not a source appropriately used as synonym of Unusual. The entire above debate screams WP:OR. To me, that inclusion criterion is way to large because reliable source will use those adjectives just as a catchy descriptor, and not an accurate descriptor of the rarity of the event. Other editors clearly agree given the above debate about whether a death labeled "unusual" by a source truly is includable. But editors relying on their own knowledge of what appears unusual is not how we should be solving this inclusion criterion problem. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm using the reasonable man standard. Would a reasonable man be likely to consider these deaths unusual (either in the sense of "bizarre, weird, macabrely amusing, ironic, interesting, and so forth" or in the sense of "unique or nearly so").

Here's what WP:OR is for. You can't decide to write in an article "[Fact] and [fact] and [fact], so it's possible that Stalin may have wanted Hitler to attack the Soviet Union in 1941" (assuming that no sufficiently reputable historian has ever advanced this theory, which I don't think one has). There's a lot of stuff less blatant than that that you can't put in either. But be reasonable. These rules are for serious articles. The example for prohibited original synthesis is "The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world." That's good! People shouldn't do that.

But with this article, we're down in the weeds. And we're not mindless pencil-pushers and paper-shufflers here. It's an encyclopedia not the IRS or DMV, and the point of all this is to make better articles. And here's how sticking to the letter of WP:OR makes the article worse:

• If there's a mundane death, but the reporter decided to call it "weird", we can include it -- in fact, we must include it, or we're cherry-picking. Look at the 1974 death of Thomas Bayliss. A fairly routine traffic accident, but the reporter or editor decided to describe it as "bizarre". But it wasn't. It was a little interesting but not very. But it's in, and if you want to be a bureaucrat it has to stay in. I'm arguing to get it out, to improve the article.
• If there's a death that most everyone would agree is quite bizarre, but the reporter and editor decided not to so describe it -- maybe their house style is to be low key, maybe the reporter thought it better to let the facts speak for themselves, whatever -- then we can't include it (and there are several such deaths that we're arguing about.)

So for this article, sticking to the letter of WP:OR would make for a worse article. And not only should we not do that, WP:IAR requires us to not do that.

And it's not like there's an agenda here. No one is putting in non-unusual stuff to make the point that humans are stupid or accident-prone or that we should all stay home, or whatever. So relax.

Of course, it's arguable that the article shouldn't exist. I don't have a strong opinion on that and could be persuaded either way. I'm operating on the assumption that it does exist and will continue to do so, and given that, it should be as good as possible. Then there's the question of what's "unusual" to one person isn't to another. Well of course. That's why Great Darwin gave us brains and Great Jimbo gave us talk pages, to work these things out. If enough people work through that I'm confident that the Hive Mind will come up with a reasonable result. Herostratus (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

your claim that we "must" include it if a journalist happens to use the word "unusual" is absolutely FALSE. WP:NPOV and its subsections such as WP:UNDUE and Good Research clearly mandate that simply appearing in print is not sufficient and while WP:OR cannot appear within an article, we by all means can evaluate whether or not sources that happen to use the term are in fact in an appropriate manner to meet the list criteria. But clearly a large portion of the policy issues with most of the entries here is that the current criteria completely and utterly fail the basic standards for list criteria WP:LSC and WP:NLIST. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well put. I previously recommended all new additions should be moved to the talk page for debate. It's clearly a much visited article, so no doubt there will always be people willing to discuss new entries. Perhaps the article should set to 'full protection'? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• I firmly disagree that your proposed violation of WP:OR would improve the encyclopedia, although I would tend to agree that simply deleting the article would improve the encyclopedia. If a list has such poor inclusion criteria that we need to violate policy to decide what goes on it, we shouldn't have the list at all.—Kww(talk) 01:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be contentious, but to me, it read like you just argued for following community belief about what is mathematically uncommon. This simply can't work for inclusion criterion because of the very limited scope of editors working on this list. In no way could this community in anyway have enough personal experience to know what are uncommon types of death worldwide unless they are researchers in the specific field.

• The diarrhea example is perfect. It's the number one killer of infants in the developing world, but would be extremely unusual in say Northern Europe. A reliable source would even be justified in using the word unusual. It's not reasonable to think that a handful of Wikipedia editors working on this page would have the reasonable sense enough to know what types of deaths are unusual amonge the 5.5 million people who die every year on this planet.
• Or what about Jose Luis Ochoa and his knife wielding cockfight. Cockfights are mostly an underground phenomenon in the US. How do we know that is a rare death? How do even know strapping knifes to the chicken is rare and that knife strapped chicken vs human isn't common in this underground world? These fights are hugely popular parts of Asia, Africa and Latin American. How do we know it is unusual? In all likelihood it is rare, but where is the source that actually looked at the data and isn't just making a reasonable US-centric assumption?

If we're not going to argue deletion for this list, then we need an inclusion criterion that doesn't depend on the limited world experience of a few people lucky enough to live lives that include the globally unusual luxury of having enough free time and education to edit an unpaid encyclopedia more than a handful of times. This article makes claims about worldwide rarity of something that our sources simply don't support. Readers of this article would be falsely led to believe the we are providing a "fact and fact and fact" list about provably unusual deaths. If we can't do that, we shouldn't be trying to shortcut it by basing it on what we believe the numbers to be. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 01:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

re the cockfight and " How do we know it is unusual? In all likelihood it is rare, but where is the source that actually looked at the data and isn't just making a reasonable US-centric assumption? " We can be pretty sure that our "source" didnt look at world wide or historical data. The item is included because one sheriff in CA said that he had never seen anything like it before." I have left it in because there are bigger offenders - non reliable sources and "sources" that in no way a actually represent the death as "unusual". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

A cockfighting rooster appears to have taken deadly revenge on its trainer for forcing it back into the ring too soon. The bird is said to have attacked owner Singrai Soren and slit his throat with razor blades he had attached to its legs.

Champion rooster slashes its owner's throat for being asked to fight once too often Daily Mail 21 January 2011 -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

As a minor point, it's fairly ridiculous to maintain that "unusual" means "mathematically uncommon" in the context of this article. It means "interesting", but we can't say "interesting" of course. Also, I'm not interested in ruleslawyering my way through an alphabet soup of three-letter acronyms. It looks like we're talking through each each other at this point. We just have fundamentally different beliefs about how to curate an article like this, I guess.

I dunno. If you wanted to phrase this unkindly, I guess you could characterize the overall vibe like this:

• We are some editors who don't like this article, don't think it should exist.
• But it's been nominated for deletion seven times. All seven resulted in a flat-out Keep (five times) or No Consensus To Delete (twice). So we're stymied. We can't delete it.
• But at least we can screw it up, blank it or reduce to a stub by rigidly applying rules meant for articles like Quantum gravity and Causes of World War I, or at least generally try to make it something that is not what it's intended to be but rather what it would be if it was the kind of article that we like to read and write.

I guess it'd be great if we could source to the Journal of Morbidity and Mortality article "The Unusual Death: An Metastatistical Study Using Data Fitting" and the Actuarial Science Review article "Morbidity Incidence Rates in Sheffield, 1920-1940: A Regression Analysis of Outlier Events" or something. Maybe the books "Anomaly Detection in Human Morbidity: Defining The Truly Unusual" or "The Oxford Companion to Exceptional Demise" would help. Unfortunately, we don't have access to those.

There's a whole honkin' pile of articles that don't meet the standards of our scientific and historical articles. For instance, List of Strawberry Shortcake characters is a mess. I mean, right off we have "Huckleberry Pie is one of Strawberry Shortcake's friends..." and not only is there no citation to the Interdisciplinary Journal of Social Amity proving this, but there's no citation at all. Maybe they're not really friends. Maybe Strawberry Shortcake just tolerates Huckleberry Pie. You'd want a psychometric behavior assessment of all their interactions for starters, I'd think. I don't know how you all sleep knowing that articles like that exist.

Unlike many articles here, every entry in this article is referenced. Unlike many articles here, this article is interesting and popular. Unlike many articles here, this article has apparently been curated with some care and affection. Unlike many articles here, this article was called "fascinating" by Time magazine. What I'd suggest is that editors who hate this article and don't think it should exist should consider if they can get on board with the program here, which is that this article is, is intended to be, and probably always will be a kind of quirky oddball country cousin of our main thrust of articles on scientific and historical and other serious topics and needs to be handled accordingly. Herostratus (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

complete and utter bullshit. If "unusual" in this context means "interesting" but of we cannot use "interesting" because then the complete and utter inappropriateness of this article becomes apparent so we will try to hide behind a different word but use it in a way that doesnt mean what it actually means" is WP:GAMING the system. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

and if there are other worse articles out there that do not meet Wikipedia content standards you can make them better, but you cannot use them as an excuse not to apply content standards to this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm obviously not nominating it for another deletion, so suggesting it got kept doesn't invalidate my critiques of the inclusion criterion. Moving the goal post from "unusual" to interesting, is, well, "interesting". Were is that cited anywhere? I looked at three thesauruses and didn't find interesting under synonyms for unusual. If this article is about "interesting" deaths, then let's call it that. Your attempt to again redefine what unusual means to you only, highlights my critique of this list's inclusion criterion. It seems rather futile to me to be engaging in a thinning of this list when we can't even agree on what unusual means. If we go by a dictionary definition, "Not usual, common, or ordinary", then any nominally insignificant death fits this description. I really don't mean to be contentious or cause anyone to get defensive about the need to keep this list. I'm just trying to challenge us to come up with a better inclusion criterion so we don't have to engage debates about items that include comments like: "sounds odd enough to me". If we achieve that, this debate disappears and future deletion efforts will be thwarted. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 03:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that editorial discretion is not original research. We make decisions all the time about what to cover inside an article, how much space to give to a topic, how a topic should be framed, etc. This isn't original research. We are "editing an encyclopedia", not "compiling facts mechanically". There seems to be a desire over the last few years to move Wikipedia more and more toward some mechanical, bright-line, and robotic criteria for editing, this was never the practice, and never the intent of our policies, or the mission here, which is "writing an encyclopedia". Gigs (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

To all who think this article is non-encyclopedic and therefore should be deleted : this guy wrote several books on strange articles he found throughout scientific litterature. His second book deals exactly with unusual death and suicides. So it's not as bad as it looks. We can tighten up the criterias but to me it's not in the same league as the Quantum Gravity someone mentioned. It can live with a little more flexibility. zubrowka74 16:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Embedded lists

There's a bizarre banner tag on the article which starts, "This article contains embedded lists..." This tag seems quite inappropriate as it is intended for regular articles which contain lists which might better be turned into prose. This is not appropriate for list pages which obviously ought to contain lists. There doesn't seem to be any discussion supporting this nonsense so why is it there? My impression is that this is tag bombing - the placement of inappropriate tags to deface an article. Discuss. Warden (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that you are sooooo concerned that the tag specifically talks about the indiscriminate nature of "embedded" lists and not at all about the actual indiscriminate nature of the entire list, the poor sources used and the fact that the sources quite often upon inspection do not actually support the inclusion of the item on the list with an actual identification that the death is in fact "unusual"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• The tag links to a MOS guideline which seems to be quite irrelevant to this page. Please explain the point of this. Warden (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, there is no reason for that tag to be there. Also, the original research tag is no longer valid since every single entry has a reference. There are no "citation needed" tags anywhere in the article. Dream Focus 10:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

as has been shown over and over and over again, yes, the WP:OR tag is entirely valid. Most of the sources have not been confirmed to actually identify the death as "unusual" - it is only the Wikipedia editors personal opinion that it is. Previous reviews of the 2000s and early 1900s found at least half of the items to be included only because of original research. There are large swaths of the article content which have not been reviewed. If you want to begin examining and confirming that the sources are the ones making the assertion of unusualness, then when all sources have been confirmed the OR tag may be removed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• All the entries seem to have had quite detailed attention and cleanup. The OR tag is now indiscriminate and unhelpful and should be removed too, as Dream Focus says. If there's a problem with a particular entry then it should identified clearly and specifically. I am quite satisfied with the entries which I have worked upon in detail. All the facts were obtained from good sources and it is outrageously insulting to suggest otherwise. Warden (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

indeed - how outrageous and insulting to suggest that good sources like [7] should not be used in this article!!!! why anyone who thinks that a claptrap source like [8] would be the source used for a claim on this article, why they should be SHOT. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• The source about Margo Jones stands up. If you're just being picky about looking for the word "unusual" then that appears in another source which says "...unusual death in 1955, attributed to the accidental inhalation of carbon tetrachloride fumes after her carpets...". What we have is a good faith entry with a reasonable source. There is no justification for calling this OR in a blanket way as the story of Margo Jones are her death in numerous sources. Warden (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• I quite agree with Colonel Warden. That OR is indiscriminate and unhelpful. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

your version of "seeming" is incorrect. just this morning I picked at random the Qin Shi Huang entry from a section that I thought had been fully vetted and yet the first check showed an WP:OR violation. There are many sections that have not been even partially vetted and all evidence from the past indicates that there is in fact a large possibility of list entries rife with OR. If you are willing to state that all of the entries are in fact not in violation of WP:OR i am fine with removing of the tag. If after your assertion of no existing WP:OR and the removal of the tag, there are existing entries found that contain WP:OR the tag will be reinserted and I will have no reason to assume that you are here to do anything but disrupt the improvement of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Assume good faith. And Qin Shi Huang's death may not have been that strange, but how he was buried with his terracotta army sure was. Dream Focus 12:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Assumption of good faith goes both ways. To state or imply that I have no reason other than tag bombing to insert the WP:OR banner flies in the face the evidence in the article history.

If you would like to organize a process in which all of the article entries are systematically vetted, when that is completed we can remove the OR tag. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I see. So by politely expressing an opinion on the apprpriateness of the tag, there is now "no reason to assume that I am here to do anything but disrupt the improvement of the article." I think that's a little wide of the mark, Mr Blue Pencil. Do other editors want to check out the history of my previous contribution to this debate? Or my recent efforts to make the article body more attractive by adding appropriaite images? Or my vote at the last RfD? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC) p.s. and what constitutes "proof" of the cause of death of someone who died in 210 BC? Am still missing that full post-morten toxicology report and The Daily Telegraph obituary.

• The case of Qin Shi Huang shows how inappropriate the claims of OR are. I've seen his death covered on TV at length myself - all that stuff about the mercury and the rotting fish. If that's the sort of case meant by this then the tag should certainly go as it is being abused. Warden (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)