Talk:List of unusual deaths

Gregory Biggs left to die stuck in windshield

Regarding this entry:

2001: Gregory Biggs, 37, a homeless man in Fort Worth, Texas, was struck by drunk driver Chante Jawan Mallard, becoming lodged in Mallard's windshield with severe injuries. Mallard drove home following the incident and left the car in the garage with Biggs still in the windshield, neglecting to call police or paramedics, but repeatedly visited the man and even apologized. Biggs eventually died of his injuries and was found in the car a few days later. Mallard was tried and convicted of murder, and was sentenced to fifty years in prison.

I think what makes it unusual is that the man was not killed by the impact, but died after being left stuck in the windshield for several days. Apparently, he would have survived had help been summoned. Instead, Mallard left him stuck in her windshield, but visited him from time to time and even apologized to him, suggesting that he was conscious at one point. Had Biggs died on impact and his corpse simply been left in the windshield then I would agree that the cause was not unusual.--JeffJ (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was several hours later that he died, not days. I've heard lots of stories of people who were hit by drunk drivers and would have lived had the paramedics arrived a few hours earlier. The fact that she didn't do the right thing when she was still intoxicated is not unusual either. NJGW (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

But you could look at it from the POV that getting hit by a drunk driver didn't kill him, but rather being left stuck through a windshield did. --JeffJ (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

more to the list

this link http://www.neatorama.com/2007/03/12/30-strangest-deaths-in-history/ has more things to the list. it would be cool if someone add it.

Hungarian oppressors?

{{editsemiprotected}} I would like to suggest/request that the "Hungarian oppressors" remark be rewritten or stricken from the 1514 Dózsa György entry. I don't think the "oppressor" standpoint meets wikipedia's objectivity standards. Whether it is correct or not is not the point of this discussion. 92.52.200.184 (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, though a better term might be needed. Please be aware when using the editsemiprotected template that ""Please change X" is not acceptable; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"." NJGW (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Barbarossa

I see that my addition got editted out. The death of Frederick I Barbarossa is unusual because it's not simply drowning, it's that he went into a river with full armor. Anyone in full armor doesn't easily forget the weight of his suit. Plus for a leader of a crusade who people believed to be unstoppable, it's a pretty unusual death. I think it belongs on the list. I see some of the regular editors try to be minimalist- so if you want to nit-pick: not one single person in history died from anything other than lack of oxygen to the brain. Sirpent (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not unusual, just st*pid, you should try nominating the guy a Darwin Award --Maverx (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Payne Stewart

1999: Payne Stewart, a successful professional American golfer, died of apoxia in a LearJet. Shortly after takeoff the cabin gradually lost air pressure, leading to unconsciousness and then death for all aboard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.218.4 (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Original Synthesis tag

None of these deaths have anything objectively in common except being casually (and subjectively) observed as "unusual". To group these events together in this context would be original synthesis of the facts. If there was at least one source that discussed these deaths in this very trivial and narrow context, then this list would be fine. Otherwise, every single entry is suspect.

Blueaster (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You are arguing that this article shouldn't exist. Many people have made similar arguments over the years. Many others have disagreed with those arguments. So far, people who disagree have won - as you can see by the fact that this article has survived five (5!) attempts at deletion - but that may not be the case forever. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Precedent means nothing. And I'd be fine if the entries in this list were validated by some sort of source on unusualness of these deaths. As long as it follows WP policies on verifiability and original research and synthesis. In addition, the first deletion nomination was when this article existed as "List of people who died with tortoises on their heads". And the most recent one was more an issue with the name and sublists of this article. Blueaster (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole concept of "unusualness" is subjective in this circumstance, IMHO, so there can't be any "source on unusualness". The only reason for something to be included here here is that wikipedians want to include it. That is, obviously, the heart of most concerns about this article, including yours, and perhaps as wikipedia evolves it will create a different concensus about the article's fate. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains much information on concepts which are subjective, but Wikipedia's policies on notability and verifiability are strictly objective. An list entitled "Books that have been challenged" which discusses controversial books on which bans have been attempted by parents and school boards would make a great addition to Wikipedia. A list entitled "Books not for children," or "Dangerous books," would NOT make a great addition to Wikipedia.

You yourself have admitted that "unusual" is a subjective word. Nothing short of either Original Research or a Published Source asserting the unusualness of the death can Verify the unusualness of a death. To be on Wikipedia, articles have to be objectively notable. Read WP:NOTE on what that means (and I apologize if this is not new to you and my explaining policy is presumptuous of me). Although I hope you read the whole thing, if you get far enough into the page, it states that "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. Notability, in the sense used to determine article inclusion, does not directly affect article content." As notable as these deaths are in the contexts of maybe the "Life of Famous Person X" or "Death by Means Y," the topic of this particular article is not.

Although a major pillar of Wikipedia's article IS consensus-building and adaptation to any new attitudes or ideas in the project, I think that the policies still stand as acceptable to the majority of all editors, if not to the editors who support this article. I hope you will read WP:ILIKEIT. Even if people like this article or think it's funny or useful or interesting, there are still major policy-related issues with the premise of this article. Thank you for your time if you've read all this. Blueaster (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there an appropriate wiki that this article can be transwikified to? NJGW (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is! Wikia's History Wiki [1] will surely welcome "List of unusual deaths" with open arms. Another site that will serve as a suitable home for this article is Everything2 ([2]). I understand that this article is very informative, entertaining, and useful and we'll all be sad to see it go, but unfortunately, Wikipedia is just not the proper place for such a topic. Ooh, I almost forgot, Anarchopedia [3] is also a wiki with laxer attitudes and more organic procedure than this one. Does that sparkle with everyone? Blueaster (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Transwiki-ing means keeping the article within Wikimedia space. Anarchopedia and Everything2 are outside projects and therefore do not qualify. I don't believe that this article should be moved, though. This article survived five AfDs for a reason. I don't see you going after all the other pages that are similar to this. There's a whole category of them - why don't you go attempt to move those as well? Yes, this article does have its problems, but I'd be rather opposed to a transwiki. I'd sooner see you open a RfC on the discussion first. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I created that cat. Some of the members have verifiable inclusion criteria and some do not. I'm open to a true transwiki, as I believe an asserted attempt to impose the letter of the law and verify the unusualness of the entries will result in deletion. NJGW (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition, it doesn't matter that there's "a whole category" of articles like this. No one needs to raise issue with those articles for this issue to be valid. See WP:ALLORNOTHING. Blueaster (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You haven't said anything about the history wiki though... And by the way, if this article does get nominated for deletion, the fact that this article survived multiple noms (3 in its current form, 2 under different names) will not be seen as a good enough argument for keeping it WP:NOTAGAIN. Blueaster (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a commercial site; not a real transwiki possibility. NJGW (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"To group these events together in this context would be original synthesis of the facts". While I won't argue the page is high science, every serious encycolopaedia (on paper, or qualified online handbook) has many 'original groupings', clarifications and statements that omit some marginal occurrences in order to give a clear explanation, this is something a lot of wikipedians don't seem to understand. No encyclopaedia is just a patchwork of statements that have been written before with a claim to be objective, each and all. If that was it, encyclopaedias and historical/scientific handbooks would look impenetrable and you'd lose sight of what was important. I don't have any trouble with well-researched manuals, the point is pretty much any such text will make groupings and reasons that don't stem directly from the raw data at hand.

Anyone who is brought in by an encyclopaedia, a magazine or a university to write about something will make qualitative statements, blanket some things together, create structure and stress certain angles so that something may be explained. They might not say openly in the text that's what they did, but that's how it works, and an online project aiming to gather all 'verified knowledge' won't be anywhere near successful by saying: it's true if you can copy said statement from what looks like a reputable source (preferably in English), but it's very questionable if you use your own judgment froma number of sources, some of them on paper and not accessible online, and make the text show why it makes sense. That path just leads to irrelevance.Strausszek 30 January 2009, 09:40 (CET)

Just FYI (off my Talk Page)

I got your message today, calling the content I added to the List of unusual deaths (the deaths of Bohumil Hrabal and Drago Gervais) "unconstructive" and "internet vandalism". Since when is adding the data that can be found even on Wikipedia (as is the case of Hrabal) "internet vandalism"? As for Gervais, the data on Wikipedia concerning his death is incorrect, and that can be easily confirmed by checking several other sites. That is why I would like to hear any arguments for this, completely unnecessary move, since without them, the act of reversion is the real case of internet vandalism. 93.136.75.40 (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If the data in the linked Wiki-article is inaccurate, then you should fix that and provide references. You should also provide references within the Unusual Deaths article. The onus is on you to validate your work, not others. If I check a wikilink that you provided and it contradicts your work, I am going to assume frivolous editing on your part, not search the net for alternate information. You certainly didn't make a good first impression when you reported "falling out a window" as unusual. --JeffJ (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

To give you the benefit of the doubt, I researched Drago Gervais using Google. No irrefutable sources came up (i.e.: National newspapers, etc.), but all the sources I read listed his cause of death as car accident. If you have a credible source that reports him falling off his balcony, then you should list it in the references, although falling off a balcony isn't terribly unusual either. --JeffJ (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I guess I don't have to give any proofs for Hrabal, since they are listed on the Wikipedia article on him - he apparently fell off the window while feeding pigeons. That is why I consider that an unusual death. As for Gervais, I checked it myself, and the only mentioning of car incident is on the English sites. All Croatian sites I have consulted mention falling off a balcony - either he himself stepping off the balcony (but not with suicidal intentions) or the balcony collapsing beneath him. If you need references, I'll give them to you, but since I doubt you can read Croatian, that seems pointless to me.

"Prvog srpnja 1957. nakon tragičnog pada s balkona u Sežani, Drago Gervais je preminuo na putu u ljubljansku bolnicu." (On the 1st of July 1957, following a tragicall fall off the balcony, D. G. died on his way to Ljubljana hospital).

"U praskozorje jednog ljetnog dana, želeći se možda nadisati jutarnjega zraka ili pozdraviti izlazeće sunce, izašao je na neograđeni balkon svoje hotelske sobe na drugom katu i tog trenutka zakoraknuo u vječnost." (In the sunrise of a summer day, wishing perhaps to breathe morning air or to greet the raising sun, he went out to the unfenced balcony of his second-floor room, and thus stepped into eternity.)

"Umrijevši pod boemskim okolnostima 1957. godine u Sežani, pokopan je u Opatiji." (Having died under bohemian circumstances in 1957 in Sežana, he was buried in Opatija.)

I really doubt that car accident is "bohemian circumstances". 161.53.138.41 (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Either way, falling out a window or off a balcony is not unusual. I also note that we now have a third version of events for Gervais (the original entry stated he went looking for the washroom), so I was more than justified in removing the entry. --JeffJ (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to nitpick, but sometimes the unusualness of the death is not in the way the person died, but in the circumstances surrounding it. So, a guy hanging himself or the other one taking a drug overdose ended here just because their deaths were recorded on webcam. The other case is the woman who actually died of cancer complications, but before that she caused nausea among members of the medical staff by emiting something from her blood. So, falling off a window while feeding pigeons could be considered unusual death. 78.0.199.27 (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

1) you seem to be editing from several extremely different IPs. You need to get a named account and log in to help avoid confusion. 2) These are not unusual. NJGW (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I read your sources and none mentioned a collapsing balcony involved in Gervais' death, so again we find your statements to be either in error, or fabricated. Both good reasons to consider your edits as unconstructive. --JeffJ (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have a dynamic IP, and I post both from my home and my workplace, that is why the differences. You don't have to be afraid I'm a bot or something, I do have my account on Croatian Wikipedia, obviously I would have to register on the English one as well, but I rarely contribute to it, save for editing some spelling. Anyway, I shall further investigate for Gervais, but I think that at least Hrabal's death qualifies for this list. In fact, the main reason why I added it is because I was confused that it wasn't already there. 78.0.232.241 (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You should log in so that all your editing history is consolidated and it is easy for others to leave you a message. I see four very different IP ranges. Accidentally falling is not unusual. Jumping from a building is not unusual. Writing about suicide and then doing it is not unusual (see Hunter S. Thompson). These might be interesting pieces of information, but not strange enough to be included here. NJGW (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

xavier mertz

Xavier_Mertz

first person to die of hypervitaminosis A after eating the liver of his sled dogs during an antarctic expedition,a year before vitamin A was discovered

i dont know whether this this should be there,but i guess it might pass59.164.18.2 (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

First person recorded to have died of this. Plenty probably did before the discovery of the vitamin, and plenty after (or else the condition wouldn't have a name). Every disease has a first-recorded-death, so that's a big category... could however be added to List of first persons recorded to have died of a given disease. NJGW (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that would be a pretty interesting list, but more along the lines of People who have had diseases named after them, or Diseases named for the first recorded victim. Now I'm off to see if someone has done this already. --JeffJ (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Boston Molasses Disaster

I didn't restore it, but death caused by a wave of molasses seems pretty unusual. --JeffJ (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Although the imagery for this is pretty weird, this is where our lack of clear criteria starts getting out of hand. All of the below can be considered unusual in some sense, but the very fact that so many people die of industrial accidents makes death by industrial accidents not very unusual. (from Industrial disasters)

• Pemberton Mill was a large factory in Lawrence, Massachusetts, which collapsed without warning on January 10, 1860. An estimated 145 workers were killed and 166 injured.
• Minamata disaster. This was caused by the dumping of mercury compounds in Minamata Bay, Japan. The Chisso Corporation, a fertilizer and later petrochemical company, was found responsible for polluting the bay during the years 1932-1968. It is estimated that over 3,000 people suffered various deformities, severe mercury poisoning symptoms or death from what became known as Minamata disease.
• In August 9, 1965, 53 contract workers were killed during a fire at a Titan missile silo. The cause of the fire was determined to be a welding rod damaging a hydraulic hose allowing hydraulic vapors to leak and spread throughout silo, which were then ignited by an open flame source.
• Bhopal disaster in India (1984). A faulty tank containing poisonous methyl isocyanate leaked at a Union Carbide plant and left nearly 3,000 people dead initially, and at least 15,000 from related illnesses.
• Enschede fireworks disaster on May 13, 2000. A fire and explosion at a fireworks depot in Enschede, Netherlands leaves 22 people dead and 947 injured. About 1,500 homes are damaged or destroyed. The damage is estimated to be over US$ 300 million in insured losses.
• Qinghe Special Steel Corporation disaster, on April 18, 2007, a ladle holding molten steel separated from the overhead iron rail, fell, tipped, and killed 32 workers, injuring another 6.

Do we need to include death by methyl isocyanate? or by fire in a missile silo caused by ignited hydraulic vapors from a damaged hose? or by falling molten steel ladle? Or are these simply death by poisoning, fire, and crushing (and therefore the molasses deaths are from crushing/drowning/tsunami)? Industrial accidents are so common place that they have their own article, and I don't see the need to repeat a good deal of that article here. NJGW (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I did restore it. While in general industrial accidents are not unusual (explosions, fire, toxic release), I think anyone would agree that drowning in molten molasses is very unusual. (Have there been other notable -- i.e., widely-known -- examples of this? I didn't find any.) At some level any death can be abstracted to a higher-level cause that is not unusual. Strangulation is not usual, but Isadora Duncan's death surely was; Len Koenecke was just a homicide victim, but under very unusual circumstances. I think the Molasses Disaster would clearly qualify.

Snelgrove

I removed the Snelgrove incident because of several reasons. Looking into the weapon used, it's manufacturer says that it is not safe at close range (as it was used in this case). Also, 2 others were seriously injured in the face the same night. This has caused at least the Boston police to consider the weapon too dangerous to use. Also, weapons such as this are not actually called "non-leathal", but "less-leathal". That is because they kill people. Tazers kill, rubber bullets kill, mace and pepper spray kill, and 18mm hard plastic shells fired from a high powered air gun at close range kill if it goes in your eye.

BTW, I couldn't find a cause of death for Victoria. Brain damage does not cause death with-in a few hours... it looks like she bled to death, which is not that unusual given that she was shot. NJGW (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is relatively common for people to die from less-than-lethal weapons, whether through misadventure or misuse. --JeffJ (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Cody Porter

I wasn't feeling too strongly about this entry, but I thought I'd give it a fair shake. It still nags at me however, that it does seem somewhat "unusual", but at the same time it doesn't. Such is the crux of the problem with this article, eh? Another article on Deaths resulting from people trying to emulate TV/movie characters? That might be quite interesting and could serve as a poignant commentary on the influence of media. --JeffJ (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we include these guys?

Should we include this guy? At least as one of the deaths just in bold that is, no link to an article. Or is his death just seem unusual because he was a hyprocrite? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There's also this guy, killed by one of his own booby traps. At least, he could be included at List of inventors killed by their own inventions. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Autoerotic asphyxiation is not unusual. The booby trap man has been here before and was removed (several times I think). It sounds pretty weird to me... what to others think? NJGW (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If the booby trap guy has been added and removed several times, I'd hesitate to add him then. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Interesting, and (to me) unusual. But I'm sure that there have been others that dies from their own booby-traps (I can recall a case of 2 brothers in the 40's, I think, where one died after being crushed by a booby-trap). I like the inventor/invention angle. I don't want to see Wikipedia turn tabloid, but some of this stuff really gives a unique glimpse into people's souls. --JeffJ (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

1,000 Ways to Die

I caught an episode of a show on Spike TV called 1000 Ways to Die, and Garry Hoy's death was depicted (although the circumstances of the event were somewhat fictionalized and his name was removed). I don't care enough about the show or unusual deaths to do the appropriate research, but a few things come to mind:

• Those with interest in this article may want to take a look at the show and its Wikipedia entry to improve it and verify the factual accuracy of the show. Some of the events seemed like urban legend, although this may be due to the comedic and sexualized nature of the retelling of the events.
• Some of the deaths depicted on the show, if they can be verified, should be added to this article.
• If the deaths of an individual have been depicted on the show, as in the case of Garry Hoy, the reference should be added to any existing articles about that individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.221.66.27 (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

These really don't belong...

The following are really unnecessary:

1956: Nina Hamnett - other people have fallen out of windows.
1960: Inejiro Asanuma - traditional Japanese assassination, the only unusual thing is that there's a photo of the exact moment he's stabbed.
1974: Deborah Gail Stone - ??? not unusual at all. Accidental, not unusual.
1981: Kenji Urada - isn't this just an industrial accident?
1982: Vladimir Smirnov - accidental is not unusual.. plus its happened before.. 1559: King Henry II
1983: Sergei Chalibashvili - not anything unique
1987: Budd Dwyer - it was a famous event, but not unusual.
1992: Christopher McCandless - starving in the wild is far from unusual. Donner party ring a bell?
1998: Tom and Eileen Lonergan - being abandoned by accident has happened before.
1998: Daniel V. Jones - not unusual. Is it on the list because it was televised?
2000: Jonathan Burton - mobs have done worse.
2002: Brittanie Cecil - happened before, will happen again.
2003: Doug McKay - pretty simple accident, could've been avoided if he stopped to think.
2003: Brandon Vedas - the webcam didn't contribute to the death.. so he's not special really.
2007: Kevin Whitrick - same as the guy above. (Having both of these on the list makes both even less unusual.)

Sirpent (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that a number of these don't belong simply because they are not unique, which isn't really rationale for not including them. It's not a 'list of unique deaths'. All of the televised/publicly-broadcast deaths are unusual because it is simply not usual that people commit suicide/are assassinated on live TV. As for the Jonathan Burton one - "mobs have done worse"? I'm sure mobs have done worse than a lot of the deaths listed here. Julianhall (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Aeschylus

Objects falling from the sky kill people with relative frequency, but that aside, Encyclopedia Britannica states: "A ludicrous story that he was killed when an eagle dropped a tortoise on his bald pate was presumably fabricated by a later comic writer." - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/7413/Aeschylus

Microsoft's Encarta list details of his death but makes no mention of a tortoise or any other object falling on his head: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761555605/aeschylus.html

Older texts might repeat the tortoise and eagle story, but as the above, modern, references show, this legend has been debunked. --JeffJ (talk) 05:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

well, technically, they don't 'debunk' it. britannica merely states that it was "presumably fabricated", and encarta simply doesn't mention it. and the reality is, events that happened ~2500 years ago are damnably hard to verify or debunk. but since this article barely meets wikipedia standards to even exist, hardly worth bickering over...Anastrophe (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to argue semantics. But at the very least, we should avoid perpetuating dubious myths and legends, particularly in an article that, as you put it, "barely meets wikipedia standards". I would have been willing to leave the entry with a caveat about the authenticity of the legend, but I couldn't find one modern source that even considered it. --JeffJ (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Death of James Mason (2008)

Jc128842, why do you insist on stating the birth name of Mason's killer? Whatever404 (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it again because it's not relevant in this article. These items have to be kept as short as possible because there are so many of them - if people want more details, they can go to the full article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I insist on including the birth name, just as I would include an alias. If this incident or the people involved had their own article, then a reader could read further details there. As there is no main article, I believe that would should at least include the killer's alias. --JeffJ (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

They can read further details at the source. It's not relevant - we're not making a newspaper-of-record account here, just informing readers of an unusual reason for death. Similarly, we don't give their ages, nationalities, or details about their marriage, which is material that would be part of a full article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to pick fight, but there are numerous entries listing ages, nationalities, etc. --JeffJ (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to pare down all of the entries, removing extraneous details and focusing mainly on the unusual death in each case. That would improve readability, in my opinion. Whatever404 (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ages and nationalities weren't a very good examples for me to use, were they? They are reasonable information to include in some items (e.g., if the age is part of what's unusual).

But you're right, many of the entries need to be trimmed. I've been playing with this article for several years, and I bet 95% of the edits I've made involved removing extraneous information.

The goal of this article, I think most people agree, is to pique interest by giving a very quick summary (just one sentence if possible) of what made the particular death unusual, with a source and at least one wiki-linked term to find out more. Any other information iisn't needed here, although it's probably relevant elsewhere, because of the huge number of listings. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we need to keep things lean, but some entries don't have main articles and I don't think we should rely on external links too much. Theoretically, all Wikipedia articles could be pared down to a few lines and their external links. Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but rather make the point that it's a double-edged sword... What is too much, and what is too little? --JeffJ (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(un-indenting for readability) "What is too much and what is too little" is one of the main discussion points in all of wikipedia! Obviously it's a judgment call - especially in an article like this, which many people think is iffy in the first place. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

La Mettrie (1751)

The entry for Julien Offray de La Mettrie states: 1751: Julien Offray de La Mettrie, the author of L'Homme machine, a major materialist and sensualist philosopher died of overeating at a feast given in his honor. His philosophical adversaries suggested that by doing so, he had contradicted his theoretical doctrine with the effect of his practical actions.[31]

The source that is cited states: With an irony La Mettrie would have enjoyed, his death was early and unexpected. He was at the home of a friend in Berlin, asked there as a physician. Having eaten abundantly from an elaborate but spoiled pâté, he died of food poisoning on Nov. 11, 1751.

In the absence of a citation of an unusual death, should La Mettrie be removed from this article? Rick (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

List of extraordinary diseases and conditions, an article that was created by inspiration from this one, has been tagged for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of extraordinary diseases and conditions). Feel welcome to give comments and suggestions, because the main reason is basically the same as for this article: Lack of proper definition of what really is unusual, and therefore what to include or not, as well as making inclusions verifiable and without original research. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It survived the AfD, but is still in need for improvement, so further suggestions are very appreciated. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Titus' Flea

Emperor Titus of Rome was supposedly killed by an insect who flew into his nose. It may be exaggerated or false, but several of the others from the antiquity section are similarly apocryphal. Should it be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.122.209.93 (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Lul, who says Wikipedia can´t be fun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.66.254 (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, apocryphals are allowed. Sorta. Useful if you provide some kind of source (ref) though.

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( _t / _c) 05:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Death of Tim McLean

I added this, but apparently it was removed. I think the removal was wrong because it was a very unusual death in that it was spontaneous and without any apparent provocation. Teabeard (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's actually not that unusual for a person to be stabbed to death without provocation. Google "unprovoked attack" + stabbed and you get over 15,000 hits, although some will obviously be duplicates. --JeffJ (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It is also unusual because the victim's body was horribly mutilated and decapitated and apparently cannibalized to some extent. Does this happen often in unprovoked attacks on strangers? --Teabeard (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Often enough that it doesn't belong on this list. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, Teabeard, but the sticking point is that the victim died from the stabbing and everything else (though noteworthy) happened postmortem. There are plenty of cases of postmortem dismemberment or cannibalism and the article would soon be flooded. I would push for inclusion if the death was caused by the decapitation alone. --JeffJ (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The question "if an interesting thing happens to the body right after a not-overly-unusual death, does that make it an interesting death?" is one that has been debated often as part of this much-debated article. There's no clear consensus. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the cannibalism could play into the death if that was the motive. In other words, the victim was killed because the attacker was suddenly hungry and acted impulsively (as opposed to a premeditated, Jeffrey Dahlmer kind of killing). THAT would certainly be unusual. --JeffJ (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The motive seems to be that the killer heard a voice or voices telling him McLean was evil and was going to kill him, and that he mutilated the body because he somehow believed that McLean would have the ability to come back to life. Wouldn't you say this is a very unusual motive, right up there with cannibalism?

I think it is also noteworthy in that the victim was half asleep at the time and listening to music through his headphones and was spontaneously being stabbed by the person next to him. It is very unexpected, and I suppose a case can be made for it being notable in that it happened on a bus on a road in the middle of nowhere and brought greater attention to security on these greyhound buses. So there are quite a few reasons why this crime sticks out to me and I would even go as far as to argue it deserves to be included over some of the others currently on the list... Face it guys, if this crime weren't noteworthy it wouldn't have a Wikipedia article on it, but it does. I hear of crimes on the news every single day, but this one stands out to me. --75.128.92.14 (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Remember, this isn't a list of notable deaths, it's a list of unusual deaths. There are murders and mutilations by deranged people in the news far too often. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely not an appropriate article for WP

I really cannot believe that anyone thinks this can pass muster as a WP article. lists need inclusion criteria that are objective. a list of first deaths, ie the first time someone died in a certain way, would have objective criteria, but most deaths are actually caused by cardiac arrest, and the definition of a death which makes it a "first" would still be subjective. unique circumstances around peoples deaths might work: but every death is unique in some way. if there was a newspaper, magazine, or book which listed unusual deaths, we could summarize the contents here. this is essentially a multiauthor original essay in list form. why it could pass deletion test 5 times is beyond me. Now, for the first time, im doubting the ability of WP to rise above mere trivia. I think if articles like this persist we are going to end up as another Tragedy of the commons. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This article has survived six AfDs. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, a large number of editors feel otherwise. If you have become this disheartened with Wikipedia, you can also continue the never-ending struggle to find a better website.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

"... doubting the ability of WP to rise above mere trivia" - that was a reasonable comment four or five years ago, but these days it's kind of silly, as if (for example) the thousands of detailed mathematics articles are somehow tainted by existence of one or more unrelated silly WP articles. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to apologize for my comment, as i realized later that it assumes bad faith or incompetence on the part of any editors who have worked on this article. i still feel strongly that lists with subjective inclusion criteria, like the recently deleted lists of films and other projects in Development hell, are problematic. however, this article is perfectly sourced, and the deaths are unusual by most peoples standards, so this is light years beyond those other lists. the information here is very interesting, well written. i will NOT be proposing deletion for this article, and wasnt even intending it when i posted the above comments. I was mostly trying to articulate my concerns about the selection criteria for lists, which is actually always somewhat problematic unless the list has a precisely, probably only mathematically defined criteria for inclusion. so my sincere apologies for any and all editors to this article that have striven for well referenced items. and i can live with articles that arent up to my standards.(thats heavy sarcasm directed at myself. if i cant be happy until everyone and everything other than me is exactly the way i want it, then i will never be happy. and i guess id rather be happy than right, at least on balance. (or both)). thanks Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a labour of love.  :-) --JeffJ (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Unless this article is complete (which it currently isn't even close to) it is ridiculous (and I agree inappropriate) for Wikipedia to have. There are so many missed incidents that it leaves this article as highly irregular to be included as an "encyclopaedia" entry... Stevenmitchell (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Snore. --JeffJ (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

So mostly the article is inappropiate for inclusion because the term unusual is vague / the article has an incomplete list template, right? Just making sure.

This list would be a lot longer, but IPs keep on forgetting to include sources (searching through the history, quite a lot were factual, or have sources when googled..). But articles shouldn't be considered inappropiate because they're incomplete (there are quite a few, as can be seen here).

±µŒ ¤₦€ ₮ł-łË \/ʉ₦฿ʉ£§ ₣ÆÅ₩ ( _₮ / _©) 00:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Posthumous execution

I don't know if this is worth adding to the "see also" links ... I ran across it while looking up Oliver Cromwell. It seems in the olden days people would be so angry with someone who was executed that they would dig them up and "execute" them again, lol. Here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumous_execution . I am not a regular contributor to your article, so I have not added it. Just posting it here for discussion by people more involved in this article to decide if it's of interest. Tkech (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course that's perfectly appropriate for See also links both ways. Just be bold, the worst thing that can happen is that somebody reverts you. But I think that's extremely unlikely in this case. Hans Adler 21:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Several years of edits have largely agreed that what happens after death is not counted in deciding whether a particular death is unusual enough for this article. Since the whole point of posthumous execution is doing stuff after death, it doesn't seem relevant to this article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)