Talk:Lists of unusual deaths

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, List of unusual deaths. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Tendentious_editing_by_TheRedPenOfDoom_at_List_of_unusual_deaths. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Per the discussion

I would like to ask the regular editors of this article to take a few moments of their time over the next few weeks and ensure that all the content in the list is appropriate and appropriately sourced per WP:V and WP:Source list as a minimum. People are also encouraged to be aware and join into the disucssion Talk:List_of_unusual_deaths#Discussion_about_inclusion_criteria about what types of sourcing may be especially applicable to this article]]. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a very polite and sensible suggestion, which I fully support. I wish someone had made such a suggestion at about 21:37 on 7 September, last week. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

well, its an unusual article where one is expected to request permission to apply basic wikipedia policy, and had I known this was an article where it was unacceptable to do so without pre-approval, the actions on 21:37 on 7 September may not have occurred. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure who's given anyone "pre-approval" to make any changes. Certainly not me. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Allegedly. Probably some of then quite unusual. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Aparently I was not clear. Based on my experience here, some editors appear to be requiring a pre-approval to edit the article; not allowing even such basic policy backed actions as removal of unsourced content without notifying the other editor and getting permission before the removal. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it was more of a case of a relative new-comer, who appeared to be gauging the unusualness of each entry on the mechanism of death rather than the death scenario, and was chopping through the article with apparent abandon. Having said that, it never hurts to have a fresh perspective, nor does it hurt for the regular editors to review the article from time to time. A couple of entries that RedPen deleted were a bit iffy, but I don't like to see content blanked because of a second-rate reference when main stream sources are readily available. I suspect that this also got some the editors' backs up. --JeffJ (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is "List of unusual deaths" and not List of unusual death scenarios. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

And I would counter that the article is "List of unusual deaths" and not List of unusual causes of death. --JeffJ (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You can usually be relied upon, JeffJ, to remind over-eager contributors that the death mechanism is quite mundane, even when the circumstances seem extraordinary. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a common enough occurrence, but in arguing our case it has helped us better define the article. Maybe we need to have a better intro on the main page. --JeffJ (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me take it a step further. There is "death", the cessation of life, and "a death", which usually means the event of one's death. For example: "He died a noble death". In that sentence we're not talking about the mechanism of death, such as a sword-wound, but the circumstances of the death. Similarly, to die an "unusual death" speaks to the circumstances, although it does not necessarily exclude the mechanism. Let me offer another example. Let's say a police officer fatally shoots a bank robber. Mundane and fairly ordinary. But let's say that just as the bullet was about to hit the robber it entered a worm-hole, then exited the work-hole behind the robber so the bullet fatally struck him in the back of the head. Same cop, same robber, same bullet, same mechanism of death, but now an undeniably unusual death because of an added factor in the circumstances. --JeffJ (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I never realised that death by worms could be quite so interesting. But yes, that one does sound rather unusual. I look forward to the Fish and Fishermen, or rather Antiques Monthly, article. I think you have a perfectly valid point. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems that another editor has now taken over and is removing all entries which are not described as "unusual" by the supporting source. There has been a very small amount of discussion, above, that this might be used as a criterion for adding, but no clear consensus has been reached. I don't think it's really acceptable for one editor to decide a new criterion for acceptability and to then apply it unilaterally, when that criterion has not been agreed and is not clearly given at the top of the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A reminder

As a reminder, it has now been over two weeks since I gave notice that the sourcing for items on the list will be coming under stronger scrutiny. The completely unsourced items have been removed and now those with non-reliable sources or sourcing dependent wholely upon wikipedians to make an analysis to determine if it is "unusual" will begin to be examined. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm so glad we've all agreed to your agenda and timetable (?) Didn't we ought to agree first what counts as a reliable source in this context? I have already asked for opinions (wholely subjective opinions?) on one such. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

There are some "sources" that blatantly fail any reading and application of WP:RS. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

So, does this [1] fail? and, if so, why? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I see also that User Dweller has removed one entry with the edit summary “Antiquity: remove Akiva. Not an unusual death)” and Abductive has removed another with the summary “18th century: Fall from horse is not unusual”. These summaries are a little misleading as they suggest that removal was based on their subjective judgement. I assume that they both meant to put “not described as unusual in the supporting source.” Is that correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, I noticed this aside buried in the middle of this page. There were three sources, one of which is a primary source in Aramaic. None of them claim his death was unusual, which is just as well, because to claim that someone being flayed to death in ancient times was somehow "unusual" (as opposed to, say, horrific) would be bonkers. --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. You could be right about flaying. But again, I wonder on what non-bonkers statistics you base your assertion. By the way - feel free to bury this somewhere else, or even to give it it's own new thread, if you think that is warranted... p.s. foreign langauge sources aren't automatically viewed as primary, are they? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, for one example, our article on Flaying includes sourced material on thousands of flayings, including a single incident involving 5,000 women who were flayed in 1396. No, foreign language sources aren't necessarily primary, but the Talmud is, whether it's cited in English, Aramaic, or Fon. --Dweller (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, that seems quite water-tight, then (although it looks like 1396 was a particularly bad year... ) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Inherent subjectivity

Martin Evans makes an excellent point above. We're actually unlikely to find RS describing any more than a handful of these entries as synonyms of "unusual", which would have no encyclopedic value, as it could not possibly be comprehensive.

We appear therefore to have a choice: either develop some criteria that depend on verifiability or this heads to AfD for the fifth time.

Do other editors believe it is possible to create criteria that depend on verifiability? --Dweller (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

While any discussion continues, and before any consensus has been reached, I would strongly suggest that no items are removed on the basis that the supporting source does not describe them as "unusual". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. --Dweller (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe any criteria that depends on verifiability exists which can separate unusual from not-quite-unusual, although I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Verifiability that the circumstances surrounding the death are accurate - sure. But years of wrangling has been unable to find anything even vaguely non-subjective that can be used to filter entries here. That, in my humble opinion, helps explain this article's charm and usefullness and appeal - it's a very human product. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you are qiite right. No-one is trying to ever take this article to GA or FA (are they.. ?) I agree that it should certainly not be exempt for the normal requirements for WP:RS sourcing. But, provided some kind of explanation for the type of content here could be agreed, as a page header, I see no reason why it should not continue in more-or-less the same way. It's always looked to me like an article on the borderline of {humor} (even if that may be a rather sick kind of humour), but no less fascinating, and even useful, for that. It's unfortunate that those who have recently started to try and pull the article apart may tend to come across as "humourless pedants" (not that one would ever want to use such inflamatory insults). I'm sure their motives are perfectly genuine, even if a little misguided. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ITSFUNNY. Yes it is too bad that people think that Wikipedia policies such as WP:OR WP:NPOV WP:V should apply to all articles.-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe I'd better stick to editing articles that everyone agrees are dull and useless. Less risky. Personally I think that WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V should apply to all articles, but then maybe I'm not sarcastic enough to see the hidden qualities of articles that also amuse. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems that a ruling has now been made here, by User:Kww and that anyone who reverts the edits of TheRedPenOfDoom will be blocked "without hesitation". So it seems that all of the above discussion may have been a complete waste of time. Oh well. Time to say goodbye to this article, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm hardly a "humorous pedant". I've even watched every single episode of "1000 Ways to Die", and got a lot of fun out of it. It's just that humor and entertainment have their place, and this is not the place. I see no hope at ever arriving at policy-based criteria for content on this article, and have to agree that there is no basis in policy for keeping it here on WP. Further attempts at coming up with objective criteria are unlikely to prove fruitful. There are plenty of other venues for this sort of stuff on the internet. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow - it's been 8 years (and two weeks) since the first AfD discussion about this article. If it should get expunged now, after withstanding a near-decade of assault, that would surely be some kind of wiki-record. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a very clear vision of the kind of sources it takes for each entry on the list, congruent with the existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines for all articles. This list is an important part of Wikipedia, and it is well-supported (in theory) by many secondary sources, even books listing unusual deaths. It will never be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 18:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources for unusual-ness? If you could articulate this vision, it would be most welcome, since this article has sorely needed that for ages. It has certainly proved too much for me. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

May be useful: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] 109.153.203.229 (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

So, just to get this straight - if a death is mentioned in, say, this book: The Fortean Times Book of Strange Deaths (2011), (eds: Sutton, Sieveking and Fortean Times, Dennis Publishing, ISBN 1-907-779973 ([10]), that would qualify it as "unusual" here, yes? In which case every single example described in that book would deserve an entry in this article, as it would be WP:OR to select between them? And they could all be adequately sourced from this one book, since it is a perfectly reliable secondary source, not a primary one? Is there any limit on the proportion of that book that could be used to generate examples for this article? But how would one choose? The two might start to look very similar, especially if other RS secondary sources could in fact be found, quite easily, for all the book's content? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Anything related with the Fortean Times is, IMHO, not a reliable source. You might as well cite Zelda the Psychic's notebook or visions recited by alien abductees. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

But, to continue the thought, it does point out the difficulty with this article - the lack of good sources (not slapped-together books of badly sourced lists, which is what all the links up above point to) which delineate unusualness. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, such books tend to be the worst kind of source, don't they. Even worse than tabloid websites (which these days tend to get corroborated quite quickly, it seems). I'm never quite sure what qualifies as a primary source in this case - all newspaper reports? I think it would be useful if we could get a clear statement on exactly which of those sources listed above, or any similar (am thinking Charles Berlitz for one), are considered WP:RS. I don't know, but I expect that Sutton and Sieveking might even provide sources in that book. Meanwhile, following our helpful Admin intervention, however, anyone has carte-blanche, it seems, to remove any current entry using a source that doesn't describe the death as "unusual". I am amazed that the frenzied scissor-fest has not yet begun. But my original point remains the same - those sources which do use the"u-word" will be the most unreliable, while the most reliable, more academic, sources wouldn't touch that word with Zelda's mystic bargepole. (But hang on... isn't she an actual real witch??) Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, initial reports of the death are primary. Books and TV shows that compile unusual deaths are secondary, and Wikipedia is tertiary. So, as is always the case, one would take a consensus of the secondary sources to build this list. Put another way, if a death appears in multiple secondary sources, it's in. Abductive (reasoning) 17:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not an WP:RS. What are the agreed secondary sources? Is there an agreed list? What does "multiple mean"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source, reliability on par with print encyclopedias. Multiple means more than two. Agreed upon? Personally, I have no objection to using the sensational TV shows and slapped-together books, since if the death appears in three or more such sources, it is almost as if it has been vetted by a committee. Only if one could show that one of the sources plagiarized one of the others would there be a problem. Abductive (reasoning) 18:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

An odd kind of tertiary source - one that we can't use - WP:RS says: "Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Because Wikipedia forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that isn't citable with something else. Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." And as regards "sensational TV shows and slapped-together books", I think the view is that one can assume that they certainly have been plagiarized unless there is evidence to the contrary. I think two bad sources are actually worse than one. I don't see how this would work unless a list of reliable publications could be agreed up front. But that seems a quite novel approach for any article to espouse, and so probably not officially sanctioned. But I would be very keen to hear other's views. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not advocating that we use Wikipedia as a source, I am saying that since it is a tertiary source, Wikipedia articles should be more selective than the aformentioned secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 15:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Which articles? Just this one? Why? Your argument seem to be completely back-to-front. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a general miscommunication here. I dont think anyone is suggesting using Wikipedia as a source. There was just a framing that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be a tertiary level of assessment, basing its article contents not on individual reports of deaths (primary sources), but on summarizing what secondary sources have stated about the subject of unusual deaths..

I think the position being proposed is that If multiple reliable sources talking about the subject of "unusual deaths" come to the conclusion that X (a turtle dropping on the head) is one that they include, then that is something that Wikipedia could include without worrying about being OR on our part; and that is something I think I can support. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So you will restrict sources to essentially books, papers or articles that are "discussing unusual deaths". The sort of "1001 Wierd Ways To Die" type of thing, yes? Which named publications do you propose to be WP:RS? What does "multiple" mean? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that something based on that sort of criteria might be able to be crafted into a set of criteria that would limit Wikipedia editor subjectivity to the point where most potential items on the list could be objectively determined whether they meet the criteria or not.

"Multiple source"s would mean just that- more than one source actively discussing "unusual deaths" includes the list entry. Being in more than a single source would be "evidence" that it is considered a representative example within the experts of the topic area. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what your first para says, sorry. And the second - I think you mean two soures. But experts in what, exactly? In the subject of the death or in "death unusualness"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

As I see it, the first bar for this article is to see if we can identify "inclusion criteria" which are non-subjective so that we "Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list." If we cannot do that, it would be a clear sign to me that the article fails being anything other than an indiscriminate collection of random information and is not suitable subject for an encyclopedia entry.

Based upon policy WP:UNDUE "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views." It would seem that having only a single source that calls a death "unusual" would be problematic in actually "fairly represents all significant viewpoints " and so the identifcation of the death as "unusual" appearing in multiple sources discussing the topic of "unusual deaths" would begin to satisfy that its inclusion in our list is representative of a widely shared view and not inappropriately skewing to minority view. AND also meet objectivness for criteria "Does "Death by turtle on the head" appear in mulitple books discussing "unusual deaths"?" If yes we can include it, if no we dont.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Objective criteria - agreed. Two sources - agreed. But until a wider consensus is reached, I don't see why one WP:RS, e.g. New York Daily News, should not be sufficient. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

for one, cause NYDN is a tabloid ("the NYDN and NYP typified the tabloid brand of journalism even into the 21st century") and not a reliable source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

and for a second, if you didnt reintroduce items that have been challenged and will not proposed criteria that you appear to agree with it would show that you are indeed acting in good faith towards a consensus position and not stonewalling or speaking out of one side of your mouth. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Where is the Wikipedia blacklist of Tabloids that are not WP:RS? and why should we all bow to Benjamin Shearer's 2007 view of NYDN? Where does it say in the New York Daily News Wikipedia article that it cannot be trusted? It seems that the advice of the Admin, who threatened any editor who reverted your edits without a source, has now been tidied away. But even he was asking only for one source. I am acting in perfectly good faith, on behalf of the editor (unknown to me) who originally added that entry. When that was done, I don't think the article was under the full scale attack that it now seem to be. Again, you seem to be wanting things both ways - the construction of more rigorous criteria, but the application of your own personally-defined rules until we get there. May I also remind you that the two goat deaths were removed together on the basis of a logically faulty argument - that because there were two reports here they could not therefore be individually unusual. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If you really have that little grasp of how to identify reliable sources, you should probably bone up. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could kindly show all of us where the word "tabloid" appears in WP:RS? You'd be surprised what's printed as a tabloid these days. Or do we all just run Google searhes for popular cultural appraisals of contemporary journalism, every time, just in case? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, if you think WP:NEWSORG sanctions tabloid papers as reliable sources, you need to study some more. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could kindly show all of us where the word "tabloid" appears in WP:NEWSORG? Red Pen, crayzee name, crayzee guy!! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If you need to word "tabloid" specifically identified you won't find it. But if after reading WP:RS close enough to determine that the specific word "tabloid" does not appear and you still think that tabloids qualify as reliable sources, you should not be editing an encyclopedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If you still think that newsppaers are divided into two distinct groups, then perhaps you should be reading an encyclopedia - perhaps "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (if it exists). Maybe you should be writing that article on tabloid news websites. Might come in very handy. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The Daily News sometimes takes a sensational tone, and like any source its use may be subject to editorial discretion in a particular case, but it is a mainstream paper, one of the largest in the country. They've won multiple Pulitzers. I am not aware of any evidence, or consensus, that it is prima facie unreliable. In several discussions at WP:RS/N, as far as I can see, no such consensus has been reached, or even seriously discussed (nor should it be). See e.g.Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 42#New York Daily News, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 85#Tabloid Newspapers. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

And their coverage of "death by goat" I am sure falls into the Pulitzer category and is not one of the signature "sensational tone" stories. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You have it in a nutshell, DeadPenofRoom! although, more likely to be this one, perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Talking of mischievous and tantakerous old goats... I have just received my bargain-basement copy of this Time–Life published book. Purely by chance, I see that it features a certain celebrity goat, together with lots of other accounts of strange deaths. This beautifully produced book is subtitled "Curious and Unusual Facts" and has full sections of Acknowldegments and Bibliography. It can even be borrowed here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

So, is this book WP:RS? If not, why not? Maybe it's just unreliable "journalism" masquerading as a reliable book? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

"Site under construction"?

If construction site deaths really did happen “ALL the time”, the only business that would be booming would be that of the undertaker, and bodies of construction workers would need to be piled higher that the buildings where they died. Personally I think construction site deaths may not be that unusual. But my personal opinion counts for nothing here. So, if a perfectly good WP:RS – The Telegraph – says that a death has occurred because of a “freak accident”, then it seems we should add it? One wonders whether sub-editors will now be aiming to ensure more exposure for their own newspaper, in this much-loved and much-copied article, by deliberately choosing words like “freak” and “unusual”. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• 22,000 men died attempting to build the Panama Canal under the French. Abductive (reasoning) 15:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

  Very sorry to hear that, Is the archived Telegraph report still available? But I guess not many of them were city IP laywers. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

certainly construction related deaths (listed at over 750 in the US in 2010 alone), even those occurring to passers by (4 bystander deaths in 10 months in 2008 in the US from crane related incidents alone), are NOT "unique or extremely rare ". Whether or not a single newspaper article about the death noting it as "freak" qualifies it as "unique or extremely rare " is part of the inherrent subjectivity of the the article inclusion criteria. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, since construction accidents are usually gruesome, involving impaling, power equipment, etc, there will be many reports of freak accidents. But there is no need to be subjective; just use only secondary sources to build the list. Abductive (reasoning) 16:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• You want it both ways. If an editor judges a death as "unusual", then you claim that's WP:OR and instead you demand a secondary source. When given one, from the Telegraph, you then switch to claiming your own subjective criteria that such deaths "aren't unusual". You also then camouflage this bizarrely by claiming that you're doing so to avoid subjectivity.

Also you're being quite careless with your own source there: it's not eight bystanders, it's eight bystanders or rescue workers. Rescue workers are a group one might expect to be subjecting themselves to additional risk, in the course of their work. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not "want it both ways". I want a non-subjective method for readers and editors to be able to determine what contents are appropriate for the list. And note that when I removed the content it was sourced to a BBC report that did NOT use any descriptive "unusual" "unique" OR "freak". It just reported a death and a lawsuit. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are you now presenting WP:OR to justify your own subjective claims? How do you propose to "rule out" the subjectivity of newspaper reporters and editors? Without a statistical database of all possible deaths, doesn't use of the term "unusual" always rely on a subjective judgement? What is your proposed "non-subjective method"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR subjective analysis by wikipedia editors is always inappropriate for article content. WP:V / WP:RS We trust that reliable publishers address the subjectivity of their publications. WP:NPOV and if there may be inherrent subjectivity in the types of analysis, we attribute the subjectivity. The same way we do on EVERY article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this article is unusual. Perhaps because of the title? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It is "unusual" because of its subjective inclusion standards and the fact that even those have not actively applied to discriminate, rather the application appears to have been always to be more indiscriminate. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"rofl" Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

We have an article on all-time worst movies, and the standards for entry are pretty strict there. One thing about that article is that it certainly does not include every bad movie. Rather, it includes some prominent, widely-documented bad movies. In essence it serves not just as a list, but also of an explanation of what a truly "bad" movie is. Maybe the same approach could be applied here. Just as there are degrees of bad movies, there are degrees of "unusual". Death totals by auto accident come nowhere near death totals by heart failure. So by comparison, dying in an auto accident is unusual. But not unusual enough for this article. Nor can this article cover every unusual death that's ever occurred. But it can help the reader learn what a truly "unusual" death could be. Plus, it's gruesomely fascinating stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that is a very sensible suggeston that has much merit. If only we could agree what "unusual death" actually means (unless we don't have to). Where is that list of all-time worst movies, and what are the criteria for inclusion? Of course that list benefits from having a very much smaller pool from which to select examples. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There are actually companion articles: List of films considered the worst and List of films considered the best. Note the built-in disclaimer and implication of sourcing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Those look like much more sensible and moderate titles. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

John McCarthy

Is there anyone here who is seriously going to claim that an alcohol related stupid act of falling off a building is in anyway "unique or extremely rare" ? -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we may have, at last, found something to agree on. Or are we both missing someting? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well he didn't fall, he jumped deliberately. That's a little unusual, but not quite enough. Alcohol-related stupidity should still be included, if it's spectacular enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Q. Does Australian football need compulsory drug testing? A. I didn't even know the drugs were compulsory. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

some candidates for removal

While we debate whether objective sourcing is possible for this article, I think we can trim a few items that are subjectively not unusual enough. I think they could include:

1903: Ed Delahanty, the Hall of Fame outfielder, died under mysterious circumstances when he was swept over Niagara Falls. He was apparently kicked off a train by the train's conductor for being drunk and disorderly. After getting kicked off the train, Delahanty started his way across the International Bridge and fell off the bridge.[65] I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS ONE HAS SURVIVED SO LONG - DRUNK GUY FALLS OFF A BRIDGE

1926: Harry Houdini, the famous American escape artist, was punched in the stomach by an amateur boxer. Though this had been done with Houdini's permission, complications from this injury may have caused him to die days later, on October 31, 1926. It was later determined that Houdini died of a ruptured appendix,[82] though it is contested as to whether or not the punches actually caused the appendicitis.[83] FAMOUS MAN BUT THE DEATH ISN'T REALLY THAT WEIRD

1933: Michael Malloy, a homeless man, was murdered by five men in a plot to collect on life insurance policies they had purchased. After surviving multiple poisonings, intentional exposure, and being struck by a car, Malloy succumbed to gassing.[90] THIS SEEMS TO BE A SORT OF POOR MAN'S RASPUTIN

1951: Professor Malcolm H. Soule, scientist, killed himself with an injection of snake venom and morphine after being fired from heading the department of bacteriology at the University of Michigan.[104] ANOTHER ONE THAT SEEMS NOT SO UNUSUAL; SUICIDE BYINJECTION

1978: Kurt Gödel, the Austrian/American logician and mathematician, died of starvation when his wife was hospitalized. Gödel suffered from extreme paranoia and refused to eat food prepared by anyone else.[134] CRAZY GUY STARVES HIMSELF ... EVEN A FAMOUS CRAZY PERSON WHOSE WORK WE ALL ADMIRE ... ISN'T ALL THAT ODD, UNFORTUNATELY

2006: An unidentified airline mechanic was sucked into the engine of a Boeing 737-500 at El Paso International airport while performing routine maintenance on the tarmac.[198] WITHOUT AN I.D. I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE REALLY UNIQUE, AND NOT SURE THIS MEETS IT

- DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

A brave foray perilous attempt, and not entirely well reasoned - your summaries seem to just reduce them to a "lowest common denominator" description. They all seem so morbidly precious, each in their own specially way. Does quality of source come into play as a factor in any of your candidates? My main problem is with the notable person/less usual death equation. That's another ground rule that will have to be tackled. But we might have to take each of these separately? Professor Malcolm H. Soule seems quite similar to Turing (although that one is still a ltle unresolved). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

its amazing that requesting that commonplace deaths be removed from a list of deaths that is supposedly "rare and unique" would be considered "brave". -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Delahanty - remove: fails 2 basic policies WP:RS it is sourced to some clippings on a random web site, WP:OR even this poor sourcing makes no claim of an unusual nature to the death and as can be seen from [:[Category:Deaths_by_drowning]], there are LOTS of "prominent" people who have drowned. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Houdini - remove: the sourcing is dead so we cannot tell if the source specifically identified the death as unusual, but neither deaths from fistfights nor deaths from appendix bursting are rare or unique, even among prominent people. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Were you really expecting the man who caused Houdini's death to have said "That death was very unusual"? This was not "a fist fight". Neither was it "just a burst appendix." Have you even read his article? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Try stamping your little sticker over on the Harry Houdini page and see what the reaction is. Or better still, go and remove the death section altogther? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If we were discussing the Houdini article I would be happy to take up your invitation. But, it is my impression that we are discussing THIS article and the sourcing (or lack thereof) in THIS article and whether the sourcing (where it exists) is sufficient to meet the WP:OR policy on THIS article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Malcolm H. Soule - remove: the source does not make any claims of unusualness and so its designation as "rare or unique" is purely WP:OR by Wikipedians. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Gödel - remove: death by self refusal of sustanance even among promient people [:[Category:People_who_died_on_hunger_strike]] is not at all uncommon. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

keep - Category:People_who_died_on_hunger_strike comprises people who held hunger strikes for political, or similar, causes. Elderly (or bereaved) people often give up eating as a symptom of giving up on further life. Gödel though didn't refuse to eat, he was afraid to eat. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

the mechanic - gross industrial accidents kill people all the time. the source does not indicate this one is in any way unusual. fails WP:OR. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Malloy - i personally would remove it, but this one is at least source to something that callis it "Bizarre " and so it would appear to meet the current vague criteria. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Re Delahanty: Mike Sowell wrote an entire book exploring Delahanty's death.[11] An Associated Press article about it is headlined "From the Strange But True Files: Ed Delahanty" in the Deseret News, [12] and "The Strange Death of Ed Delahanty" in The Oklahoman.[13] --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That seem pretty clear cut, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Delahanty's fate has been widely discussed from the day it happened. It may not be all that unusual for someone to fall into a river and drown. But for a star athlete to do so, it's right much unusual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

In the Houdini case, how often does a celebrity ask someone to punch him in the abdomen? Well, it was part of his act, but he failed to tell the other guy that he first had to prepare by tensing his muscles. Oops. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Celebrities die during performances quite often. List of entertainers who died during a performance, or at least often enough for it not to be considered "unique". -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You've become the ColonelWarden of this article. Pick an entry, your response is now entirely predictable, "But <foo> isn't unusual". There's no evidence of thought or consideration going into this, you're merely parroting a formula to gainsay whatever is already there. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my response has been "But there have not been sources provided calling it unusual" frequently followed by "and here is evidence that it is not". Your rationale appears to be entirely predictable, too "I think its unusual". However, WP:BURDEN requires that the inclusion of material in articles must be backed by providing reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"how often does a celebrity ask someone to punch him"

Not often enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed Soule (the scientist who committed suicide with snake venom) - the source didn't call it unusual and it didn't strike commenting editors as unusual. That's about as objective as we're likely to get. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with this removal. Abductive (reasoning) 18:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"prominent people" exception

Re the "prominent people" exception ("This list also includes less rare, though still unusual, deaths of prominent people.") to the article's currently stated criteria. Is there anyone who supports its retention that would be able to provide a rationale for why it is encyclopedic should be maintained? -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd certainly retain it. Unusual deaths of prominent people are of more interest due to the notability of the individual. Especially in the case of Houdini, where the punch was invited, and where Houdini was famous for being able to perform astonishing feats of bodily control. But, as I have said before, I'm not sure that irony is a concept that most encyclopedias tend to embrace. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

With notable people, one should be easily able to find secondary sources on them (biographies) that describe their deaths and use words such as "bizarre". I'm sure many of them have such sources. Abductive (reasoning) 01:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Houdini's death is not unusual or rare in the least. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I hear you, not really arguing. Wasn't the incident in his dressing room, though? Abductive (reasoning) 20:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It was still a performance. Up close and personal. At least that was the claim made for its "unusual"ness.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Martinevans123, can you provide evidence as to how there would be able to be an objective criteria set out in such a rider so that we Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list? Exactly how "prominent" would the person have to be? what would be the criteria to determine such "prominence"? and how much less than "unique" would it be allowed to be? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

My take is that if the person is a bluelink, and their claim to fame is not their wacky death, then they are prominent. What that has to do with inclusion is not clear, but as I mention above, if the death is called, in secondary sources, weird or freakish or any similar adjective it can be included. Abductive (reasoning) 21:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggest: "prominent people" = has a Wikipedia article about them; "unusual death" = has been described as unusual by at least one WP:RS source (not at least two), e.g. Rod Hull. This while article is not titled "Unique deaths" (well not yet, anyway). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The problematics with a single source using the phrase "unusual" and whether or not that reflects the predominant view of the death or not has already been discussed and you have not provided any indication of how such a subjective assignment of the term can fit with the MOS for a list having a set of criteria that both readers and editors will be able to know what is appropriate for inclusion.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

My suggested criteria are wholly objective. You're just stonewalling. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You have not in the least addressed how a single source calling an incident unusual can be anything close to assuring that the claim is representative of the opinions of experts and not just an author being flowery or melodramatic. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

So how, exactly, does one prove that the two or more authors that you have agreed are required for unusual deaths in general, have not just been "flowery or melodramatic" ? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That is at the heart of why this is a completely inappropriate topic for an encyclopedia.

The that fact that two (or more) sources that are specifically discussing "unsusual deaths" have discussed a particular incident can be a pretty good clue that the death is a worthy example to be included. Having only a single random off the cuff use of the descriptor "unusual" doesnt show anything in particular at all. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So all single sources are "random and off the cuff", while two sources give "a pretty good clue". Thanks so much for clarifying that for all of us. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that. But under WP:V and WP:OR and WP:UNDUE, when challenged, content and its sourcing must be appropriate and representative of the majority opinion of experts- and I cannot think of any times where single source utilizing the phrase "unusual" in regards to a death could provide the evidence of WP:UNDUE has been met. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it rests of whether or not one sees "notability" as contributing to "unusualness". There is no logical reason why prominent people should be more or less prone to usual deaths in general, except perhaps if they are famous for perilous activities, in which case they are more prone. It might be argued that strangeness of death and popular prominence while alive are two orthogonal and unrelated concepts. But it's the notion that the unusualness of being a prominent person to start with is in some way added to or "amplified" by the unusualness of the death. This may not be logical, but I think it reflects popular public perception and the way that deaths are typically reported. A recent example of this might be Jimi Heselden. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thinking vaguely of Rod Hull, does notability increase the unusualness of a death if it is in some way ironic? "Lion tamer eaten by lion" is just an occupational hazard (although [14]); "David Attenborough eaten by panda" would be a different matter. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

My personal view is that irony does feature in how people commonly assess the "unusualness" of a death (particularly e.g. Moliere, above). But I recognise that other editors seem to have a huge problem with such a view. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Rod Hull. Would Rod Hull's death from a fatal slapstick pratfall be listed here, if he hadn't been a comedian famous for non-fatal slapstick pratfalls? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• One alternate approach might be to exclude all of the deaths of entertainers while performing, whether unusual or not, as these are included in a separate list? Presuambly most of those currently in that list are not unsual, as they don't also appear here. (But we can't seem to fully decide if Houdini was performing or not, can we?) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus sources

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

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

Unusual

I'm considering nominating this list for AfD.

The reason: "Unusual" is subjective, making WP:NPOV not possible, and which makes this page rife with WP:OR.

(And I'm not convinced that a journalist's rhetorical commentary (for example) equates to a reliable sourced determination.)

But rather than just list it at AfD, I though I would ask the regulars here what their thoughts on this are. - jc37 22:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss the last two months? The word unusual is generally used in a very subjective way, but that does not mean that wholly objective criteria for inclusion, even based on statistical probabilities if required, could not be found and agreed, to reduce the subjectivity to an acceptable level. I have tried on a number of occasions, but as yet without success, to steer debate away from discussing individual examples and towards discussing and agreeing what should be acceptable criteria, which might then be applied. In fact this approach was swiftly undermined by an Admin who decided, without any discussion here whatsoever, that any editors would be blocked without hesitation if they reverted the deletions made by one particular editor. Not really conducive to building consensus. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

For the moment setting aside that you appear to agree that the word "can be" subjective, how would you define "unusual" which would meet Wikipedia's criteria for WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V? - jc37 23:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not a definition that should rest on my judgement, nor on the judgement of any other editor here. It should rest, in some way, on the judgements of WP:RS sources who have so described it or classed it as such. The pertinent questions are then which sources and how many. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then do we have such sources defining what makes a particular death "unusual" compared to any other death? (I mean a general definition, not a list of "unusual" examples. Because if we only go by other examples, then by extrapolation, we would fall afoul of the "interpretive" pitfall of WP:NOR.) - jc37 00:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

There was an attempt further up the page to develop some standards for "unusual". The one editor who derailed this, and who persisted in a highly disruptive repeated deletion of items from the list, even at the time other editors were trying to discuss what these standards should be was RedPen. It is very difficult to foster any sort of useful talk page discussion when one of the parties just won't stop editing the article whilst doing so. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It actually rests on the judgement of admin:Kww who has threatened to immediately block editors who add cited deaths, if the reference of that citation doesn't support his unspecified definition of "unusual". We are not required to edit any article on WP under such a threat. He should withdraw it immediately. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Not any personal, idiosyncratic definition of "unusual", Andy. The source just has to describe the death as unusual, or any reasonable synonym thereof. You've been around a while, and can be presumed to understand WP:OR and WP:V by now. The reason it has become blockable in your case is because you are willfully violating policy, attacking other editors that point it out to you, and you don't show any willingness to stop. That's pretty much the definition of disruptive editing and blockable behaviour.—Kww(talk) 23:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You've been around a while yourself. You ought to know by now, don't threaten blocks in content disputes. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Andy, This has nothing to do with perspectives in a content discussion, but your behaviour. I strongly advise that you take a look at WP:DE, and in particular, WP:TE. Because if you continue, there's a fairly good chance you will indeed be blocked. And I would like to think that we all would like to avoid seeing that happen. - jc37 00:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing? What? Adding the very citation that RedPen so vociferously demands? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

No. As I said, this has nothing to do with the content, but your behaviour. But ok, let's start with a few simple suggestions, which may at least be a step in the right direction: Stop with the hyperbolisms, the "shouting to the sky", the ad hominem attacks, the failure to WP:AGF, etc. - jc37 00:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The citations don't support the content, Andy. Your judgment that being killed by someone in a bear suit is unusual is probably pretty accurate: it's certainly not a normal method of death in my neck of the woods. It's still WP:OR: your judgement about an event doesn't substitute for a source directly making the characterization. This is not a content dispute: it's your stated intent to not follow policy and your attacks on those that object.—Kww(talk) 01:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course the citation supports the content! It says, "killed by someone in a bear suit", which we both seem to accept as the necessary WP:V to prove ursine costuming. You then agree that judging this circumstance as unusual is pretty accurate. Now there is still wiggle room - is that judgement OR or not? Is it acceptable for this article? We have to decide that by consensus on this article's discussion, amongst multiple editors. I don't get to judge this, I accept. I added the cite because it addresses the problem of WP:V, I've never claimed that it was any substitute for a headline reading "Unusual death today!" or meeting some agreed standard on this page as to what was "not usual". RedPen had removed this twice with first no edit summary, then the edit summary (after the source had been added) "no source to confirm "unusualness"". AGF requires me to act as if he simply hadn't noticed that the source had been added. At no point did RedPen say, "We need to discuss this via talk:, it's not clear that this is unusual by our definition" (I would then have discussed, not re-added). Instead he asked for a source, so I gave him a source. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You gave a citation, yes. I looked at the citation and there was nothing in the citation that called the death unusual." It was only the opinion of Wikipedia editors making that analysis. Assassins frequently use disguises..-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no criteria that requires the source's author to themselves describe the death as unusual. Just as Wikipedia has many lists of "notable" people, things, events, etc that I am sure have references that don't actual refer to them as "notable". It's a list of unusual deaths, not a List of deaths described as unusual in mainstream media. --JeffJ (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

No, there's no criteria. But there is a policy: WP:NOR. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no criteria yet. That is one of major flaws with this article - that neither readers nor editors have any proper guidance to know what "qualifies" as a proper entry without being confused. One would expect that an appropriate set of inclusion criteria would specify criteria in a manner that, as Dweller points out, is compatable with policy. It is hard to imagine policy compatible inclusion criteria that would not set out a requirement that the sources identify the event as one that belongs in this article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

ah, right, there are no criteria, no criteria yet, only a policy, the WP:NOR policy.... so we're ok to revert all those deletions that were based on "source does not describe death as unusual", yes? and we won't get blocked ny Kww? great... thanks for clarifying... Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think its pretty clear that anyone who restores an item where the source does not specifically call the death unusual will still be in violation of WP:OR even if the current criteria for this article does not specifiy such as a requirment. Policy overrides local desire to ignore or not to comply with policy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It could be argued that WP:NPOV is wholly stacked against this article as it stands. Since it mandates the presentation of facts without the use of superlatives. In fact, other list articles like this might be in the same boat. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV and its subsection UNDUE have been brought up mutiple times as being problematic and important to properly address in any crafting of inclusion criteria. Analysis and superlatives are allowed if appropriately attributed to knowledgeable experts on the subject at hand. Whether we can do so within policy in relation to this article and its subject is still up for debate. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

We haven't even started to try and agree who are these supposed "experts on the subject". Perhaps you think there are actually aren't any? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I would go by WP:SPS definition "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." If there is a book published by a reputable publisher on the topic of "unusual deaths", that person would generally meet the Wikipedia definition of expert. A journalist who says "that was an unusual death" or the random biographer who claims "her death was extremely unusual" is not an expert on the subject of unusual deaths. A journalist who publishes an article "The 10 most unusual deaths of 2012" may or may not qualify. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the source in question, and do not intend to. but rather to give a policy-based response: If the source in question noted that someone was in a bear suit, that alone would not be enough to quantify that as "unusual". For us to say so (even by consensus) would be interpretive synthesis, which is disallowed per WP:OR.

But let's set that aside, and I am going to sidestep back to my earlier statement: a journalist calling something "unusual" is not necessarily enough for us to determine that as reliable. The source noting the death may be reliable, but can we claim that the journalist's opinion that something is "unusual", should be considered a reliable source? Last I recall, the answer to that is "no". And if the answer indeed is no, then we need to find NPOV V RS which define "unusual" for us, so that we can continue. Else, this page should be deleted as wholesale OR. - jc37 01:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be useful if we all had the courtesy to look at the sources of those entries which are disputed, even if only to see who the publisher is. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Why delete it? I can only think, "Because one editor's actions are making it unworkable"

I understand why you'd want to, but that's a bit of an admission of defeat. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

In response to RPOD above: I do not doubt your sincerity, Doom nor, in this case, the apparent reasonableness of your assertion that "Assassins frequently use disguises." But, as in many cases here, your rebuttal goes too far and itself uses wholly unsupported WP:OR. All we can say is "there is no WP:RS which says this death was "unusual"". Furthermore, however, your simple rationale misses an important point - how usual are assassinations to begin with? and then, as a sub-set of these, how many are performed in disguise? and then, as a further subset of these, performed in a bear suit? This raises the whole issue of what needs to be taken into consideration in terms of circumstances - the point I have previously raised as "death-by-stopping-breathing-and-no-pulse is very common" - or at least it would do if we had the task of deciding. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I dont think that you are helping your position; you are just providing proof that there can be no objective criteria for the topic and therefore it is an automatic fail of Wikipedia editors making arbitrary decisions in contravention of core Wikipedia content policies of WP:V WP:OR and WP:UNDUE as well as the MOS specifically designed for list articles "Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list." -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I am providing "proof" of nothing. I am just telling you that the rationale in many of your edit summaries is a waste of time, and seem to be based on exactly the same subjective judgements that you are criticising. But you might wish to actually discuss whether or not traditional probability applies to such events as bear-suit assassinations. Readers need not be confused if it is not their task to decide. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You do understand that even if every Wikipedia editor looked at the death and said "Hmmm .... that's pretty unusual", it would still violate WP:OR to include it unless the source says it's unusual, don't you?—Kww(talk) 18:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That scenario seems a little unlikely in itself. If a small number of editors had not exercised some kind of common-sense judgement, with reasoning and consensus, before now, however, the list would be many times larger than it currently is. But please point out to me anything, in what I have said above, that makes you think my understanding of the principal of WP:OR might be lacking. You might wish to address the same question to RPOD who frequently tells us why he personally thinks some deaths are not unusual. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Your desire to apply probability analysis to the deaths would seem to fly in the face of WP:OR, unless the source itself did the analysis. If you can find examples where a reliable source described the death as unusual and RPoD removed it, I will warn him against repeating that as well. The issue here still seems to be that you and Andy wish to add items to this list because you, yourselves, believe the death to be unusual.—Kww(talk) 18:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue here seems to be one of false accusation. Firstly, I have expressed no "desire to apply probability analysis to the deaths". I raised this as a theoretical question. This is relevant to a discussion of what makes a death unusual, and thus why an external WP:RS might deem it to be so. Secondly, since you kindly threatened to block users without hesitation for reverting RPoD's deletions, can you show me one example of where I have added anything back in without a source that itself claims it was unusual? You might also wish to note that the last change to the list made by Andy was to delete an item with the edit summary "rm Parry-Thomas - racing driver deaths aren't unusual, even if this one was unusually gory" - are you complainig that is WP:OR?? Thirdly, my issue with RPoD's edits is not that he has removed items which do have a description of unusual in the source, but that his edit summary justification is based of an unnecessary subjective judgement - the very thing we are all trying to avoid. The issue here, as I see it, apart from unreasoned hostility, is that clear criteria for inclusion have still not yet been agreed with a consensus. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Martinevans123, you appear to be framing items slightly out of context and focussing on non-important factors. Kww's statement was "any editor that reverts one of RPoD's deletions is clearly violating policy unless they provide an inline citation, in the list, that supports the categorization of the death as "unusual", as WP:V requires that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". I will enforce that policy by means of blocking without hesitation". You seem to be fixated solely upon the very first phrase and appear to be attempting to imply that the remainder of the content was not stated and is not the standard application of Wikipedia wide policy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That was a "summary" not a "fixation". I feel disappointed that Kww made no contribution here before issuing what seemed to be a very one-sided edict. I don't see any Wikipedia policy about "sources which say a death was unusual". That was your suggestion, which I have gone along with, for the sake of expediency. We have not reached any clearly stated consensus. Indeed Kww seemed quite oblivious to the need for any. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Applying basic policy of WP:V and WP:OR is hardly a one sided edict. And if it is one sided because someone is applying policy and someone is acting contrary to policy, then is it appropriately one sided. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I am oblivious of nothing. You can feel free to set more stringent requirements than policy requires by consensus, but not less. Knowingly violating WP:V and WP:OR is disruptive editing.—Kww(talk) 16:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's just surprise that this article has survived for so long without the application of WP:OR in this way. It's still not at all clear to me which words other than "unusual" would be considered acceptable. And yet we have threats of blocking based on this vague interpretation, and nothing at the top of the article to guide editors, especially new editors who may not have read all of this Talk Page. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Definition

• "Ok, then do we have such sources defining what makes a particular death "unusual" compared to any other death? (I mean a general definition, not a list of "unusual" examples. Because if we only go by other examples, then by extrapolation, we would fall afoul of the "interpretive" pitfall of WP:NOR.)"

To repeat my question (it got lost above) - jc37 02:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Here is an article on the meta-topic It was a freak accident: analysis of the presentation of injuries and deaths in the U.S. press Abductive (reasoning) 02:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  Nice source : )

  At first glance it would seem to support that we shouldn't consider a journalist's characterisation of an accident as a "freak accident" as a reliable source. - jc37 02:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  Exactly. Abductive (reasoning) 06:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  Which journalist? Or do you mean every journalist? So you're trying to rule our all journalism as WP:RS? Unless you personally think it's "reasonable"? I think you might have a lot of source checking to do across this whole encyclopedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  As I have said repeatedly, all primary sources are OUT, Wikipedia-wide, when challenged. I hearby notify you that I am challenging all the primary sources on this page. Abductive (reasoning) 18:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  As I have said repeatedly, that seems a little partial. Why not challenge on every Wikipedia article - quite a few to choose from? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I was originally highly skeptical too, but after discussions with Martinevans123 i am moving towards the opinion that it might be possible to craft a set of inclusion criteria that are more or less objective. It would be something along the lines of "incidents that multiple sources have noted when discussing "unusual deaths" ". "Unusual deaths" is a topic that has been significantly covered by multiple reliably published sources. The inclusion of an incident in multiple lists would tend to address WP:UNDUE in indicating that the opinion is widely held. There is as far as i can see no place for 'riders' such as "deaths of prominent people that are less unusual are also included." Just the very objective "coverage by multiple sources in a discussion of "unusual deaths" period. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

A historical note: I wrote that "deaths of prominent people that are less unusual" line many years ago during an earlier existential crisis for this article, figuring it as a place-holder while we refined the concept. It's funny that it has remained unchanged so long (I think unchanged, anyway; although my memory isn't what it used to be). It's a demonstration that inertia is as powerful a concept in culture as in physics! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Notable persons simply will have more secondary sources, and if the consensus of those sources is that the death was unusual (Isadora Duncan) they should be included. Abductive (reasoning) 14:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you intend to add a second source for Duncan? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

There is something that can't be ignored... many of these stories that get published in otherwise reliable news outlets are completely false reprints with very little or no journalism going into verifying the circumstances. When it comes to "freak accident" puff pieces about otherwise unknown people, editorial staff just don't care about fact checking. The one example that sticks in my mind is the guy that supposedly dipped his bubble gum into explosive powder that he just happened to have sitting on his desk, and that somehow blew his jaw off. It's clear to anyone with any knowledge of chemistry that the asserted facts are physically impossible, yet it was reprinted all over the world, in big name newspapers. Reliability of sources when it comes to this kind of thing is a very tricky subject. Gigs (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

So, one example that sticks in your own mind means that "many of these stories.. in.. reliable news outlets are completely false reprints". Is that statement based on personal experience? What evidence do you have to substantiate such a claim? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Suicide by explosive in the mouth is now quite common in men. Also common; people covering up suicides so that the widow and kids get the life insurance money. Abductive (reasoning) 14:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Says who? Editor of "Explosive Chews Monthly"? On what do you base your assertion? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Suicide by explosive has a code in the scientific literature; "X75". A Google Scholar search shows 1050 sources for it. Abductive (reasoning) 18:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a numerical or percentage value attached to allocation of a code? How many types of suicide are there which do not have codes? Does this taxonomy take account of any circumstances whatsoever or is it purely mechanistic as one would might reasonably expect? (p.s. I had not realised that suicide was a disease.) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is correct about lack of sourcing in many of these stories, which complicates the issue enormously. However, this particular tale was based on statements from the local police department, not just claims or a neighbor or something lame like that. Maybe it can't be true based only on the skimpy details provided in news reports (for example, I can't find anybody who says what the "explosive" was) but I don't think it can be waved off by everybone with "any knowledge of chemistry". - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

There was another story where a person had an explosion in their basement that was so powerful it shifted their house off its foundation. The person claimed they were making "sparkler bombs" and that caused it (sparklers bound in tape), which is impossible, the burn rate of sparkler composition is far too slow to cause that sort of detonation, even when confined. People tend to lie about their manufacture of high explosives at home, and the media or even police that aren't very chemically inclined often believes it. Another one that comes to mind is the death of a woman that was supposedly caused by hair bleach peroxide spilling in her car and causing her car to explode.

My point is that a lot of the subject matter that this article covers falls into the "urban legend" category. Anyone who is familiar with urban legends knows that there's often a kernel of truth, and that often the fantastic stories are reprinted by many otherwise reliable sources without any serious fact checking. Fictional TV shows like "1000 ways to die" that heavily fictionalize strange deaths are another example of the kind of water we are treading in here. People like to believe fantastic stories about people dying in stupid or strange ways, to the point that any connection to reality is often lost. Gigs (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

So how does one decide? Or does one have to assume that the stranger the account the more likely it is to be an "urban legend" and thus not eligible for inclusion? I think we are moving towards criteria for inclusion that are based soley on WP:RS, like every other Wikipedia article. We just have to assume that there are some publications, including newpapers, which don't just "mindlessly pre-print urban legends". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can solve that problem here. It's a fundamental problem with Wikipedia's entire inclusion criteria that reliable sources often publish material that is clearly false. Gigs (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I see. Well perhaps this article is more likely to suffer more than most as a result. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This is also where some of the criteria that we have been discussing in NOT using initial journalism reports (what Abductive has been calling "primary sources"), and waiting until there is a reliable source publishing on the specific topic of "unusual deaths" and not just a coverage or commentary on the individual (and their death). AND the criteria of having it appear in multiple such sources adds an additional level of scrutiny. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Why should The Telegraph not be used a WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

No source is ever unquestionably reliable. In relation to this article, there is rarely going to be an initial news coverage in the Telegraph that will be able to show that the journist's commentary of a death being unusual is actually representative of the experts in the field, and thus this article including content based solely on that journalists opininon would not stand up to WP:UNDUE. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That could judged on a case by case basis, e.g. "Dr Jekyll, expert Home Office toxicologist, said that he had never seen any similar case in his 50 year career," etc., etc., except that this seems to add a layer of contaminating subjectivity to the whole process. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, to reduce subjectivity, that is why my proposed criteria are to be that "incidents that multiple sources have noted when discussing "unusual deaths" ". Your example would not be sufficient because it is still a single source, Dr. J, and my guess is that the article is not focused on unusual deaths. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Alas, that does not necessarily "reduce subjectivity", it just ensures that Wikipedia lags further behind the news. Unless the single incident turns out to be just the first of a new wave of such deaths, it seems quite possible that the facts reported in the article will be no different than when our toxicologist was first quoted by The Telegraph - the article writer may simply use the same source we could have. But you now seem to be ruling out lists and compendia, and requiring articles written by "experts in unusual deaths", which do not just report but also discuss? At this rate, we might be down to a single book before long and the article might look a little redundant, or like excessive plagiarism. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

And yet more reason that this is a completely inappropriate and unsupportable article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I am quite happy to discuss all possible aspects of what are appropriate sources. But your argument is logically unsound. Just because your suggested amendments do not add to objectivity, does not mean that a satisfactory level of reliability could not be achieved without them. I am not "digging", thanks, but am openly exploring. But your previous discussion seems to have been a rather thin smokescreen to cover your very entrenched view that "this is a completely inappropriate and unsupportable article". You are seeking only confirmatory evidence, to fit in with your view, which is a well-known source of bias in human decision making heuristics and jugdement. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

"And yet more reason that this is a completely inappropriate and unsupportable article. "

So yet again you reveal that you've no interest in working to improve this article or to find any way of making it workable, but are simply interested in deleting it, although you still don't have the balls to straightforwardly AfD it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have anything to add to potential inclusion criteria that might gather a consensus opinion? I have made no bones that I think it is unlikely to be able to craft objective criteria that satisfy Wikipedia policies and WP:LIST, but I have been working to try to find something that I think might. And it has been Martinevans123 that keeps bringing up addition reasons why it may be impossible to do so without running afoul of other policies. Either you can attempt to join in the crafting of some criteria that MIGHT be able to meet policy, or you can continue to spend all your efforts being hostile to me (which will have the effect of making me less likely to be willing to compromise). -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

When exactly did I say anything was "impossible"? More difficult, maybe, but that's not quite the same, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

AfD?

Ok, from the discussions above, I'm still left wondering whether this should be listed at AfD.

It's been shown by sources that a journalist's use of an adjective should not be considered a reliable source.

And I'm not seeing much headway in finding sources which would define the usage of the term "unusual" in application to the word "deaths".

There's a lot of "commenting on the contributor rather than the content" (which is in contravention of policy), which (puts on my admin hat), I strongly suggest stops now (removes my admin hat).

I have intentionally stayed out of the debate on assessing of individual sources for individual entries (as I am neutral on that). My focus is to try to determine if we can determine a broad/general definition in order to set specific inclusion criteria.

If we can't, be certain, I will list this at AfD.

So anyway, I'm trying again: Can we please discuss the creation of a specific inclusion criteria for this page (per WP:LIST), which falls in line with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS. - jc37 17:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see if my proposal below for more specific inclusion criteria might be applied to address policy concerns before heading to AfD. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll: Inclusion criteria

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

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

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

1)very well referenced;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A specific example

We're having great difficulty trying to pin down standards in a general way, so how about if we discuss a specific example. I think this one empitomizes the issues we face:

2010 - Robert Gary Jones, 38, was killed while jogging on a beach in Hilton Head Island, U.S. when he was hit from behind by a small plane making an emergency landing.

The cited news report does not describe it as "unusual" or "bizarre" or anything like that, and I can't find any source that does. But a Google search and a look through List of fatalities from aviation accidents can find no other circumstance where a single person on the ground didn't notice that he/she was about to be hit by a small aircraft, emergency landing or not (as compared to people killed when a plane crashes into a building) nor any circumstance of a fatal small-plane collision on a beach.

I think (subjectively, via original research, if you will) that it belongs; in fact, I'd describe this as a classic example of a death that everybody and their grandmother would consider unusual - that's why it was the subject of news reports, after all. A list of "unusual deaths" which doesn't include somebody jogging on the beach and not noticing that they're going to be run over by a small plane that is crash-landing ... well, that's a meaningless list. So the item should certainly stay.

On the other hand, I can't think of a way to establish it as "unusual" using objective third-party sources. If that's an absolute requirement, then it should certainly go. And if it goes, I think this article should (probably) die, too.

Any comment? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a good example. But another difficulty I find, in a case such as this, is when an editor then removes it with the edit summary such as: "Deaths while jogging not usual. Deaths from plane crashes not usual". I think it's obvious what the problem is with an explanation such as that. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

So, do you think it should stay, or go? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Your explanation makes me think it should stay. But the new criterion suggested means it should go. Indeed if that criterion is applied as it stands, I think there might be about 10 items left. A much more "manageable" size, I'm sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I dont know that i believe the premise if it goes, ... this article should ... die, too But have you considered that while there is currently no source that marks the incident for inclusion in the article at some point in the future, there might be. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That was just a guess. It's a one-size-fits-all kind of criterion. Indeed many entries might have the required source (or is it sources?) descriptor required to save them, assuming we all know in which format(s) that descriptor could be. But I think you should be brave enough to respond directly to David's question, not just to my timid side-stepping evasion. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Mr. Red, or perhaps Ms. Pen, or Dr. Doom ... what say you about this particular item? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Per the standard application of WP:OR / WP:V, no matter how many people on the street or Wikipedia editors look at the incident and say "thats unusual" we cannot include it until there is a reliable source that says its unusual. The proposed criteria in the Straw Poll above would be even more stringent to attempt to address the additional concerns of WP:UNDUE and general concerns that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dumping ground for trivial curiosities. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

People on the ground are killed by crashing planes on a relatively regular basis. What makes this unusual? I must not be everybody. Gigs (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

A single individual is hit by a crash-landing plane that they didn't hear coming ... on a beach! ... and that happens "on a relatively regular basis"? I don't think so.

But your comment demonstrates how we have a category question, so to speak, about unusualness. It is true that people on the ground are killed as a result of descending aircraft fairly often - if you categorize this death in that manner, then it's not unusual. But if you categorize it as I did in the previous paragraph then it is possibly unique in human history. Both points of view are legitimate. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Every accidental death is unique in some way. People who die when a small plane flies into their living room or office building probably think to themselves "Wow, this is a really unique way to die", right before lights out. Gigs (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Battling through that debris to turn on their laptop and get to this article, I shouldn't wonder. .. but there's something strange in the way that one above is written that makes me instantly assume, wrongly I imagine, that it was a really tiny plane, much smaller than the jogger himself. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

@DavidWBrooks: Using your kind of reasoning, ANY death, even succumbing peacefully in bed, could be categorized as extremely unusual. Hundreds, if not thousands, of "unusual" deaths that are reported in newspapers every single year. Is there any evidence that multiple reliable independent secondary sources assert that this particular death stands out way above the rest? Is there any evidence of persistent coverage? Or will it be forgotten as just another news story? As Red Pen of Doom has pointed out, and you yourself agree, people are all too often killed by falling aircraft. This one just happened to be jogging at the time. Nothing unusual in that circumstance, as it is a common enough activity. Would it be any less unusual if he had been mowing the lawn, playing golf, or driving a car? Of course not. Not hearing fast moving objects approaching from behind is hardly unusual either, as it is often the case in train or automobile related deaths. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I gather that the two of you would argue that this item does not belong unless a third-party source or two can be found that asserts its extreme unusualness and/or continued news coverage. Yes? No? That's the point we're trying to pin down as a way to establish some guidelines.

Also realize that if that standard is enforced strongly, this article will become very short - it will be a very different article than it currently is. Perhaps that's as it should be, but we should be aware that we're not talking about some tweaks. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I discussed my criteria for sources in my comment in the section immediately above this one, and they are quite stringent. And yes, that will trim down this article considerably. I'm not even considering "tweaking", but a thorough slashing and burning. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't really want to get accused, yet again, of "shifting the burden", but do you intend to search for any better sources, or just delete on the basis of an inadequate current source? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Since this is such a long-standing article that has withstood AFDs galore, I would argue that standards should be a bit higher than "it has no good source, so kill it", which pertains in other articles. If we all look for legitimate sourcing and if we can't find it then kill the item, it will shrink intelligently over time, allowing more thoughtful shaping of its future. Perhaps we'll even think of better sourcing explanations. With this in mind, I'm going to remove Robert Gary Jones because I couldn't find good sourcing (even though I said earlier that if it dies, the article should die - a bit hyperbolic, perhaps). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You could argue that, but even surviving multiple AfD's does not mean that the content of the article is not subject to general Wikipedia content requirements or that something other than WP:BURDEN should be applied to this article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

And there has been at least a full three weeks where it has been clear that closer scrutiny of the sourcing would take place Talk:List_of_unusual_deaths#Per_the_discussion. I have seen no one take any action on upgrading any sources during this time except for the items that have been specifically challenged. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I've taken action! I bought a bargain book about unusual deaths. And provided a link to the whole book online. But no one will tell me if it's a WP:RS. I've asked numerous times. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What other action do you expect about scrutiny of sources except examining specific items? Nobody's going to draw up an official compendium of "list of unusual deaths" sources that must be used; obviously it's going to happen on an item-by-item basis. And that's fine; it's the way wikipedia has always worked, through accumulated small edits. As for you, Martinevans123, if you think it's a reliable source, then use it as sourcing material and see what other editors think. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As for me... hmmm, my question was also a generic one. If a report is included in what describes itself as a "compendium of unusual deaths", does that make one particular entry "unusual"? Every item in the compendium is hardly likely to be repetitively described as "unusual". So I have now re-added, as suggested. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Your reply reminded me of a guy that died at the Lakeside amusement park in Roanoke, VA... He was mowing the lawn under a roller coaster and got decapitated by a test run of the coaster. Arguably a little more unusual than being a ground casualty in a plane crash, but still not necessarily too unusual. Notable though, because the lawsuit helped lead to the closing of the park. Gigs (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

A good point, Gigs. One imagines that a judge's summing-up, in a case of legal liability, that an incident was "very unusual" and thus not reasonably forseeable by an employer as a risk to his empoyee, might be used as a WP:RS for inclusion in tis list. I am surprisd that the park was closed, I must say. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely, as judges have no special competence as to what constitutes a "very unusual" death, except in terms of the proceedings at hand. The operators of the park lost the case almost certainly because they failed to take the basic, routine and very reasonable measure of clearing the area before performing the test run. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's interesting that you say "unlikely" and not "impossible". But the judge would indeed have "no special competence", he would be merely summarising the evidence presented by the expert witnesses in that case, who would themselves by able to make such judgements quite competently. But who do you think, if anyone, would be qualified to make such decisions? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

specific example no. 2

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

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

specific example no. 3 - more complicated

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

This source [16] describes suicide by toilet paper that it describes as unusual (ta-da!!!!) ... however, it's not Jonathan Campos, it's an earlier suicide by a mental patient. I don't have details because only the paper's abstract is available online, and I suspect the ID of the person won't be shown because of medical privacy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

here's one that stays

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More firsts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

overeating death

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

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

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

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

Dynamic list

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

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

Removed another one

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

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

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

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

Test case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the headlines say....

Today's featured headlines

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Columnist - Popular" (Craig Brown, 2012)

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

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

Other awards include:

"Orwell Prize" (Toby Harnden, 2012)

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

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

and todays headlines are:

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

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

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

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

Woman kills by squeezing man's testicles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mass application of WP:OR to begin soon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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