Talk:List of unusual deaths/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Removing primary source crap

Replacing primary source material, when challenged, is vandalism. Abductive (reasoning) 16:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

A edit summary might have prevented any problem. Feel free to report me at WP:AIV if you think that will help. I didn't realise the Oxford English Dictionary was "crap". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
It is primary because the source is reporting on itself. It is crap because an encyclopedia does not need to justify itself be an appeal to authority in the lead like a petulant baby. Abductive (reasoning)

By definition, none of the sources are primary if they are writing about someone who has died. -- Netoholic @ 17:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The criterion for inclusion is given at the top of this Talk Page as follows:

"...the clear policy based consensus is to keep this list only to those deaths for whom there are reliable sources (as noted by one person, these need to be high quality sources, not tabloid journals who regularly fling around these words for fun) that the death is in someway exceptional."

We get to don't add or remove item on the basis of WP:OR with Google. I'm not sure of the utility of an edit summary for a removal that says "Common" or "Gosh, seems like that's common." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

And yet the article was full of tabloid crap. I guess nobody was paying attention. Abductive (reasoning) 17:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Is this "tabloid crap"? You removed it twice. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

And just because a cause of death has "happened before" is not a valid reason for removal. This is not a list of "unique deaths". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oh yes we do and yes it is. Primary source material is insufficient. See the archives, this has always been the case; users come by and fill up this article with garbage. Then editors come by and remove the garbage. Abductive (reasoning) 16:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You're saying a WP:RS newspaper report can't be used here because it's "Primary source material"? You've just made 21 removals in the space of 30 minutes, many of which have been included here, in perfectly good faith, for some time and not recently added as "garbage", as you put it. Please don't refer to me, in your edit summaries, as as misguided user." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There are users, and there are editors. Please be an editor. Abductive (reasoning) 17:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • What do you mean "Oh yes we do"? You're saying we can just do our own little bit of 5-minute Google search WP:OR to decide what can be included ad what can't? That's not what was agreed at the last RfC quited and linked at at the top of this page. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Check the archives. This pattern has been going on for years. Abductive (reasoning) 17:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • ...and that RfC says what I'm saying. Abductive (reasoning) 17:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm fully aware of what the RfC said, thanks. We just use descriptions in sources. It's as simple, as that. Please stop making large scale removals on the basis of your own Goggle research i.e. subjective opinion. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • What I'm doing is not large scale removal. It is removing items that do not have sufficient sourcing. This is not some WP:OR rampage. You yourself said tabloid journal sourcing is not enough. Abductive (reasoning) 17:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You have supported some of your removals with reference to what you have personally found searching Google and left edit summaries such as "Common" and "Gosh, seems like that's common." I'm saying that's not appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It might sound inappropriate. But I am confident that these events are commonplace. Abductive (reasoning) 17:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
What's your definition of "commonplace"? Do all other editors agree with it? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Many of the items I pruned have been recently introduced. Mass reverting my edits with a "long-established" argument is uncivil. Abductive (reasoning) 17:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Please be so kind as to argue on a case-by-case basis. Thanks. Abductive (reasoning) 17:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Your brief edit summaries do not constitute "arguing on a case-by-case basis"? I reverted only one of your removals. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Not you, User:Netoholic. Abductive (reasoning) 17:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree with him. I think 'you should discuss each one of a "case-by-case" basis. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay. I will re-remove just one item. You users will then tell me on talk why a recently added item is somehow "longstanding" and "unusual". I will provide a secondary source that says it is common. Abductive (reasoning) 17:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Please show us that part of the agreed outcome of the RfC that says we have to compare primary sources with what "a secondary source says is common"? If you are seeking that, as an agreed mechanism by which we edit this article, then I suggest you open a new RfC. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
The main problem Abductive is coming here removing 20 or so entries at once, using uninformative and (for lack of a better word) "smart-ass" edit summaries (WP:SUMMARYNO) which are which are also inaccurate, since you're misinterpreting WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Problem #2 is then attacking editors on this talk page who disagree with you. Big problem #3 is using WP:Rollback as part of your edit war. Here is what you should do. Slow things down a bit. Pick the entry you think is least worthy, remove just that, then create a talk page section for that entry with an informative heading. Copy the text and references into the talk page section, and invite discussion. If someone reverts the removal, leave it be and let the discussion proceed (WP:BRD). Then tomorrow or in a couple days, pick another, then another. This develops consensus without edit warring. The entries will either be restored as a result, or not, or may end up in the holding tank (Talk:List of unusual deaths/Sourcing issues). And above all, keep some decorum in these discussions. Try to write edit summaries and address talk page comments like you're speaking in a professional setting. -- Netoholic @ 17:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I wholly agree with all you have said. Quite happy to discuss one item at a time, if an appropriate thread is opened here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Another bizarre death

"Bizarre drive-thru accident kills man in St. Louis": https://www.euronews.com/2018/09/28/bizarre-jack-box-drive-thru-accident-kills-man-st-louis-n914601 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C88:4000:A004:1082:D0BF:3CA9:D2B1 (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

This is called a freak accident in a picture text, however it's from The Sun and I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to know if it's on the list of truted media (which I have no idea where to find - and I don't have the know-how how to add these two deaths into the list) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.236.29 (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
It's from The Sun? Which one? The source given seems to be from an NBC News reporter. Either way I'm not sure the source and the one word "Bizarre" in the headline is good enough. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

A somewhat hypothetical question

Let me preface by saying that this hasn't actually come up, but I'd like to be prepared in case it does. If I'm able to find a reliable source that John Doe died from 'niche cause of death', and then a separate reliable source that states that 'niche cause of death' is unusual, but NOT able to find a source that has both, is John Doe eligible for inclusion?

I recently removed a trampoline park death as I couldn't find a source calling it unusual (or synonym), but I did also briefly look into articles about trampoline park safety to see if I could find one stating that deaths specifically are unusual. Ultimately I could not, but in the future, if this sort of situation crops up again, what do we think? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Although it sounds perfectly logical, it would seem to me to fall within the scope of WP:OR. But maybe a definite exception would be agreed and posted as advice for adding to this particular article? Perhaps the item would have to be in the form: "John Doe died of 'niche cause of death'<ref source>. The New England Journal of Niche Pastimes reports that 'niche cause of death' is very rare.<ref source>? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. Luckily historically the news has done this work for us; we do see a lot of "John Doe died of 'niche cause of death'. Leading niche-ologist Dr. Jane Doe (no relation) was called to examine the scene and stated that deaths due to 'niche cause' are extremely unusual" in the sources. Do you think it's a good idea to set ground rules for this sort of thing now, or wait until a case actually crops up and discuss it then? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 20:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't mind waiting. But no objection if you wanted to start. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I believe this exact situation has been discussed in the past and the general consensus was that it's Original Research - the editor is taking two unconnected sources and choosing to connect them when no source has connected them. And in my humble opinion, this page is so incredibly overloaded with examples that straining to find reasons to add another example doesn't seem worth the effort. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
@User:DavidWBrooks "I believe this exact situation has been discussed in the past..." I'm sorry but that is begging for a diff, please. Captainllama (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
"Begging for a diff"? I'm afraid you lost me on that one. If you are asking to see the earlier discussion, it is (assuming I have remembered it correctly, of course) somewhere in the vast archives of this Talk page. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Me too. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry you were lost DavidWBrooks. It's not so much that I am eager to see this discussion and consensus to which you refer, the question is after all "somewhat hypothetical". My purpose was more to remind that an editor making a claim of evidence is obliged to produce that evidence, not expect others to go rooting after it for them. (Of course it's somewhere in these archives, I didn't ask where it is I asked you to produce it). I don't necessarily disagree with your stated humble opinion, and that's fine as it is. But if you are going to back up your opinion by referring to evidence it's not good enough to "believe" in it or ask anyone to "assume you remembered it correctly". Captainllama (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, but it's not worth anybody's time (including mine) to hunt it down. That's why I started with "I believe", trying to indicate that I'm not presenting it as a hard fact. We're all welcome to ignore that statement as we reach our own opinion. My opinion is that it falls under the category of original research. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Deer death in Victoria - appropriate for inclusion?

Hi team, A recent death in Australia has been making headlines in the nation recently, when a 46 year old man was attacked and killed by a pet deer he owned in regional Victoria, Australia. The Sydney Morning Herald has an article about it, with Barry Howlett from the Australian Deer Association being quoted as saying it's 'not an every day occurrence'. The article doesn't specifically say 'unusual', but is the aforementioned quote enough basis to classify this death as unusual? If I can get input from Martinevans and other contributors to this article on this case, that would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. ◄Sandshark23► talk♦contribs 23:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Fox News has an article that states "David Voss, president of the Australian Deer Association, a hunting and deer management organization, said farmed deer tend to be more aggressive than wild deer, but he had only heard of similar attacks "very occasionally."" While my initial impulse was 'yes, let's include it,' I do have to note that the full context of Barry Howlett's quote you mention above is "It’s not an everyday occurrence, but it’s not unheard of for deer to kill people in that situation." ABC has a comment from the chairman of the deer management committee, who states that it's "very unusual for a deer to kill a person."
On the balance of the sources, I'm leaning include. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 02:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good - do we need to wait for more consensus before it is included, or can it just be put in the article as long as we include all sources above? Happy to insert it now if the latter is the case. ◄Sandshark23► talk♦contribs 03:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure, but I would assume that it could be inserted? If someone more exclusionary stops by and crops it out, they'll hopefully comment here explaining their rationale and we can dig deeper. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

This death is not that unusual

Regarding this:

Death by Naegleria fowleri is not exactly "unusual". There were four (4) US deaths from it in 2016 alone. Should the item be removed? - Wacomshera (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

ABC does call it "a rare brain-eating amoeba," Wired says "The symptoms of Naegleria infection look flu-like at first, and later like other, more common forms of meningitis. PAM [Primary amoebic meningoencephalitis] is very, very rare; since 1962, the CDC has recorded just 143 case reports—an average of fewer than three victims a year, though all but four have perished," and the American Council on Science and Health states "this was a rare occurrence" and that "it is unusual for [the amoeba] to get to the brain." With multiple sources calling it "rare" (and one explicit "unusual"), I think it merits inclusion. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
If something has killed people 143 times, I'm not sure that this counts as an "unusual" death any more. It's rare, yes -- but how would you feel if I document every available case of death by amoeba here in the article? And please don't point me to WP:POINT. - Wacomshera (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I think death by a rare disease opens this up a little too far. In the grand scheme of things, every rare disease kills a lot of people. This is different from, say, death by an eagle dropping a turtle on a bald head that it mistook it for a rock. TJRC (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
If they've all got sources saying they're unusual, then yeah, we might as well. I think the important thing is what the sources say, and the sources around this particular one say 'rare' and 'unusual', which is the usual standard for inclusion.
Something else to consider is that fewer than 3 victims per year, taking into account the roughly 2.5 million US deaths annually, means this particular cause of death works out to about .0001% of deaths (and there haven't been any since 2016, I believe). Seems pretty unusual to me by that metric, and with sources to back it up, I still think it belongs. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 00:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
"there haven't been any since 2016" ... Wrong. Plus, a U.S.-centric approach is biased. In the city of Karachi alone, there can be a handful of such deaths per year, due to the impure water supply. - Wacomshera (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough on both points. I still believe that my point that we have sources calling this one unusual, the typical standard for inclusion, is a valid one. Unless there's a consensus to change the criteria for inclusion, I don't believe we should pick and choose which unusual deaths are unusual enough to go in the article. If we have 1) reliable sources that 2) call the death "unusual" or a synonym thereof, it belongs. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

King Theinhko of Pagan

User:Pinedjem, the source you have given, for this new entry, is this:

Hmannan Yazawin (in Burmese). 1. Yangon: Ministry of Information, Myanmar. 2003 [1832]. p. 222.

It's not easy to even locate a copy of that source, let alone to verify that it describes the death as "unusual"? Is it freely available online? Or where? Indeed, what are the Burmese words for "unusual"? Is any more amenable source available? I note that the article on King Theinhko of Pagan does not even claim that his death was unusual. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Martinevans123 I've just added a much more affordable source, complete with a translation from the original source. I think this case is patently unusual, as for the vast majority of the cases listed here. The unusualness itself of this case is the origin of the original tale. As for Nicolas Gilbert you've just deleted: he fell from his horse and the head injury determined the dementia because of which he swallowed a key and died of suffocation. I think it's a bit ... exaggerated to search for the very word "unusual" in sources. Should we hope with all our heart that an author uses precisely that term to determine if death is very strange?--Pinedjem (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Pinedjem, do you clearly realise what the criterion is for adding items to this list? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Martinevans123 I do, and I'm still thinking it's a bit exaggerate criterion. F.e. some of the names I added today: I always knew their deaths were unusual, so I searched in my rich library for authoritative accounts. Some of the accounts spoke explicitly of the strangeness, while others simply made it clear. Had I searched for the very exact statement "This death is really strange, it is unusual" ... For how it currently works, it only depends on the luck of finding such a statement and the page won't really improve, don't you think?--Pinedjem (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
My personal views are not relevant. Neither are yours, I'm afraid. This article only passed RfC when the current criterion was agreed. It seems, from what you say above, that you'll need to provide evidence that all of your recent additions meet the necessary criterion. Or, if you feel that strongly about it, you should open a new RfC here and get a new consensus. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

François Vatel

The circumstances surrounding this death do seem quite unusual. And maybe committing suicide using a sword in, any circumstances, could be deemed unusual, but the current source given is this French language one. For the benefit of English-language readers, I'd suggest that a quotation may be required, with a translation, of the passage which claims that the death was "unusual" or similar. Once again, the article for Vatel himself, which seems to use a different source for the death, does not claim that it was unusual. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Cornelia Zangheri Bandi

The principal source is this account from 1745. There is useful clear copy at the main article. Any case of spontaneous human combustion is likely to appear unusual. Subjectively speaking, to me this death seems extremely unusual. But again I am struggling to see an actual claim or description to that effect in the source. Maybe there is a clearer indication in the other source, which appears to be in Italian? Perhaps an Italian speaker would be able to find it very easily. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I think spontaneous human combustion could be linked in the See also to avoid adding every such case, such as Bandi (as there are several of them). Brandmeistertalk 19:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
That seems perfectly sensible to me. No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
p.s. I imagine it might have been easier to find a suitable source, for terms like "unusual", in more recent secondary sources. But, as Brandmeister suggests, a "See also" link may be a much easier and more efficient solution. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

2010s

We now have over 50 entries for the 2010s. Yes, reporting may be better in this decade, but are we sure all recent entries are supported by sources which describe the death as "unusual" or something similar? e.g. as far as I can see the single source for Fabrizio Stabile (2019) says: "a New Jersey man who died of a rare brain-eating amoeba". Is that sufficient? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

There was a discussion about that specific death here, where I advocated for inclusion based on multiple sources describing it as "rare" and one explicit "unusual." I'm not certain about the rest, though. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that one. So there are indeed "multiple sources", not just one? Then we should include them. And avoid any WP:SYNTH, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Balamuthia

A number of cases of death from balamuthia. I have removed one, of an "unknown woman" in Seattle in 2018, as a precaution, as the sources given did not seem to describe the death as "unusual". But this source, which was used in support, says this in the infographic: "A rare but deadly organism: from 1974 to 2016, there have been 109 cases of balamuthia in the US.Ninety percent of those patents died." So, if Seattle Times can be regarded as WP:RS, the organism itself is "rare", at least in the US. Does a 90% US death rate mean that all deaths from this condition are rare? Is 90% too low to make a death unusual? Or is 90% too high to make a death unusual? Or is this all WP:OR? What of the rate outside the US? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we have to be precise about words and meanings here. 109 recorded deaths over any area or timescale are not "unusual" in the same way that a vulture dropping a turtle on your head is unusual. The point is that it is the illness that is unusual, not the death. This is a list of unusual deaths, not a list of unusual fatal illnesses. Captainllama (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Unusual illnesses

Re Fabrizio Stabile, and others.

As per Balmuthia above, Naegleria fowleri is an infection. An unusual infection, sure, but just an infection. It is not unusual to die of an infection, no matter how unusual the particular infection may be. The sources for this death use the words "rare" and "unusual" to describe the infection, not the death. The sources themselves say "Brain-Eating Amoeba Just Claimed Another Victim" (my emphasis) and "There have been 143 PAM infections from 1962 through 2017 with only four survivors". 139 deaths over any timescale cannot be called "unusual" in this context, and indeed the sources do not.

This list is restricted to unusual deaths, it is not a list of unusual fatal infections. Captainllama (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

This was discussed in a previous talkpage section (now archived). Seeing as the infection leads to the death, I believe it merits inclusion, as the means of the death being unusual is pretty standard for this list's inclusion. We've got so many various asphyxiations, for example, which I think anyone would agree is not unusual - but that happening while rabbiting, or with a cryotherapy machine, or by being pinned to the ceiling by a piano, qualifies it as unusual.
We have sources calling Naegleria fowleri unusual, and since it causes death pretty much without exception, sourced deaths from it would also be unusual. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 13:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
"While rabbiting, or with a cryotherapy machine, or by being pinned to the ceiling by a piano" would all require multiple RS sources, just like everything else. But I'm "not holding my breath", as they say. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hah, granted; I used those as examples precisely because they're all on the list. They're a common method of death (asphyxiation) that happened due to unusual causes, as cited by sources. By extension, I feel that infection as a common method of death qualifies if we have sources citing the cause as unusual, which we do. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Your proposal presents the dual difficulty of being both logical and easy. The criterion agreed here is for each case to be described as unusual, That's it, I'm afraid. Fancy opening another RfC? It's a few years since we had one. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
It's worth noting, I think, that there have not been (so far as I am aware) 139 cases of asphyxiation by cryotherapy machine, or piano, or while rabbiting. If there had been I suspect that would be accepted as grounds for exclusion from this list. Captainllama (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal of adding a new or other deaths

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I was searching possible unusual deaths in Google and found a list of deaths described as "bizarre" or "curious". The source is O Estado de S. Paulo which is a realiable source here in Brazil. The list contains ten deaths in total, all of which occurred in 2015, but I removed two deaths of the list, which one is a traffic accident and the other is a tripping and failling death. Please note that all the accidents happened in São Paulo and the victims are not named. The following texts below are a machine translation of Google translation. The deaths in the list are:

Death one: in the midst of tools and machines, a stretched body with a wrench stuck to the head. The accident happened on January 28 at a vehicle polisher in Jardim Tietê, in the east. According to the only employee who witnessed the incident, the co-worker accidentally connected a machine, which threw the tool at his head.

Death two:On March 7, police found the body of a man of approximately 25 years, stuck to a tree in a ravine in the Jardim Paulistano, north zone. The suspicion is that he has gotten unbalanced, fallen from a height of about eight meters and got stuck in the branches, hanging in his own T-shirt.

Death three: Also in March, on the 23rd, a traffic fight in Itaquera, in the eastern zone, ended with an unusual death. The victim, a federal police officer, would have taken a "closed" in the traffic and decided to remove a weapon, but accidentally shot in the right leg. The man came to be rescued by the woman, who was in the same car, but did not survive.

Death four: Also on the east side, at Itaim Paulista, a woman slipped on her dog's pee, broke her leg in the fall, on April 9. She was taken by a nephew to the Emergency Room of Santa Marcelina Hospital. The next day, she was transferred to the Hospital Nossa Senhora do Pari, where she underwent surgery and died. The suspicion is that he reacted badly to anesthesia.

Death five: On June 16, a man died after choking on a form-bread and cold snack in the Tatuapé, east side. After the accident, he arrived to be rescued to the Hospital of Tatuapé, but did not resist. The victim, according to his mother, had suffered a serious run over four years earlier, which limited his movements and even his speech.

Death six: On the morning of June 17, a boy called police telling them that his grandmother had died at his home in Jardim Nove de Julho, east side. On the spot, there were no signs of violence or break-in. When the investigators arrived, the discovery soon came: in the victim's throat was her denture, indicating death by asphyxiation.

Death seven: On June 18, a man played soccer on the Estrada de Itapecerica, in the southern zone, in the position of goalkeeper when he received a strong ball in the thorax. He had a cardiorespiratory arrest and was rescued at Campo Limpio Hospital, where he was hospitalized for ten days before his death.

Source of the deaths:Confira 10 mortes bizarras em São Paulo

I don't know how unusual these deaths are. Can someone help me to say if some of these can be included in the list? Best regards.--Cientific124 (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Cientific124
I'm sorry I don't think any qualify, with the possible exception of the man in the tree. Of the others:
1. head injury from industrial accident, switching tools on and getting hit by flying wrenches are the stuff of health & safety training videos for a reason - it's not unusual.
3. firearm accident - tragically common
4. allergy to anaesthetic. Happens.
5. death by choking on food
6. death by choking on denture
7. death by heart attack during sport

The source seeems to relate these incidents in an anecodotal way, my hunch is that the man in the tree would at least need to be more rigorously sourced, say as a news item, police report, or inquest. Captainllama (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Captainllama! Thanks for helping my in qualifying the deaths as not unusual. About the man in the tree, I will try to find more sources on him, I have initially searched him, but I have found nothing so far. Maybe he was homeless? I suspect that because the man isn't named in the sources, it makes it harder to search. But I will try to find an news report on him. Could we add him to the list? Since we have a reliable source, but yeah it mentions the deaths in an anecodotal way. My proposal of adding the man hanging on his t-shirt death is because there's also a list by BBC listing ten bizarre deaths, in which the Estado de S.Paulo also has an article mentioning ten deaths. Do you think it should be added to the list? Or is to early to add? Thanks! --Cientific124 (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


My contribution to the list of Unusual deaths is Luke Goodere, 33, a Brit in Thailand that tripped over his suitcase and fell through glass doors, which shattered that puncted his abdomen. Even the BBC News headline calls it a freak accident - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-49689933 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.236.29 (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Unsure as to this particular source's reliability but while looking into this I found https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/lincolnshire-man-dies-bizarre-accident-3311694, which explicitly uses the term 'bizarre'. Assuming the source isn't normally given to sensationalize, that qualifies in my book. Go ahead and add it! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Do medical sources count as reliable sources?

I have found a unusual death described in an medical source which describes the term "Aqua-eroticum" introduced in 1984 to describe the death of a 25-year-old man during autoerotic asphyxia. The case is described as follows:

"The term Aqua-eroticum was first introduced in 1984 by Sivaloganathan to describe the unusual autoerotic death of a man using submersion as an asphyxia method. This was the first case of that kind, and since then, no other case of autoerotic submersion has been reported, nor other autoerotic fatality in open water. Here we report the case of a 25-year-old man, nude under a home-made plastic body suit, overdressed for the season with winter clothes and restrained by complex bondage. He was submersed, tied underwater to a boat and was using a home-made diving apparatus for air supply. Death was ruled as accidental autoerotic asphyxia from rebreathing, caused by the faulty air-supply device."

Source: Aqua-eroticum: an unusual autoerotic fatality in a lake involving a home-made diving apparatus.

I don't know if the death qualifies as unusual, since I don't know if medical sources counts as reliable sources. Can someone clarify for me? Also, I would like to send hugs to CaptainLlama for helping me in qualifying some deaths in a previous section here on the talk page.--Cientific124 (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I would think that source qualifies as reliable. My only question is, does that source, dated January 2006, detail an aqua-erotic death in 2006 (maybe 2005), or is it a 2006 report on the 1984 death? I read the abstract, but I didn't see a link to the actual paper. I would argue that a 2006 report on an unusual death, noting that the only other known similar death occurred in 1984, is satisfactory to call both deaths unusual (not unique, obviously, but that's not the article title or criterion). --DavidK93 (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Images

The current tabular format leaves lots of empty spaces for images of the individual(s) concerned, especially for recent deaths. Are we really expecting all of these to ever become available? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

What about this unusual death?

What about the case of that teen boy who died when he got "stuck" under the seat of his SUV? Here: Trapped and dying in a minivan, desperate Ohio teen calls 911 for help that doesn't find him. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

We've had that added and removed a few times, as (to my knowledge) no one's been able to find a source that calls the death unusual. The CNN link you've provided calls the 911 call strange, but not the death itself. Do you have a source calling it unusual (or strange, weird, any of the usual synonyms)? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@NekoKatsun: Is that a requirement for inclusion in this page? If so, why is that? Can't we exercise editorial judgment and discretion? A reliable source can describe an "unusual case", without specifically labeling it as "unusual" ... no? In other Wikipedia articles, for example, we don't need to find a source that explicitly says "The New York Yankees are a notable team" ... or that explicitly says "Cher is a notable singer" ... etc. Those are, obviously, clear-cut cases. But there are many other "less clear-cut" or "gray area" cases. And we resolve those disputes (as to whether an article topic is notable) through a process. We don't have to find a reliable source that claims the topic to be "notable". Rather, we (collectively) exercise our editorial judgment and discretion. Why should this page have different standards? Just curious what the (supposed) "rules" here are? The teen who died by getting "stuck" in his SUV is obviously an unusual death, whether or not a reliable source explicitly labels it as such. It's so unusual, in fact, that that (i.e., it's unusual nature) is the very reason it "made the news". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
This source calls it a "freak accident" ... which is a synonym for "unusual". Here: An Ohio 16-Year-Old Died In A Freak Accident In A Van Despite Calling Police Twice. Is that terminology "good enough"? Wiktionary defines "freak accident" as: an incident, especially one that is harmful, occurring under highly unusual and unlikely circumstances. Which clearly fits this case. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Per the warning given at the top of this talkpage:
Thus, absent a clear majority in favor of an IAR position, and given the clear policy arguments in support of a normal WP:V approach, the clear policy based consensus is to keep this list only to those deaths for whom there are reliable sources (as noted by one person, these need to be high quality sources, not tabloid journals who regularly fling around these words for fun) that the death is in someway exceptional. All other entries (those for whom someone might say "Come on, this is obviously strange") should be removed.
So... yes, that is a requirement. And with a source calling it a freak accident, at this point all we'd need to do is decide if Buzzfeed is prone to sensationalism (which I personally feel it is, but am open to discussion).
If you feel that it's time to revamp that notice, then by all means, open up another RfC and we'll see what shakes out. As far as I can tell the current standard was implemented to keep this list to a somewhat reasonable size while also casting a wide net for inclusion, which does make sense to me. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 13:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
What you say is fine. But, it is very difficult to argue that this boy's death was not unusual. (The only reason that it made the news -- international news, I believe -- was due to its unusual nature.) And that is the very topic of this article ... unusual deaths. We should not get "lost" in "process", at the expense of accuracy. It's rather silly to seek a reliable source to specifically label an unusual death to be "an unusual death". (Just like we don't need a reliable source to specifically label the New York Yankees to be a "notable team".) In any event, "freak accident" is a synonym for "unusual death". A reliable source can describe an unusual death, without having to explicitly say: "Oh, by the way, we are herein describing an unusual death". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
To your other point: I don't think that this specific source (Buzz Feed) in this specific case is attempting "sensationalism" by calling this a freak accident, which is exactly what it was. If they are attempting "sensationalism", this is an under-whelming attempt, one that is quite understated. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

And this source (Stress contributing to Cincinnati 911 center understaffing, police say) uses the "magic word" of "unusual". The source says, quote: Officials, including both those in the 911 center and those in the field, should have recognized the situation as "extraordinary" or "unusual," according to [Former Assistant Police Chief Dave] Bailey. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Joseph, thanks for your interest here. Per NekoKatsun pointing to the warning above, there is a huge amount of discussion behind that warning dealing with precisely your concerns re which deaths qualify for inclusion here, and further, whether the page should even exist at all. All the points you raise, and many more besides, have been meticulously, passionately, and exhaustively argued at great length. To save you from duplication to no effect I advise that you familiarise yourself with the talk page archives to understand how the terms have been arrived at under which this article survives.
Having said that, in a nutshell the position is that inclusion is warranted if a reliable source calls the death "unusual" or a synonym thereof. Your second source, the WCPO report, calls "the situation" unusual but not specifically the death itself. That's how finely judged criteria are here. However, "Freak accident" certainly qualifies, and whilst BuzzFeed itself would not be acceptable as a source, BuzzFeed News operates separately and is regarded as a reliable source. Go ahead and publish with attribution. Best wishes, Captainllama (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Except to add that the above warning (which came from an extremely long and tortuous RfC, which is linked) uses the word sources, in the plural: "... only to those deaths for whom there are reliable sources... " Unfortunately, this wording is somewhat ambiguous as to whether more than one suitable source is required for each entry. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I take your point which I hadn't considered. I suggest that the many items in the article with a single source gives precedent. Captainllama (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I am including the death in the article (list). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I added it in. Feel free to edit/tweak the wording. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

What about this case?

What about this case? Source: Man dies after eating fishcake so hot it burned his throat, left him unable to breathe: Coroner. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The pathologist who performed the autopsy called the case "extremely rare". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
According to The Independent the coroner said the case was only "very rare". But yes, seems reasonable. Other sources include Lancashire Evening Post and the much-loved Daily Mail. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely works for me; the Lancashire Evening Post even explicitly points out "a number of unusual circumstances surrounding the case". I would also accept "very rare" as a suitable synonym for "unusual". Go ahead and add it! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 13:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I am including the death in the article (list). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I added it in. Feel free to edit/tweak the wording. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Should this cow be included?

Since there are two elephants included at the list, I suggest this death of a cow by explosives to be included:

The source calls the accident a "queer accident" and "a repetition of an experience like that would hardly be possible in the ordinary course of events". Source for the newspaper article

Also, the page Exploding animal also mentions this incident: "In January 1932, the Townsville Daily Bulletin, an Australian newspaper, reported an incident where a dairy cow was partially blown up and killed on a farm at Kennedy Creek (near Cardwell, North Queensland). The cow had reputedly picked up a detonator in her mouth while grazing in a paddock. This was only triggered later, when the cow began to chew her cud, at a time when she was in the process of being milked. The cow had its head blown off by the resulting explosion, and the farmer milking the cow was knocked unconscious."

Should it be included?--Cientific124 (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd include it. Fulminating ruminants aren't usual. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
It was certainly unusual, but should we include animals on this page? I vote for removing the elephants.Bkatcher (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)]
The page is "List of unusual deaths", not "List of unusual human deaths". I see no problem with including suitably unusual animal deaths - provided, of course, that they're held to the same standards as the humans (a reliable source calling it unusual or some other synonym thereof). I don't think we'll see too many of these overall. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
By that logic, plant deaths could also count. And where do we draw the line with animals? Mice? Worms? Insects? Bkatcher (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps a separate section might be better? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I mean, if we've got reliably sourced claims of unusual death, I don't see why they couldn't be included. I do think that we should establish that it needs to be a single creature, to avoid every instance of "X unusual environmental thing caused Y animal deaths". Do you have any other examples? Try as I might, I can't think of anything beyond these two elephants and this one cow - the exploding whale is the only thing that leaps to mind, and it was previously dead. I'd support a separate section as well, but again, I feel like there are so few that it's barely warrented. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 19:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I have just added a section for animals deaths only. But if it violates the rules, feel free to remove the section.--Cientific124 (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Killed by one's own golf club

I just added Michael Scaglione, a man who died in 1982 when he smashed his golf club in a fit of anger and was fatally impaled by the shaft. The source lists it as 'unusual.' However, someone just removed the case of Jeremy Brenno, who died in 1994 under the exact same circumstances, but without being mentioned as 'unusual' in the source. So does unusual in one case mean unusual in every case? Or since this happened more than once, does that make neither unusual? Bkatcher (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I removed Jeremy Brenno. But neither corollary obtains. The rule is simple: addition here requires the source(s) to describe the death as "unusual" etc. (see top of page) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
But how is an event unusual in 1982 but not in 1994? So much of this is subjective.Bkatcher (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
A perfectly valid point. We don't write the sources. We simply have to abide by the outcome of the extensive RfC on this article, which is obviously a compromise in many ways. The "shock-horror-list-of-bizarre-events" type sources are often the most subjective of all, aren't they. Martinevans123 (talk)
This is exactly the reason why WP:IAR exists. When something is obviously wrong, you can't simply justify the exclusion based on a technicality.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 13:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
If you take a moment (or perhaps about an hour) to read through that RfC, you might be wary of employing WP:IAR here. But I won't stand in your way. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thornton Jones, 1924, slit own throat

The sources for this entry seem particularly thin. I have added Bangor, Wales as the location as the source states "Bangor, England". There is no Bangor in England, although there is a Bangors in Cornwall. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Unusual death of cat, 1982

While searching for animal deaths in Google, I found this source called [Short communication - Unusual death of cat, in which says a cat died under unusual circumstances,, but I could not open the article. Could someone open the article and clarify how the cat died?--Cientific124 (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

No luck here either. Looks like someone from the British Veterinary Association may be needed. Not clear if this is subscription-only access. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Danny Lehoux's dust devil death, 2003

While searching dust devil fatalities in Google, I found this source describing the death of Lebanon, Maine resident Danny Lehoux. The sources describes the weather as a "freak burst of wind" so I don't know if it contributes to it implying the death was unusual. Could someone help me in this case? Greetings. --Cientific124 (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, while looking further down the article, I see that Jim Hayes, a meteorologist "said the collapse was unusual." --Cientific124 (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Stanislav Bogdanovich and Alexandra Vernigora death, 2020

I wouldn't call this an unusual death. Nitrous-oxide has been used for recreational uses over many years. In Korea, there were several reported deaths of users dying after too much exposure. Here is just one quick google search: https://www.koreaexpose.com/happy-balloons-nitrous-oxide-south-koreas-legal-high/ I'm not editing the original article but am posting this here to let more vetted Wiki persons decide on an action for this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.6.16.119 (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't Alex Mitchell's death sound a bit like that one Monty Python sketch? Anyway, could we make Alex Mitchell's death box a little less comedic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooh Saad (talk • contribs) 13:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hitting a squirrel while biking and dragging a dog to death behind a car -- unusual? No.

Previous consensus was that the dog dragging was an attack and needed to go. As for the squirrel, just because some primary source in a tabloid says such a commonplace event is unusual doesn't make it so. People hit animals constantly with vehicles. Abductive (reasoning) 07:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, as much as such incidents are lamentable, we're approaching sensationalist yellow journalism there. I support removing both the dog and squirrel. Brandmeistertalk 15:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

dog

Regarding this material, I don't care about the gol-ddurn squirrel, but Phillip Rinn is alive and let's leave him alone per WP:BLP:

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned... whether or not that person is the subject of the article.

It's not a very unusual death. It's a boring story of someone killing their pet. Lots of people kill pets every day, and often enough in pretty unpleasant ways. The fact that some cub reporter used "bizarre" in his piece doesn't mean anything, as we are able to make our own judgments; I'm pretty sure we're never required to publish material we don't want to, and for my part we don't want to publish this. Herostratus (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree, and we need to exercise some editorial judgement before adding pets or other animals as the animal section and the list as a whole are already quite large. Dogs in particular are a common target, unfortunately. Brandmeistertalk 15:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Problematic entries

A review of the archives shows that there is a continuous call for better sourcing on this page, including a distaste for tabloid sources. As I have previously stated, there are a number of books in English on this subject, including The Book of Lists and possibly The People's Almanac, and a book in French whose title I have forgotten. These would not only be good sources for this article, they should be emulated in terms of their efforts to only include truly unique and/or highly improbable deaths. Failing that, the usual Wikipedia policies of requiring "reliable", "multiple", "secondary" sources should be followed. A single tabloid news item is not sufficient because it is not secondary (no analysis of the rarity of the mode of death), reliable (it is a clickbait tabloid article), and it is not multiple. Abductive (reasoning) 05:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hi, I'm new here and I'm wondering either of the following events qualify for this list.

The 2018 Horizon Air Q400 incident records an airplane hijacking by a civillian without intent to threaten to harm any person, who then comitted suicide by airliner. The Tokaimura nuclear accident records two very notable instances of Criticality accidents where humans inadvertently killed themselves by way of Plutonium criticality. These are unusual because of the very short list of people that died from radiation poisoning by their own hand. (Intentional or second hand radiation poisoning is comparatively common)

Alternatively, the article about the Demon core records an incident where a scientist kills himself by dropping a neutron reflector on a sphere of Plutonium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardcore bob (talk • contribs) 12:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome! Historically, the standard for inclusion is that the incident have a reliable third-party source that calls it unusual, or some synonym thereof. We (that is, Wiki editors) don't decide if something is unusual, the sources do, and we aggregate them on this list. Hope this helps! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Elisa lam

I dont believe that Elisa Lam's death is unusual enough to be on this list. Despite the massive coverage her case got, many people each year commit suicide or are otherwise found dead in water tanks.

Source- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVbnGPWyrqY

The nature of her death is very unusual.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 00:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

black licorice

@TJRC and NekoKatsun: FYI, I dont have a particular interest in keeping the black licorice. I was inspired by the death of Basil Brown on this list. If you want to expand on removal I'd be interested to hear your reasoning. (I'm not particularly well versed in notability for list articles.) --Jeremyb (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving it. Generally for this article, the standard for inclusion is a non-sensationalizing source calling the death unusual (or some other synonym thereof). I think "extreme case" is enough of a synonym for me. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 19:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't feel too strongly about it, or else I would have reverted. NekoKatsun pointed out in the next edit summary that the Guardian coverage calls it an "extreme case", and I'm okay with that. TJRC (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Criticism

This seems if any history reported before classical antiquity seem irrelevant. I really don't want to bring it up,but it does look racist when it is always the Caucasian Classical Antiquity on most record lists. Continue to argue if you wish, but what happens in the Wikipedia edits stays in the Wikipedia edits archive history whether it it kept or not. 174.253.66.0 (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

How much written history was there before classical antiquity? One tends to run into problems with WP:V. But you could suggest some examples? Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

criteria are fubar

Per this reversion. Literally hundreds of thousands of people are killed by snails every year, and we pick out one notable example. Falling on glass is so "unusual" that there are 3 instances of it listed on the page. And another edit had removed a suicide. The source isn't always right. DAVilla (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

What are your suggestions for alternative criteria, then? I feel that the current standard - the source referring to the death as unusual or similar - is key in keeping Wikipedians neutral on the subject. Maybe if a death's inclusion is challenged, it's on the person challenging it to find sources stating that the specific death isn't actually unusual? That would work for me. Using the snails as an example, then, the onus would be on the person challenging it to produce a source that stated that the parasite is a common cause of death, contradicting the existing source's quote that "One or two cases of the disease are reported annually in Okinawa, but it is the first death linked to the parasite."
As an aside, I think perhaps there's too much focus on a singular cause of death, and not enough attention paid to the circumstances surrounding it, which are what make a death unusual. "Suicide" is not unusual, you're right, but "suicide because he forgot a weapon in an emergency required by a law that the guy wrote himself" is much more one-of-a-kind. If the circumstances around the death are unusual enough that it gets reported as such, I feel it deserves inclusion, though I do also feel that exclusionists should have some form of rebuttal. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Slugs and snails are not the same animal. And saying that "hundreds of thousands of people are killed by snails every year" is false. 24.231.98.58 (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. Are we talking about the Freshwater snail? If so, then this source says: "Another creature belonging to the “small but deadly” category is the freshwater snail, which is responsible for more than 200,000 deaths a year — more deaths than sharks, lions and wolves combined." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

No doubt

... I'm not the first to say this, but this list is largely a collection of vaguely defined gee-whiz trivia. EEng 22:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I mean, yeah, you're not wrong. I've asked if other people have different criteria but nobody's suggested anything yet. The current standard of "reliable source calls it unusual" is good enough for be, and while I agree it's over-broad, I don't have a better thought. Do you? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 02:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not too proud to admit I find some of the items fun, but I don't see the educational value, so my suggestion is that the page be put out of its misery. We have, unfortunately, a lot of lists with threadbare criteria, but this one really tears it. EEng 04:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Well it is 8 years since the last hilarious bunfight? And the unusualness of the deaths in those last 8 years had frankly been somewhat disappointing. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I am disapointed to see such an article in Wikipedia. It's macabre trivia. 24.231.98.58 (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Can't tempt you with List of people who died on the toilet, then I guess? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Removing Qin Shi Huang from the list

No resource cites that Qin Shi Huang's death is directly caused by mercury pills, though he is addicted to it. Majority of history books mentioned that the main reason of his death is caused by the tireness of tour. ??pyphp?? (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The first source says "possibly". The second sourse says "While it reviewed new evidence about the tomb, this documentary also presented as fact much fanciful speculation, ranging from claims that the First Emperor was an illegitimate child—a claim dating at least to Sima Qian’s time— to charges that the First Emperor became a madman who lost his grip on reality in his last years due to mercury poisoning." The third (popular magazine) source just says: "Eating too many mercury pills, which his alchemists and physicians conjured up to make him immortal." So yes, all rather inconclusive. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Al-Hadi

Why did you removed Al Hadi? Rockisrockandplsletmein (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Your addition here was unsourced. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
You've now re-added it, still with no source. Do you know what is meant by "a source"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

This citeseerx article mention this page

And it is said to be the most viewed page of wikipedia featured in the SU [StumbleUpon] Index.

Link : http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.369.9643&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Date : 2012 ?

I put it there. To see what we do with it or not. Gimly24 (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

David Allen Kirwan, 24 yr old, of La Canada, California

This very sad death is featured in the Book : "Death in Yellowstone : Accidents and Foolhardiness in the first National Park" (Second Edition) by Lee. H. Whittlesey.


Of course, I can't copy paste the entire story of Mr. Kirwan unfortunate death as it would be a break in the law of copyright. Therefore, I simply mentioned the first sentence of the first chapter ("Hold Fast to Your Children : Deaths in Hot Waters")


In brief, the victim died from an very unusual hot springs scalding. People falling in a hot spring is uncommon, although it happens every years. People dying from falling in a hot spring is also uncommon. However, a case of intentionally entering an hot spring to save a dog is unusual. Even more unusual is the fact that the victim "did not die" from falling in a hot spring... he died from "intentionally diving" in a hot spring to save his friend dog, which also didn't make it in the end.


[The whole story of Kirwan's death spans on 3 pages, although the first sentence resume really well what happened]


The thermal feature that caused his death was [shortly after his death] measured at 202˚F or 94,44˚C.


He died early on the next morning, July 21, 1981 from as in book : "third-degree burns over 100 percent of his body including his entire head"


I believe it to clearly be in accordance with the page. Here is an excerpt of the book that tells is story very briefly and efficiently.


« 'IT IS A MYSTERY WHY ANYONE would dive headfirst into a Yellowstone hot spring merely to save a dog, but that is precisely what happened on July 20, 1981. »

I do find it cringe to post someone else "end of the roll" but that's his. Gimly24 (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Does Whittlesey describe the death a "unusual"? I'm not sure "It is a mystery why anyone would dive headfirst..." means quite the same thing. (Aside from the fact that it may not be "a mystery" at all, as Kirwan must have loved the dog a great deal.) I see that the book is available online [1]. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
A mystery as the victim was not drunk, it wasn't his dog but his friend's, he removed his shirt before diving and again, the pool was 202˚F.
Although the word "unusual" is not written, it is arguably supposed. It is to note that this book covers the death of 20 people who died by falling in hot springs (well 19... he dived). Of those, 8 were children and 3 were teenagers. These deaths are typical of hot springs deaths as the victim is innocent and usually do not know the danger of such thermal features. These 19 deaths usually came from either negligence of parents, wanting to touch the hot water or walking on thermal areas where it is prohibited and breaking thru the small crust over an underground, non-visible thermal features.
If you go on Z-Lib, you can download the book for free. And by reading the first chapter, you are more likely to judge why his death is unusual or not. It is a really awesome book. There is also one for the Zion National Park and Yosemite National Park available on Z-lib for free. Gimly24 (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Here's the links :
https://ca1lib.org/book/2326692/56e304 (YNP)
https://ca1lib.org/book/4793932/485d2d?dsource=recommend (Zion)
https://ca1lib.org/book/2648747/70f783 (Yosemite)

Gimly24 (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC). Also note the capital letters used and the "Anyone". The reason i also added he removed his shirt before diving is that while removing his shirt, everyone knew what would happen and tried to discourage him for diving in for the dog. Something that Kirwan ignore. What do you think ? I do not know any other instance where someone dived or entered an hot spring of this temperature to try to save a dog. There was these teenagers that were calcified in 2015 because they wanted to retrieve a shoe. But this particular event is something really weird. Kirwan himself said "That was stupid ? How bad I am" and then again repeated it. Although him saying this isn't really helpful to this discussion, I prefer to leave it here than not mentioning it. Gimly24 (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

More golfers

in the wikipedia page : Michael Scaglione died after smashing his golf club against a golf cart. The head broke off and impaled him in the throat, severing his jugular vein (in article, 1980's)

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shafted/

In 1994, 16-year-old Jeremy Brenno of Gloversville, New York, was killed when he struck a bench with a golf club, and the shaft broke, bounced back at him, and pierced his heart. Brenno had missed a shot on the sixth hole at the Kingsboro Golf Club and looked to vent his frustration by giving the nearby bench a good whack in retaliation. The fatal club was a No. 3 wood.

Brenno’s is not the only accidental death by golf club. In 2005, 15-year-old Rafael Naranjo of Gardner, Massachusetts, expired after playfully swinging a 5-iron he’d found in the street at a fire hydrant. His act caused part of the shaft, along with the head of the club, to break off and lodge in his neck.

In 1951, Edward Harrison was playing a round at Inglewood in Kenmore, Washington, when the shaft of his driver broke and pierced his groin. He staggered 100 yards before collapsing and bleeding to death.

In 2005, 12-year-old Chandler Hugh Jackson of Frisco, Texas, died in Cunningham, Kentucky, after apparently falling onto a broken golf club at Dogwood Hill club. A piece of the club’s shaft went through the boy’s chest and pierced his aorta.

These are the 4 golfers deaths reported in the link and it gives the source for all 4 of them. Gimly24 (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

To see what we do with them Gimly24 (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Black liquorice death

"An unknown 54-year-old man from Massachusetts, United States, died after eating a bag and a half of black liquorice every day for a few weeks." Some very eminent academic sources and one from The Guardian. But do any of them describe the death as unusual? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

This was very briefly discussed back in Sept 2020. The Guardian refers to the death as "an extreme case", which is acceptable in my opinion for inclusion on this list. Shall I add it as a quote to the source in the article? Or do you think we need something more? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Actually! I've just found a NYT source that specifically calls it unusual: Black licorice, according to the doctors who treated him and who this week published their findings about the unusual case in The New England Journal of Medicine. Better? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi NekoKatsun. Good find. Both look fine to me. Having a medical journal paper on a case suggests it's unusual, but we have this rule, don't we. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

18th Century?

Were there really no unusual deaths in the 18th century? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.75.33 (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure there were, but were they reported? Bkatcher (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Jason Dupasquier

Should the Swiss motorcycle racer Jason Dupasquier be listed here? --2A01:36D:1200:404D:45C1:75BE:51F9:2FC6 (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

You have read the note above, that starts "Thus, absent a clear majority in favor of an IAR position, and given the clear policy arguments in support of a normal WP:V approach ...", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand it, can you please say what the short forms (IAR, WP:V) mean? And after that, we can discuss whether or not Mr. Dupasquier should be included. --2A01:36D:1200:404D:45C1:75BE:51F9:2FC6 (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
No worries. What it means is this - you need to provide some WP:RS sources that describe his death as "unusual". That's basically it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hawkmoon.plus.com

Is this a reliable source? Is the heading "Strange Deaths of XXXX" sufficient for compliance with the criterion for inclusion? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards no with this one. I've tried digging up some of the sources cited but have had no luck, and one in particular (Matthew Hubal) got me a result from Snopes fact-checking a similar list, and per that site: While the item has been circulated online since at least 1996, and the name of the lad who supposedly slid himself to death was Matthew David Hubal... we haven’t turned up any news stories supporting such an occurrence. While some of the places we’ve looked have helpfully pointed towards checkable sources within the print media (e.g., The Guardian, Sacramento Bee, Associated Press), our searches through those news outlets failed to turn up any articles about the death, and searches of other news sources met with similar results. Our own scribbled notes from 1998 indicate a date of death for Matthew David Hubal of 25 March 1994, yet this long after the fact, our memory fails as to where that date came from.. We might be able to use the Hawkmoon site as a jumping-off point to dig up the references it mentions, but I wouldn't call it reliable. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks. I tend to agree. It might be used as start point. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes. There's also the copyright problem of directly copying large amounts of material from another source. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Someone named Matthew David Hubal is actually on Find a Grave and Ancestry.com with a date of death of 24 March 1994. Of course, those aren't reliable sources either. Gildir (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Well ok, thanks. But this question is not just about Matthew David Hubal. And yes, we wouldn't use Find a Grave as a source to claim a death was unusual. The actual date of death is the least of our worries. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome. Also, please note that the Snopes article NekoKatsun quoted is by David Mikkelson, who himself can no longer be considered a paragon of reliability... Gildir (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Apologies -- the Snopes article has David Mikkelson's name at the top, but Barbara Mikkelson's name at the bottom. Gildir (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
It looks like Matthew David Hubal's death may be reported on page 22 of the March 25, 1994 Reno Gazette-Journal. I can't be sure because I don't have a Newspapers.com subscription -- can anyone else help? (If we were to confirm the circumstances of his death, the initially given hawkmoon.plus.com page might be a sufficient source for its being "unusual".) Gildir (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 14 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

List of unusual deaths → List of deaths considered unusual – The current title is rather POV-based. The new title would be way better. --RemoteMyBeloved (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The inclusion guidelines for this list make it explicitly not POV, because it is the sources that determine these deaths as unusual, not us. This proposal is a distinction without a difference. This list has been featured many times in external media, and I'm not aware that any has made a claim that its POV. Also should point out that proposer has maybe a dozen contribs prior to this RM, and might not be aware of our standards. I suggest we SNOW close this if it goes the way I imagine it will. -- Netoholic @ 13:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as per Netoholic above. Essentially means the same anyway, not "way better". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Netoholic has the right of it, and I'd also add that the current title stylistically matches the other items in Category:Lists of things considered unusual, such as List of unusual biological names, List of strange laws, and List of unusual units of measurement. That part may not be policy-based, but the semi-standardization appeals to me. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I understand now. I'm withdrawing this request. --RemoteMyBeloved (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gouvernour Morris

The entry on Morris gives the following account of his death: Gouvernour Morris died from an infection after using a whalebone to clear a blockage in his urinary tract. I have no doubt that this is accurate, but is it really unusual? Of course it does sound gross from a modern perspective, but what was the common practice at the time (1816) to clear blockages in the urinary tract? Could someone check the sources, to see if the death really was unusual, by the standards of the time? Renerpho (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The pertinent bit from Kirschke is a quote from Rufus King, reading He has been long subject to a stricture in the urinary Passage; and have unskillfully forces a piece of whale bone thro' the Canal so lacerated the parts, as to create a very high degree of inflammation, which has been followed by a mortification that I am told will prove fatal. Some years ago, and in the interior of our State, he performed the same operation with a flexible piece of hickory; the success on this occasion probably emboldened him to repeat the experiment, that is now to prove fatal. I can't see a preview for the Adams book, but the little bit Google's giving me is ...he attempted an appalling self-surgery with a whale bone.
I don't know how these obstructions were historically treated - these sources theorize prostate cancer causing the blockage - but kidney stones (a possible blockage) were treated surgically via lithotomy, and nowadays blockages are treated with all sorts of things, including catheters. I can't find any other reference to anyone trying to shove whalebone up their urethra, though.
I'm unsure as to the exact reliability of this source, but it does include the line Morris started keeping diaries when he first went to France in 1789, and continued journaling until his rather unusual manner of death in 1816 when he tried to remedy a blocked urethra using a piece of whalebone, leading to a deadly infection, explicitly calling it out as unusual. A quick Google is pulling up loads of sources calling it unusual, pretty sure we could find at least one reliable one to fill it out further. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 00:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
No objection if good sources can be found. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Rust shooting incident

Considering Brandon Lee is in this article, I think that the Rust shooting incident should be added as well. Kind regards, JJK2000 (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Should either be there? Accidental shooting is apparently not that unusual,even if you narrow it down to film sets.Britmax (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
The question should not be whether or not the shooting is unusual, but rather whether or not the death caused by it is unusual.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 17:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Kyle Plush

"On 10 April 2018, Kyle Plush, 16, died after becoming trapped in his Honda Odyssey, which was in his school's parking lot in Cincinnati, Ohio, US. Attempting to reach his tennis equipment, he leaned over the third row of seats into the trunk. When the former "squashed his chest", he became pinned and later died. During the incident, he called 911 twice, by using Apple iPhone's Siri voice-activation. Responding to the calls, the police were not able to find him; he was eventually discovered in the vehicle by his father about six hours later."

What does "the former" mean? Kind regards, JJK2000 (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I assume it means "the third row of seats". Might be clearer as "When the seats "squashed his chest", he became pinned..."? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree. "The former" means "the third row of seats" ... (which squashed his chest). Yes, it could be re-worded more clearly. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Parvat Gala Baria

Brandmeister mentioned this in a comment above. I agree that this inclusion does not fit as an unusual death. The source provided indicates that what is peculiar about the situation is that Parvat also bit the snake. The death itself is not highlighted as unusual. I suggest removing this from the list.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 15:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I can see arguments on both sides. Editors have previously deleted several deaths from the list because the circumstances surrounding them were unusual, but not the deaths themselves. For example, User:JJK2000 removed Love Has Won founder Amy Carlson after I added a quote parameter to her entry's citation of a Rolling Stone article; the quote read, "The coroner also determined that, despite the bizarre circumstances surrounding Carlson's corpse — seven of Carlson's followers were arrested and charged with abuse of a corpse and child abuse, though all of the charges would later be dropped — her death was "natural."" User:Bkatcher deleted Sutton Mosser with the reasonable explanation that "murdered by a mentally ill parent is sadly, not unusual at all"; Mosser, of course, was on the list because his mother claimed SpongeBob told her to kill him, but that didn't make his death itself unusual. User:Captainllama deleted Edward Archbold because choking to death isn't unusual, even though Archbold choked on arthropod body parts. These deletions all maintain a high standard of inclusion (and, in fact, editors have deleted and reinstated Parvat Gala Baria before).
On the other hand, what about Gloria Ramirez? Strictly speaking, there was nothing unusual about her death, either -- she died of kidney failure due to cervical cancer. However, the surrounding circumstances were so bizarre and sinister that there's surely no way she would ever be removed from this list. So there has to be a threshold at which the total set of circumstances can be unusual enough for inclusion, even if the death itself is not unusual at all. Probably Parvat Gala Baria's death doesn't cross that threshold, but we should bear in mind that other deaths might.
We'll also end up listing deaths only because they've been called unusual, not because they really were by any reasonable standard. I recently added Benjamin Taylor A Bell to the list. It would never have occurred to me to do so -- elevator accidents aren't that unusual -- if Bell's entry in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography hadn't stated, "The circumstances of his death were somewhat bizarre." I would speculate that Angus D. Gilbert, the dictionary entry's author, wrote this not because Bell fell into an elevator shaft, but because he did so by making a wrong turn on a route he took every day through the building where he worked. So, once again, it's the surrounding circumstances that made the death unusual, not the manner of death itself. Gildir (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with User:Gildir. For what it's worth ... I interpret the term "death" -- or, more specifically, "unusual death" -- as meaning ... NOT just the clinical / medical cause of death ... BUT, more broadly, as in "the death and what unusual surrounding circumstances caused it". Otherwise, any and all deaths can be reduced to a simple list of five or six generic items (e.g., cardiac arrest, suffocation, accident, whatever) ... regardless of what circumstances brought about that death. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Just to clarify a misunderstanding, I did not delete "Edward Archbold because choking to death isn't unusual, even though Archbold choked on arthropod body parts". The long-standing consensus on criteria for inclusion is not any Wikipedian's opinion on whether the death is unusual, but that a reliable source describe the death as "unusual", or some synonym thereof (bizarre, strange, incredible etc.). None of the sources given for Archbold's death did so, as stated in my edit summary. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I think with such wide interpretation of inclusion criteria the list will eventually become excessively long and hard to load, so common sense-based editorial discretion should be used that considers the manner of death as well. But I won't insist. Brandmeistertalk 18:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_unusual_deaths/Archive_14&oldid=1081235094"