Talk:List of unusual deaths/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There seems to be a low point in the conversation so I archived the talk page.--Adamfinmo (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Cicero

43 BC: Cicero, ... was hunted down and killed... Although some of the post-mortum treatment was unusual, being hunted down and killed isn't. Is there another rationale for this entry to remain? --JeffJ (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Humayun

1556: The Mughal emperor Humayun was descending the steps of his library when he heard the azaan, or call to prayer. He wished to kneel down for his prayers, his foot caught the folds of his garment, and he fell down several flights. He died 3 days later of the injuries at the age of 47. [23]. In Islam, one doesn't kneel when hearing the call for prayer. Instead, one has to go and wash his hands, face, arms, head and feet, and then one has to stand for prayer. One kneels after that, in the middle of prayer. So you can see that story is far from being plausible, unless he converted to christianity while hearing the azaan. 92.226.89.17 (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

verified and clarified It was his personal preference. NJGW (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That is not an entry for this article-this is far from noteworthy or interesting. _BP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.219.235.253 (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it quite interesting. Religious objections aside, it appear to me to be notable, plausible and unusual. TheRegicider (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A pretty poor article

Having come across this article courtesy of StumbleUpon, and with 500-odd reviews and five stars, I was disappointed at how bad this article is. The comment at the end re. Alexander Litvinenko definitely does not belong in a Wikipedia article, for obvious reasons. The intro is also surely a violation of the no self-referencing rule. Of course, such an article as this is by nature highly subjective (Litvinenko a case in point) and I would question its place in the main namespace. This could be in WP:BJAODN at least. Sarsaparilla39 (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


I agree, and I must mention that WP:BJAODN is a much better read. If this is to exist, at least have more content. There has got to be more unusual deaths to famous people. (Daviddec (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

"See also" isn't showing

Anybody know why the "see also" list at the bottom won't show? It's visible in the edit window, but not on the actual article - I assume it's something to do with the reflist, but I moved that around and it didn't help. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. I ran into the same snag in another article. "/" was missing in the reference end-tag immediately preceding "See Also". It causes everything after the reference to disappear. Drove me crazy until someone else fixed it for me.--JeffJ (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Kind Sir JeffJ, we dub thee Geek For A Day. (i.e., thanks) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

St Peter

This is from the St Peter article here on Wikipedia: "The ancient historian Josephus describes how Roman soldiers would amuse themselves by crucifying criminals in different positions, and it is likely that this would have been known to the author of the Acts of Peter. The position attributed to Peter's crucifixion is thus plausible, either as having happened historically or as being an invention by the author of the Acts of Peter. Death, after crucifixion head down, is unlikely to be caused by suffocation, the usual cause of death in ordinary crucifixion." Therefore it is likely that others were crucified in this postion, and Josephus is a practically unassailable source. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue at hand is the requirement for citation, not the entry's inclusion in the article. The main article speaks to St. Peter's crucifixion in the head-down position and cites references. The entry in Unusual Deaths does not require additional citation per WP:CITE. If you want to delete the entry based on non-notability, then that's a completely separate argument. --JeffJ (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah! (Light comes on) I think I misunderstood your use of CN. I had assumed that you wanted a reference supporting the entire entry, not just the "only recorded instance" statement. By all means, delete the last sentence. Sorry about that. --JeffJ (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be innumerable instances of the use of the inverted cross for torture and crucifixion throughout history, but most instances I have found seem to follow St. Peter. Are there verifiable references to inverted crucifixion prior to, or during the time of St. Peter? I'm just wonder if St. Peter still qualifies for inclusion. I'm sure it's unusual that he actually requested the inverted cross, but is that enough? --JeffJ (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't have a problem with leaving St Peter, his death was considered unusual enough for an important symbol to be created from it; Cross of St. Peter. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

BC and AD versus BCE and CE

Undos usually catch my eye, usually more because of the "reasons" than the changes:
2008-07-15T06:48:19 Kman543210 (Talk | contribs) (48,883 bytes) (Undid revision 225751548 by Stasven see wikipedia: MOS "It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another...")
2008-07-15T06:21:06 Stasven (Talk | contribs) m (48,890 bytes) (→Antiquity: made politically correct: "BC" to "BCE" & "AD" to "CE")

Stasven was (politically) correct in the initial change and reason,
But many Wikipedia readers would have no idea what "CE" means "out of context" (without a BC or BCE nearby),
and Wikipedia year articles are titled Year_BC and not Year_BCE, for instance:

458 BC versus 458 BCE 

so Year_BCE creates additional redirects
(unless Stasven moves all of those Year_ articles and also changes all BC to BCE occurences on all Wikipedia articles
except those differentiating between the BC/AD and BCE/CE year annotation systems? ...)

So personally, I feel Kman543210 was correct in the Undo, but cited the WRONG reason, especially "quoting out of context".

What Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style actually says is: "It is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so; for example, it is unacceptable to change from American to British spelling unless the article concerns a British topic. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style. When it is unclear whether an article has been stable, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." and cites Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk#Optional_styles. 

i.e. Stasven cited a "substantial reason" (political correctness) to do so.
Personally, I feel that "political correctness" is outweighed by the combination of both:
* "CE" means less to many (English-speaking) people than "AD"
* Underlying technical "style" issue (Wiki Year_ links)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) says:

  • Eras and other very long periods
  • Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system, but not both in the same article. Style guides generally recommend writing AD before a year (AD 1066) and after a century (2nd century AD); however, writing AD after the year (1066 AD) is also common in practice. The other abbreviations always appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE/AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other (see WP:BCE for past debates on this).
  • Uncalibrated (bce) radiocarbon dates: Some source materials will indicate whether a date is calibrated or not simply by a change in capitalization; this is often a source of confusion for the unwary reader. Do not give uncalibrated radiocarbon dates (represented by the lower-case bce unit, occasionally bc or b.c. in some sources), except in directly quoted material, and even then include a footnote, a [square-bracketed editor's note], or other indication to the reader what the calibrated date is, or at least that the date is uncalibrated. Calibrated and uncalibrated dates can diverge surprisingly widely, and the average reader does not recognize the distinction between bce and BCE / BC.

See also:

Personally, in the English language:

  • AD is more commonly know or accepted than CE
  • BCE is 33% longer than BC

so why change?

LeheckaG (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

New Entries

Would this story qualify? [1] 20:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth considering. I've heard of people getting smacked in the head while hanging out a side window, but never from above. --JeffJ (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Several decades ago (I think in Seattle) a busboy was dumping trash into a dumpster when a large piece of an aircraft fell out of the sky and sliced off his head. His head fell into the dumpster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.227.115.156 (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Byford Dolphin semi-submersible

Regrding: 1983: A decompression accident on the Byford Dolphin semi-submersible on November 5, 1983 killed four divers and a tender, when a decompression chamber explosively decompressed from 9 atm to 1 atm in a fraction of a second. The diver nearest the chamber opening literally exploded just before his remains were ejected through a 24in (60cm) opening. The other divers' remains showed signs of boiled blood, unusually strong rigor mortis, large amounts of gas in the blood vessels, and scattered hemorrhages in the soft tissue.

This entry is suspect. It is a proven fact that people do not explode under decompression and a search of the reference finds no such article. Anyone have a more reliable reference before this is deleted?--JeffJ (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

they don't explode when going from normal 1 Atm to 0 Atm (a vacuum). They DO explode when going from 9 Atm to 1 Atm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechnoFaye (talk • contribs) 10:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Interesting point! I hadn't considered the differential.--JeffJ (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The Byford Dolphin article lays it out pretty well. This edit from 2005 makes me think that who ever wrote it read the source pretty closely. NJGW (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Inclusions and Exclusions

I think we should keep in mind that this is a list of UNUSUAL DEATHS, not a list of UNUSUAL CAUSES OF DEATH. Even if someone dies by a common means, such as decapitation or overdose, the overall circumstances of their death should be considered. --JeffJ (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Francis Bacon

Francis Bacon

Died after contracting pneumonia from stuffing snow into a dead chicken as an experiment.

Surely this would qualify?Juggertrout (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

He was on the list until a little while ago - I recall a discussion at one point about whether pneumonia is or is not caused by getting cold. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a strong argument against, but seems like a weak chain of events leading to his death. Did his hand get cold? Was he standing outside in the middle of winter? It really just comes across, like he was trying an experiment involving snow, got sick, it turned into pneumonia, and he died. If cold was the cause then it wasn't really unusual, was it? Stuffing snow into a chicken (presumably as a form of refrigeration) might have been experimental, but not really unusual or terribly ironic. Innovative... --JeffJ (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's my two cents: Bacon's death story belongs because many entries on this list are simply famous grisly novelties told of famous individuals, long past the point of scientific inquest. I do think filling a dead chicken with snow would be time-consuming enough to risk exposure, and in the elderly exposure is often the tipping point in infections. Pneumonia especially. But mostly this story should be re-instated because it's a famous tale of a very famous man. The mechanism of death need not be as unusual as the cause, particularly when the cause is a personality quirk. 76.27.232.185 (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Unusual Animal Anecdotes

Did a quite a bit of work to get the List of unusual animal anecdotes article off the ground. It has some similar levels of absurdity if anyone feels like editing. RyanHoliday (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Maccabeus entry

The entry was restored with the summary "clearly being sqaushed by the dead body of an elephant you killed is unusual". That's absolutely true today, but consider:

  1. It was a war elephant (meant to kill) and had "special armor," suggesting that elephants were prone to being killed in battle
  2. The warrior seemed to know he was on a suicide mission (according to Eleazar Maccabeus), and so this is no more unusual than any other suicide mission in war time (the advantage of such a maneuver being that it's very surprising, or else effective and repeated).
  3. Death by elephant is quite usual even outside of warfare and today.

I don't think it's "clearly" unusual, but I'll defer to others as it's not all that important to fight over. NJGW (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

At first glance it does seem unusual, but given that it was a war-elephant, the death is probably more ironic than unusual. On the other hand, we do consider the fame/notoriety of the victim, and being squashed like that was probably not how most people were killed by these elephants. This would be a lot easier if the article was called List of interesting deaths... or would it? --JeffJ (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Or if it was called "List of people who died with tortoises on their heads" as it originally was ... honest. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course war elephants are meant to kill people but I think we can all agree that their falling dead bodies are not. Someone charges into battle to slay the war elephant of a King but instead it falls over and crushes him to death? That is the definition of unusual, not to mention highly ironic. I think I can edit the text to show that a bit more. I think we're nitpicking here and perhaps a little power hungry to delete my sourced (book) edit on a list that is one of the most humorous articles on Wikipedia. TheRegicider (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Power hungry? Please, let's discuss the content only. This list often gets additions which are either not that unusual or outright hoaxes, and some of us have just been trying to keep it from getting out of hand (even a really funny joke gets boring if it's too long). If concensus is that it's unusual, then it's unusual. NJGW (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I was reading through the list, and this one really stuck out to me as not being unusual, especially considering the context of it. It seems more unlikely that the elephant would die from a spear through its underside than from the elephant collapsing on him and killing him. His goal was to cause the elephant to die, and it wouldn't be that unusual (and wasn't) that he would die when the elephant collapsed on him.129.21.97.234 (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Reader Discretion

Someone commented in-line to my censor board style viewer discretion on the Article's page, saying it was overprotective, which though not completely, I do agree. The commenter also mentions that he has not seen such a notice on any other article. I reply asking why this should not be the first? In fact I feel that if other articles do not have such notices, they probably should! And this is Wikipedia, so quality does matter. Quality is not just in the main content, but also in the classification.

That's a very big change from procedure. If you want to do it, take the discussion to some meta page and see what folks think. Here's what I think: No. I removed it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Monkey Attack

1920: Alexander I of Greece, the reigning King of the Hellenes, was ultimately killed after being attacked by two monkeys whilst walking his pet dog through the National Garden of Athens. He fought off the monkeys with a stick but was bitten twice. He subsequently developed sepsis and died three weeks later.[1]

I have some concerns about the nature of deletions on this article. A King dying from the effects of a monkey ambush is unusual, especially when coupled with the notion of him fighting them off with a stick but to no avail. I think issues such as this should be discussed before deletion. Sarcastic comments are funny but they are not justifications. TheRegicider (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you thought I was being sarcastic, but I wasn't. I've been bit by monkeys. It's not unusual:
- NJGW (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually I don't really understand what made my contribution particularly mundane. A great deal of the entries on this list are here because the subject or context is unusual rather than the type of death. Innumerable people have died from infections passed on from mosquito bites, yet George Herbert is on this list because his bite started a folklore about the Curse of King Tut, rather than his cause of death being unusual. I absolutely take the point that monkey bites are not particularly unusual and that they can pass on infections, but it seems unusual enough that a King should die from such an attack from animals not commonly found in parks in Athens in the 1920s. The context is unusual too given the chain of events that are sparked by Alexander's death. Quartermain (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Innumerable people die of malaria or dengue fever passed by mosquito bites, but not many die because of blood poisoning leading to pneumonia contracted from when they cut themselves shaving a bump of erysipelas that they contracted from a mosquito. As for other entries, I agree that if they are not unusual they should be removed. Which did you have in mind? NJGW (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I suppose I just wonder what the raison d'etre for this page is. I can see your explanation for the Herbert example - the conjunction of two common causes of death is in this case unusual. But that seems like a very technical application of a broad concept, and one where there are a lot of potential eliminations. A lot of people commit suicide by gunshot - Christine Chubbuck / Bob Dwyer's deaths are unique not because of the cause of death but rather the circumstances in which they occurred. Death by heart attack is very common as well, though Alexander Wolcott and Jerome Rodale are unusual because their death happened whilst broadcasting rather than the cause of death being strange. Obviously you're much more experienced with this page that I am and I agree that this list can't just be an indiscriminate collection of deaths, but I wonder if there is a way to accomodate this broader church of deaths that are intersting/odd contextually - maybe by splitting the page by distingushing between unusual causes of deaths and unusual circumstances of deaths? That's just my opinion, I defer to the judgement of others :-) Quartermain (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
"Unusual cause" vs. "unusual circumstance" ... that's a potential distinction that I don't think anybody has brought up before. Very interesting concept. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I really had to check to make sure you were being sarcastic :-) I think this is actually a valid problem with the list. most of the other "unusual" lists have a much more stringent criteria, namely that the entries were described by RS's as unusual (some didn't have such a criteria and have been deleted along the way). I haven't pushed it (much) because it's not really that important in the grand scheme what happens to this list, but it is a real issue in case some one comes in here and AFD's it because for a person to be included on the list, editors rely purely on OR (much like obsenity). NJGW (talk) 04:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I made the distinction a while back, but in a different context. Mundane causes of death are allowed here if the circumstances are unusual. For example: Hanging yourself is not unusual, but doing it in front of a web-cam audience is. Sometimes the line is harder to draw, like the surfboard breaking the guy's neck. I'm sure that having your neck broken by blunt-trauma is not unusual, or even by a surfboard, but having it hit a parked car, swing around, and break your neck while you're driving, is unusual. But it's still border-line for inclusion. It's really the unusual circumstance that makes it an unusual cause. I think the current scope of this article serves it well; narrow enough to avoid a runaway list, but broad enough to allow some latitude. --JeffJ (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a word on the monkey attack... I am inclined to vote on including this particular entry. Monkey attacks may not be as rare as many believe, but they are still unusual, particularly in areas where monkeys are not indigenous (like getting kicked in the head by a giraffe while hiking in the Yukon). The story also scores points for the notability of the victim and the historical changes caused by his death. Hmmm... Maybe I should go looking for other, um, non-sequiter animal attacks... Didn't some people get killed by a rampaging circus elephant a few years back? You know, we really need a chat room for this. --JeffJ (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This sounds worrisome to me, as it should be expected that any animal which is prone to attack humans will still attack humans if it's taken out of its natural environment. Elephant attacks are very common (see Shooting an Elephant), and no one should be surprised by an elephant attacking humans in any situation, no more than a tiger or hippo or black mamba attack would be unusual. As for the monkeys, see above where I link to monkey attacks in Virginia and a "rampage" in Washington. I'll let consensus decide if the circumstance here is unusual enough for inclusion, but anybody that has a park they put monkeys in should not be surprised when those monkeys attack them, nor when those attacks transmit disease to them. NJGW (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
BTW, one of the articles which was recently deleted was List of unusual animal anecdotes. No inclusion criteria. NJGW (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I see what you're saying. There are a lot of exotic animal attacks reported online, but most seem to take place where the animals have been placed in a situation of interaction with people (ie, circuses, or used as beasts of burden in their native regions). I'm really looking more for the twist of fate where someone dies because a unique set of circumstances lead to the encounter (ie, pet gets loose in a public park and attacks someone). Kind of like if a sewer-worker was killed by an alligator in New York. You know... that completely, out of context, scenario.--JeffJ (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
From memory I thought there was uncertainty as to where the monkeys came from - they were allegedly someone's pets that had escaped as the park in questions was just that - a park. This is getting into the minutiae though - if President Bush was mauled to death by a hippopotamus on the National Mall wouldn't most people think it appropriate to put that on this list, despite the commonality of hippo killings in Africa and even if that hippo had merely escaped from an exhibit at the Smithsonian? Quartermain (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
How is that relevant? We have monkey attacks in the US, but not hippo attacks. If you find a reference that says it's unusual then put the story back in. NJGW (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I think Quartermain was trying to illustrate a point. That aside, I did a cursory Google and found that a vast majority of deaths from monkey/primate attacks occur in either animal sanctuaries or in global regions where primates live and are regularly encountered by humans. Fatal attacks in places where one would not expect to encounter a monkey do seem to be unusual. So I think the criteria here would be, could the victim have reasonably expected to encountered the primate or was it a completely unpredictable encounter? Double check my Googling though; My ADD is kicking in on the subject and I didn't devote a lot of time to it.--JeffJ (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
"...his pet monkey" and "... his favorite pet monkey". I also found one reference suggesting it was the pet of a vineyard keeper and another which stated the owner was never revealed. Another NYT article from 1920 stated that some claimed it was an assassination. NJGW (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Seppuku

Suicide by sword in stomach is not unusual. We might call it rare today (it still happens[2]), but as a way to die it is not as unusual as this article calls for. According to the seppuku article, at least "dozens" have gone this way since it was abolished as judicial punishment in 1873, including "numerous soldiers and civilians who chose to die rather than surrender at the end of World War II." (according to Suicide and culture in Japan, by Fuse (1980), "countless numbers of Japanese military officers committed seppuku in Pacific islands before the eyes of stunned American fighting men". And then there's MoritaMishima's second Morita, who attempted seppuku immediately after but did not cut deep enough (I believe this is still considered seppuku, as he died of beheading, exactly like Morita Mishima did). Morita Mishima is closer in time to WWII than he is to today, and so I don't see how he can be considered a modern oddity. NJGW (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you mean Mishima (Morita was his second, I believe), his seppuku in 1970 was considered outrageous and provocative, and obsessive and fascinating details were featured in contemporaneous media, due both to Mishima's fame, the unusual and dramatic nature of the act, and the circumstances of his death. Mishima is cited as a notable example in the seppuku article, and his own article goes into significant details. While "dozens [since 1873]" means Mishima's death by seppuku was not unique, it was certainly unusual, especially for a famous person. --MCB (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Many of those who died since 1873 were famous and several caused an international stir (ie the generals Nogi and Anami). The seppuku article also mentions one I missed from 2002. Dozens since 1873 is somewhat of a meiosis, as it appears to only refer to the famous people since 1873... after all there were "countless" in WWII. This article is not List of deaths unusual for famous people. NJGW (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
But the list "also includes less rare, but still unusual, deaths of prominent people". So does this fulfil the requirements? While you ponder, read the next section... --JeffJ (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
This is problematic because we will have now have to say "even though many other people died of seppuku ceremonies in the late 19th and early 20th century, and 1000's died of seppuku outsideOR? of official ceremony, this guy is unusualOR because he was a nutter (not even a samurai or government official or member of the emperor's family) who decided he wanted to commit seppuku (much like the several who have done so in the 21st century, except he had a "second"), and he is still unusual even though his second committed seppuku one minute after him (and by the way, they both died of being beheaded, not the stomach wounds that killed so many in WWII and a few in the 21st century)." Seems like a pretty wordy caveat to me. NJGW (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

new additions of celebrities

Sonny Bono and Michael Kennedy both died of injuries after skiing into trees. Is that unusual enough to be included into this list?--Kevin586 (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No. At least 4 in Colorado alone last season [3]. NJGW (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe. Notable, but not unusual. But there is the notable person element that gives it a "maybe". I think this one will be decided on a technical basis. On a personal level, I would say No, but that's just my personal opinion.--JeffJ (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion checklist

We should create a checklist or criteria for inclusion. You know; "if your entry meets 8 out of the 10 requirements" kind of thing. I'm on my way to bed or I'd lead off with some ideas. Anyone? --JeffJ (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I dunno; I suspect these entries are like pornography - impossible to define, but you know them when you see them. Interesting idea, however. The only item that has been agreed upon over the years (and this article has produced a *lot* of debate over the years) is that the circumstances of death is mentioned in a wikipedia article about the person or about the event itself. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
There was some issue not too long ago with the Wikipedia self-reference, though... --JeffJ (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps rather than a list, we should debate the introductory text that describes what goes here. I believe that I wrote much of it years ago; it has been tweaked, but perhaps it needs more change - particularly the clause "also includes less rare, but still unusual, deaths of prominent people". Do we need to tighten the description to weed out entries - if so, in what way? Or do we need to loosen it, allowing more entries - in which case we would probably have to break up this page into several articles. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I would neither tighten, nor loosen. I think we just need a checklist (it doesn't have to be an actual checklist) so that contributors have a clearer understanding of what falls under unusual deaths. As it stands, we've been doing a pretty good job of policing the article, but it smacks of "ownership". I know it would be more helpful if I offered some suggestions, but these days I'm logging in just before bed and can hardly think straight. Even now, I'm trying to squeeze one tiny little suggestion out, just to show that I care... Okay... Easy one: Did it make the mainsteam news? Is there a Wiki article about the person or death? If you can answer YES to one of these two questions... Well, you get the idea. But, we need more questions or criteria. To be continued... --JeffJ (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Humor?

Are you kidding me? This is actually an article? While it may be hilarious, does it merit an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AtYourService100 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup. --JeffJ (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Something I've started to grapple with is that the claim that most of these deaths are unusual is OR. See Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). There's nothing there that says this list can't exist, but it does say it should follow the same standards as other articles. Honestly, this belongs on someone's website, not in an encyclopedia (which is part of the reason there's so much argumentation over (for example) whether by 1970 ceremonial seppuku was unusual enough to be considered unusual in general, or if things are more unusual if they happen to famous people. NJGW (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Just reading over the stand-alone list policy, I see this statement "...be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge." That's the biggest issue here. Can somebody answer that. NJGW (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it contributes to the state of human knowledge because it speaks to the human condition. We are mortal and death can be arbitrary and often without meaning beyond the death itself. It speaks to the circumstances that humans will inflict upon themselves and each other. How we kill ourselves and others speaks volumes about the social, political, religious, moral, etc. aspects of the times and places. It is history that we need to learn so that, hopefully, we will not subject ourselves to the same folly, nor allow others to repeat similar behaviour. Perhaps, a parent will now be more cognisant of the dangers of pool-drains, or an online chatter will take more seriously another's threat of suicide... Death is a part of all lives but it is the unusual that can so often catch us off guard. I won't pretend that the subject doesn't hold a certain morbid fascination, but it does educate the reader regardless of the original motivation. --JeffJ (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Predictably, this OR issue in choosing entries isn't a new topic of conversation: Talk:List_of_unusual_deaths/Archive_1#Nailing_down_a_standard, Talk:List_of_unusual_deaths/Archive_1#Totally_disputed, Talk:List_of_unusual_deaths/Archive_1#Problems_with_a_possible_standard. NJGW (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
It also contributes to human knowledge by combining previously separate facts together in a way that aids in the researching and discovery process. I can certainly see this list being the jumping off point for someone researching 1) Death 2) The Deaths of great men 3) one subject (say the death of those guys who hoarded and died in their own house) and being led to others (people who died laughing to death). This list might be just laughs for some but to others it could extensively cut down on the collection process. I cannot see a list like this ever being done by a computer or a single person, only collaborating people. 138.23.82.131 (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

new submission: Moscow theater hostage crisis

Would the Moscow theater hostage crisis meet the de facto standards for this article? According to the article, numerous hostages and terrorists, died of a yet unknown chemical agent when it was pumped into the building with the intent of putting everyone into an unconscious state.--Kevin586 (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem unusual so much as it seems like incompetant police work. 138.23.82.131 (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the hostages met an unusual death in that they were fatally gassed by the police then denied medical assistance at the scene. Paramedics were specifically instructed not to attend to the hostages, some of whom were children, who were suffering the effects of the gas. Many hostages could have been saved, but were instead allowed to die. Unconscious hostages were simply laid out with the bodies and left to die. Many died from choking on their own vomit. Incidentally, Russian officials consider the operation as a great success. Sort of like, "The operation was a success, but the patient died" kind of success. Do we have an article called Colossal Screw-ups Considered Stellar Successes?--JeffJ (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Redd Foxx

I've always found [[Redd_Foxx#Death|Redd Foxx]'s death fascinating. He became famous for a fake-heart attack schitck, so when he really did have a (fatal) heart attack, everyone laughed at him thinking it was his act. Evan1975 (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty ironic (a theme which keeps returning here), but heart attacks aren't unusual. Maybe a separate List of ironic deaths is needed (would include Stever Irin etc). Search this page and the archive for Irony and Ironic for more. NJGW (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

List of people who died onstage

In light of questions about whether to list people died of heart attacks etc. on stage or in film on before cameras, note that many of these have been spun off into List of people who died onstage - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ironic Death

Who was that guy who popularized jogging, and then died of a heart attack while jogging? And, although it is certainly not unusual to die of a heat attack, don't the circumstances (who it was, and when it happened) warrant inclusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.26.10 (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If it was less common in general, then maybe, but it seems to be very common [4]. Maybe we need a List of ironic deaths. NJGW (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
You are thinking of Jim Fixx. He wrote the book(s) on jogging and is credited with making jogging popular. His death by heart-attack is indeed ironic, but it was caused by a genetic predisposition aggravated by years of over-eating and smoking 2 packs a day, not the jogging (which he started at age 35). So, even the irony is a bit weak. --JeffJ (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Collapsing throne

What do you guys think of this one? It seems kind of boring, and unusual is almost synonymous with interesting in my book... is it like Princess Di getting killed in an auto accident? Or more like any instance where some structure collapsed and killed someone inside? I'll let it sit for a while and think about it. NJGW (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I reworked the entry a bit, but never actually stated MHO. Seems unusual enough. Must have been a heck of a throne.--JeffJ (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Juan Belmonte Garcia

I have just attempted to add the story of famous bullfighter Juan Belmonte Garcia's death: immediately upon being told by his doctor that his injuries prevented him from smoking, drinking, having sex, or riding a horse, he went out with a bang by doing all four of them in the space of a night and then shooting himself with a pistol- telling his friends that if he could not live like a man, he could at least die like one. It was immediately reverted on the grounds that 'suicide is not unusual': I contest this, as I find the circumstances of this particular suicide to have a larger-than-life quality that qualifies it as unusual. Can I get a few opinions on this? -Toptomcat (talk) 07:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who reverted it ... so you know my opinion already! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a normal suicide to me: depressing news leads to a last hurrah (no unusual bells ringing in my head), and then a gun shot to the head (pretty common way to do it). NJGW (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Normal suicide. Manly, but normal. --JeffJ (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. Shooting oneself isn't unusual. It's a good story, but doesn't belong here.Julianhall (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

deaths vs. murders

Can we split this into List of unusual deaths and List of unusual murders? Unusual murders are a bit different. Kingturtle (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems problematic... what about wartime kills, or manslaughter, or conspiracy theories, or being killed by an animal? NJGW (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Would suicide count as a death or a murder? That aside, I don't see merit in splitting the article. I was perusing some of the entries and I can see where we would have the kind of problems NJGW was talking about; There are a few "accidental" deaths that have been suspected as being murder. I can see those entries opening up all kinds of debates/arguments/edit-wars. I say: If it ain't broke... --JeffJ (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ground victims of air crashes

I was just reading this entry:

On October 4, 1992, El Al Flight 1862, a Boeing 747 cargo plane of the Israeli airline El Al, crashed into the Groeneveen and Klein-Kruitberg flats in the Bijlmermeer (colloquially "Bijlmer") neighbourhood (part of Amsterdam Zuidoost) of Amsterdam, Netherlands. A total of 43 people were killed, consisting of the plane's crew of three and a non-revenue passenger in a jumpseat, plus 39 persons on the ground. Many more were injured.

It seems unusual for people on the ground, in very ordinary circumstances (like being at home), to be killed by crashing aircraft, but there have been several such occurrences throughout aviation history. Do we want to include these kinds of deaths? We did have an entry at one point of a man dying when a helicopter crashed on him while he was walking down the street, but it seems to have been deleted. Which is odd, since having a helicopter crash right on top of you seems pretty freaking unusual to me. Or am I just living in a better neighbourhood?--JeffJ (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Crassus

I removed the entry about Crassus being killed with molten gold poured down his throat because it is evidently completely fictional. Not only would it be highly unlikely for anyone to waste gold that way, Plutarch says that his death during a scuffle on the battle field was witnessed and reported by several Romans.see section 31 NJGW (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

William Henry Harrison

My understanding was that this list was for "rare, but still unusual, deaths of prominent people". So why was this entry removed?

  • 1841: William Henry Harrison, 9th President of the United States, gave the longest inaugural speech in U.S. history, two hours, during cold weather and without an overcoat. He caught pneumonia, and died 1 month later, becoming the first president to die in office, and the one with the shortest term as president.

Seems to me that it meets the criteria. Prominent person, unusual death, historic. What am I missing? --Elonka 18:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, but dying of pneumonia is very common - not even close to "less rare, but still unusual." The question is whether having this common death happen in very uncommon circumstances makes it suitable for this list. I would argue no, but it's certainly debatable (as is much about this article!) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
He died of pneumonia because he was outdoors without a coat on. Neither rare, nor unusual. Probably millions of people have died from pneumonia caused by not wearing weather-appropriate clothing. Stupid maybe, but not unusual. --JeffJ (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Harrison did not show any signs of illness until 3 weeks after the inaugural address, so the cause is only supposition from a time when micro-organisms were unknown and it was believed that weather alone caused illness. So the death was likely VERY common after all. --JeffJ (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Add it to [[List of common misconceptions] instead. Kingturtle (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nepolian the I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepolian I'm very shocked no one has sad him yet. He was put into excile, in a humid climate, and his cature painted the walls with a dealy poisin, so he died slow. That is very interesting and unusual. Darius Sinclair (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

But unsupported by hard evidence, as the article itself says. A 2007 study said he died of stomach cancer, not arsenic poisoning. Besides, being killed by your enemies while in captivity is not, alas, terribly unusual. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Man dies from picking his nose

Should it be added? Here's the link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3566273/Man-dies-from-picking-his-nose.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.84.99 (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it qualifies to me! --JeffJ (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Gregory Biggs left to die stuck in windshield

Regarding this entry:

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

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

Actually it was several hours later that he died, not days. I've heard lots of stories of people who were hit by drunk drivers and would have lived had the paramedics arrived a few hours earlier. The fact that she didn't do the right thing when she was still intoxicated is not unusual either. NJGW (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
But you could look at it from the POV that getting hit by a drunk driver didn't kill him, but rather being left stuck through a windshield did. --JeffJ (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian oppressors?

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

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

Barbarossa

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

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

Payne Stewart

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

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

Original Synthesis tag

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

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

You are arguing that this article shouldn't exist. Many people have made similar arguments over the years. Many others have disagreed with those arguments. So far, people who disagree have won - as you can see by the fact that this article has survived five (5!) attempts at deletion - but that may not be the case forever. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Precedent means nothing. And I'd be fine if the entries in this list were validated by some sort of source on unusualness of these deaths. As long as it follows WP policies on verifiability and original research and synthesis. In addition, the first deletion nomination was when this article existed as "List of people who died with tortoises on their heads". And the most recent one was more an issue with the name and sublists of this article. Blueaster (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The whole concept of "unusualness" is subjective in this circumstance, IMHO, so there can't be any "source on unusualness". The only reason for something to be included here here is that wikipedians want to include it. That is, obviously, the heart of most concerns about this article, including yours, and perhaps as wikipedia evolves it will create a different concensus about the article's fate. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia contains much information on concepts which are subjective, but Wikipedia's policies on notability and verifiability are strictly objective. An list entitled "Books that have been challenged" which discusses controversial books on which bans have been attempted by parents and school boards would make a great addition to Wikipedia. A list entitled "Books not for children," or "Dangerous books," would NOT make a great addition to Wikipedia.
You yourself have admitted that "unusual" is a subjective word. Nothing short of either Original Research or a Published Source asserting the unusualness of the death can Verify the unusualness of a death. To be on Wikipedia, articles have to be objectively notable. Read WP:NOTE on what that means (and I apologize if this is not new to you and my explaining policy is presumptuous of me). Although I hope you read the whole thing, if you get far enough into the page, it states that "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. Notability, in the sense used to determine article inclusion, does not directly affect article content." As notable as these deaths are in the contexts of maybe the "Life of Famous Person X" or "Death by Means Y," the topic of this particular article is not.
Although a major pillar of Wikipedia's article IS consensus-building and adaptation to any new attitudes or ideas in the project, I think that the policies still stand as acceptable to the majority of all editors, if not to the editors who support this article. I hope you will read WP:ILIKEIT. Even if people like this article or think it's funny or useful or interesting, there are still major policy-related issues with the premise of this article. Thank you for your time if you've read all this. Blueaster (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there an appropriate wiki that this article can be transwikified to? NJGW (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes there is! Wikia's History Wiki [5] will surely welcome "List of unusual deaths" with open arms. Another site that will serve as a suitable home for this article is Everything2 ([6]). I understand that this article is very informative, entertaining, and useful and we'll all be sad to see it go, but unfortunately, Wikipedia is just not the proper place for such a topic. Ooh, I almost forgot, Anarchopedia [7] is also a wiki with laxer attitudes and more organic procedure than this one. Does that sparkle with everyone? Blueaster (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Transwiki-ing means keeping the article within Wikimedia space. Anarchopedia and Everything2 are outside projects and therefore do not qualify. I don't believe that this article should be moved, though. This article survived five AfDs for a reason. I don't see you going after all the other pages that are similar to this. There's a whole category of them - why don't you go attempt to move those as well? Yes, this article does have its problems, but I'd be rather opposed to a transwiki. I'd sooner see you open a RfC on the discussion first. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I created that cat. Some of the members have verifiable inclusion criteria and some do not. I'm open to a true transwiki, as I believe an asserted attempt to impose the letter of the law and verify the unusualness of the entries will result in deletion. NJGW (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
In addition, it doesn't matter that there's "a whole category" of articles like this. No one needs to raise issue with those articles for this issue to be valid. See WP:ALLORNOTHING. Blueaster (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
You haven't said anything about the history wiki though... And by the way, if this article does get nominated for deletion, the fact that this article survived multiple noms (3 in its current form, 2 under different names) will not be seen as a good enough argument for keeping it WP:NOTAGAIN. Blueaster (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It's a commercial site; not a real transwiki possibility. NJGW (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
"To group these events together in this context would be original synthesis of the facts". While I won't argue the page is high science, every serious encycolopaedia (on paper, or qualified online handbook) has many 'original groupings', clarifications and statements that omit some marginal occurrences in order to give a clear explanation, this is something a lot of wikipedians don't seem to understand. No encyclopaedia is just a patchwork of statements that have been written before with a claim to be objective, each and all. If that was it, encyclopaedias and historical/scientific handbooks would look impenetrable and you'd lose sight of what was important. I don't have any trouble with well-researched manuals, the point is pretty much any such text will make groupings and reasons that don't stem directly from the raw data at hand.
Anyone who is brought in by an encyclopaedia, a magazine or a university to write about something will make qualitative statements, blanket some things together, create structure and stress certain angles so that something may be explained. They might not say openly in the text that's what they did, but that's how it works, and an online project aiming to gather all 'verified knowledge' won't be anywhere near successful by saying: it's true if you can copy said statement from what looks like a reputable source (preferably in English), but it's very questionable if you use your own judgment froma number of sources, some of them on paper and not accessible online, and make the text show why it makes sense. That path just leads to irrelevance.Strausszek 30 January 2009, 09:40 (CET)

Just FYI (off my Talk Page)

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

If the data in the linked Wiki-article is inaccurate, then you should fix that and provide references. You should also provide references within the Unusual Deaths article. The onus is on you to validate your work, not others. If I check a wikilink that you provided and it contradicts your work, I am going to assume frivolous editing on your part, not search the net for alternate information. You certainly didn't make a good first impression when you reported "falling out a window" as unusual. --JeffJ (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
To give you the benefit of the doubt, I researched Drago Gervais using Google. No irrefutable sources came up (i.e.: National newspapers, etc.), but all the sources I read listed his cause of death as car accident. If you have a credible source that reports him falling off his balcony, then you should list it in the references, although falling off a balcony isn't terribly unusual either. --JeffJ (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, so I guess I don't have to give any proofs for Hrabal, since they are listed on the Wikipedia article on him - he apparently fell off the window while feeding pigeons. That is why I consider that an unusual death. As for Gervais, I checked it myself, and the only mentioning of car incident is on the English sites. All Croatian sites I have consulted mention falling off a balcony - either he himself stepping off the balcony (but not with suicidal intentions) or the balcony collapsing beneath him. If you need references, I'll give them to you, but since I doubt you can read Croatian, that seems pointless to me.
"Prvog srpnja 1957. nakon tragičnog pada s balkona u Sežani, Drago Gervais je preminuo na putu u ljubljansku bolnicu." (On the 1st of July 1957, following a tragicall fall off the balcony, D. G. died on his way to Ljubljana hospital).
"U praskozorje jednog ljetnog dana, želeći se možda nadisati jutarnjega zraka ili pozdraviti izlazeće sunce, izašao je na neograđeni balkon svoje hotelske sobe na drugom katu i tog trenutka zakoraknuo u vječnost." (In the sunrise of a summer day, wishing perhaps to breathe morning air or to greet the raising sun, he went out to the unfenced balcony of his second-floor room, and thus stepped into eternity.)
"Umrijevši pod boemskim okolnostima 1957. godine u Sežani, pokopan je u Opatiji." (Having died under bohemian circumstances in 1957 in Sežana, he was buried in Opatija.)
I really doubt that car accident is "bohemian circumstances". 161.53.138.41 (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Either way, falling out a window or off a balcony is not unusual. I also note that we now have a third version of events for Gervais (the original entry stated he went looking for the washroom), so I was more than justified in removing the entry. --JeffJ (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to nitpick, but sometimes the unusualness of the death is not in the way the person died, but in the circumstances surrounding it. So, a guy hanging himself or the other one taking a drug overdose ended here just because their deaths were recorded on webcam. The other case is the woman who actually died of cancer complications, but before that she caused nausea among members of the medical staff by emiting something from her blood. So, falling off a window while feeding pigeons could be considered unusual death. 78.0.199.27 (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
1) you seem to be editing from several extremely different IPs. You need to get a named account and log in to help avoid confusion. 2) These are not unusual. NJGW (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I read your sources and none mentioned a collapsing balcony involved in Gervais' death, so again we find your statements to be either in error, or fabricated. Both good reasons to consider your edits as unconstructive. --JeffJ (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

xavier mertz

Xavier_Mertz

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

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

First person recorded to have died of this. Plenty probably did before the discovery of the vitamin, and plenty after (or else the condition wouldn't have a name). Every disease has a first-recorded-death, so that's a big category... could however be added to List of first persons recorded to have died of a given disease. NJGW (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that would be a pretty interesting list, but more along the lines of People who have had diseases named after them, or Diseases named for the first recorded victim. Now I'm off to see if someone has done this already. --JeffJ (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Snelgrove

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

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

I agree. It is relatively common for people to die from less-than-lethal weapons, whether through misadventure or misuse. --JeffJ (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ John Van der Kiste, Kings of the Hellenes (Alan Sutton Publishing, Stroud, Gloucestershire, England, 1994), p. 119-122
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_unusual_deaths/Archive_2&oldid=350551105"