Talk:List of unusual deaths/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Steve Irwin

What the heck is unusual about being killed by a stingray? Steve Irwins death is not unusual. Even if he was stung near the heart... people are stung by stingrays each year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.28.210 (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Stingray deaths are extremely rare, but if you would like to cite some sources that indicate otherwise... --JeffJ (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Further reading: http://animals.howstuffworks.com/fish/stingray.htm --JeffJ (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the same IP address keeps removing this entry without discussion. I am inclined to agree with JeffJ, though I would be happy to change my mind about the rarity of stingray deaths if statistics were presented to the contrary. Verkhovensky (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, unless faced with statistics to say this is common (which would make this a notable, but not unusual death), I would keep the entry.--Seaphoto^Talk 19:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I highly disagree with you guys, you don't need proof that it is common, lack of proof does not mean that should go on Wikipedia. That is exactly the opposite of what Wikipedia stands for. There have been at least 8 other reported deaths by stingrays and another article saying its more than that. Meaning Steve Irwins is not unusual, though rare, NOT unusual. I cannot beleive your ignorance. Reference http://www.slate.com/id/2148992/, http://www.potamotrygon.de/fremdes/stingray%20article.htm I am removing him from the article.

I am forced to agree with the earlier comment, you need proof that he should be ON this page not a reason that he shouldn't--Treefaced (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This entry has been repeatedly removed in circumvention of consensus to keep it. And this recent spate of removals from newly registered users that have this as their sole edit smacks of sock puppetry...

Verkhovensky (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never sockpuppeted before, and since when does newly created accounts mean sock puppetry. If you were smart enough you might notice the difference in several of their IP's. LethalHobo

And looking over the provided sources, they seem to reaffirm the unusualness of Irwin's death. One source reported up to 24 deaths by stingrays, the other reported 8. But most stingray injuries and deaths result from the poison, and most victims are inexperienced with the animal. The manner of Irwin's death and the fact that he was experienced make this unusual. Verkhovensky (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A response to "I cannot beleive (sic) your ignorance": Internal critique -- Whether the number of stingray deaths is 8, or 17, or even 24, that number is infinitesimally small compared to the number of deaths by usual causes (i.e., heart disease - 631,636; cancer - 559,888; diabetes - 72,449; septicemia - 34,234;[1]). External critique -- I highly doubt that many (if any) of these 8, or 17, or 24 stingray deaths involved the peculiar method that precipitated Mr. Irwin's death (stinger through the heart), and therefore is not a persuasive critique to begin with (see e.g., Verk's comments, supra, discussing how Mr. Irwin's particular experience in dealing with wildlife makes this death all the more unusual.). I believe Mr. Irwin's death should remain on this list, and I have yet to come across a persuasive argument as to why it should not. KnivesDon'tHaveMyBack (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't get my point, you need proof as to why it SHOULD be on here, not why it shouldn't be. Of course its not gonna compare to heart disease, thats a common death. It is extremely rare but NOT Unusual. Again you need proof as to why it SHOULD be here not why is shouldn't. Man get's killed by a stingry tommorow, its not gonna be world-wide news, a pizza guy with a bomb strapped around his neck, maybe. When does rarity directly relate to unusual. Though it is rare to die directly from Swine Flu its not that unusual, and I don't see anyone putting up swine flu deaths. LethalHobo —Preceding undated comment added 08:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC).

The proof of unusualness lies with the provided sources. And how many people have died from being pierced through the heart (Irwin did not die from the stingray poison). Can you provide a reference to one other person who has died from having their heart pierced by a stingray? --JeffJ (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I can provide two souces that state another man who had been stung in the heart, thus proving that the Steve Irwin is not unusual. Had this man tried to removie the barb like Steve Irwin did then he would be dead. Steve Irwin shouldn't be on cause he killed himself by removing the barb. I am seeing some bias on this page due to Steve Irwins fame and obviously his fame is irrelevant. I have provided sources and I am removing him from the article.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321718/, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061019-stingray.html

Once again, your link (only one works) proves that Irwin's death is unusual. This is apparently the only other recorded instance of a man being stabbed in the heart by a stingray, and he did not die. What is also relevant is Irwin's experience with animals like rays, which, according to your other sources, makes the instance of his injury in the first place unusual. And it appears to be the consensus to keep the entry, so you cannot unilaterally remove the entry because you happen to disagree with the majority. Verkhovensky (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Verkhovensky. Just because a mojority thinks the information is correct, its about providing sources not opinions, the majority of whites several hundred yrs ago were positive about black slavery wthat dosn't mean it's correct or uqual. My point is a majority of opinions don't warrant correct and precise information, sources do. LethalHobo

The blithe invocation of "sources" is not talismanic nor persuasive. Those sources must logically support your point and be themselves reliable. To emphasize the point of logic, much of the discussion concerns the proper metric for unusualness, which is an abstract discussion not readily susceptible to source citation (save for the sources I have cited below which logically support my points). As Verk logically points out below, your sources are either unreliable or actually support the opposite contention (that death by stingray stinger through the heart is in fact unusual). To respond the inapt comparison to the white supremacist arguments of antebellum America, the supporters of slavery actually did point to sources -- the christian bible and "science." The comparison actually undermines your point: they pointed to "sources" to support a now uniformly rejected argument. To reiterate, this is not to say that source citation is unnecessary or unimportant. Sources are important, but they must be relevant and reliable. KnivesDon'tHaveMyBack (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

To respond to "get's (sic) killed by a stingry (sic) tomorow (sic)": Internal critique - rarity is of course evidence of why an event should be included on the list. If a man was killed by an orangutan using a crossbow, the rarity of such a death would militate for its inclusion on the list. Death by orangutan might be common enough not to warrant every occurrence an entry on the list, but when other facts make the death rare and more unusual, that rarity militates for its inclusion. The reasoning here is reflected in the post by JeffJ, which points out that among stingray deaths generally, death by stinger through the heart is a peculiarly rare subset. While LethalHobo's point that rarity and unusualness are not synonymous/interchangeable may have some merit, that does not address the point that rarity can be strong evidence of unusualness. In fact, in some cases, rarity alone may even be sufficient to qualify the event as an unusual death worthy of this list.KnivesDon'tHaveMyBack (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with LethalHobo this is crazy it's not an unusual death. The wikipedia page for sting rays even says that "Nevertheless, certain larger species may be more aggressive and should only be approached with caution by humans, as the stingray's defensive reflex may result in serious injury or death." The keyword there is death. It is defiantly rare but not unusual.

If you look at the Stingray Injury page it states "Fatal stings are very rare, but can happen", just because its rare does not mean it is unusual. Lack of commonality does NOT mean it is unusual. And you guys are hanging off the fact that he died from his pierced heart. Logic dictates that the amount of people who get stung by stingrays, one is eventually gonna get it in the heart. Sometimes people fall on pens, does that mean we wait for the dude who gets it in the heart so we can put him up on the Wikipedia Deaths Page.LethalHobo

I completely agree with LethalHobo, it is rare but not unusual. Just because one deems it to be, one cannot make definitive statements. The sources on this topic seem to not corroborate and may be unreliable.--Treefaced (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You two (?) are entitled to your opinion, but the consensus (including myself, JeffJ, Seaphoto, and Knives) believes that this entry should be included. Verkhovensky (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a more direct response to your concerns. It appears that you are asking proponents of the entry to prove a negative - that there are no or very few other deaths like Irwin's, thus making it rare and therefore unusual. But proving such a negative is a fruitless path of argument, so instead the prima facie unusualness of Irwin's death raises a rebuttable presumption of its unusualness. You are free to rebut that presumption of unusualness, but all of the sources posited have simply reinforced that this is an extremely rare occurrence made more unusual by Irwin's vast experience with dangerous animals and the odd nature of his injury. I don't think any entry on this list is held to the standard that requires proof that no other individual has met a similar demise, so it seems odd to expect that of this one. Verkhovensky (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember: This a list of UNUSUAL deaths, not UNIQUE deaths. And the notability of the deceased is a mitigating factor. And a website saying that something CAN happen, doesn't mean that it will or has happened. Anything CAN happen... -- JeffJ (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to endorse the points and the logic of Verk and JeffJ. I was actually contemplating a "prima facie/rebuttable presumption" argument much like Verk posits above and endorse that cogent articulation. I have also yet to see a persuasive response to my "rarity as evidence of unusualness" point above. While Treefaced conclusorily asserts that "it is rare but not unusual", there is no responsive argument to the point that rarity is indeed indicative of unusualness. In fact, to be unusual itself denotes rarity. [2]In addition, in response to LethalHobo's "logic dictates" point above, I would like to point out that this is not a list of illogical or impossible deaths, but unusual deaths. I would take the point of JeffJ's preceding point even a step further: Logic may dictate an unusual result. Just because something happens that is logically possible is not conclusive evidence of its usualness (though, if something happens that is utterly illogical or otherwise inexplicable, that fact itself would go to unusualness). KnivesDon'tHaveMyBack (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Due to the fact that there are several stingray deaths (proved from previous sources), are you guys saying Steve Irwins deaths unusualness only lies in the fact that he was pierced in the heart? (Straight Simple Answer Please, Also his notibility has no relevance whatsoever, this article is Unusual Deaths not Famous Unusual Deaths). LethalHobo 7;19, 1 April, 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Irwin's fame in and of itself has nothing to do with the unusualness. If Mr. Irwin died from heart disease in bed at home, he would not be on the list due solely to his fame. However, Mr. Irwin's notability comes from his vast experience and expertise in dealing with wild animals, like stingrays. It is not his notability that contributes to the unusualness of his death, but his experience and expertise that is merely a factor to be considered (and is not itself dispositive). It is disingenuous for you to equate "notability" with the reasons cited above for why his identity has any significance. Also, his "notability" surely contributed to the publicity and records of his death. So perhaps death by stinger through the heart is more common than we can tell from the available records, and Mr. Irwin's record is available due in part to his notability, but this does not undermine the unusualness of his death. As per Verk's eloquently posited "prima facie/rebuttable presumption" analytical methodology, the very rarity of his death by a stinger through the heart is prima facie evidence of its unusualness. If there are vast numbers of other deaths out there by stingers through the heart that are not recorded, you cannot point to their possibility as evidence to support an argument for why the death is not unusual. KnivesDon'tHaveMyBack (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked my students today if they thought Mr. Irwin's death was unusual. One very succinctly put it: "why wouldn't it be?" Clearly intuition is on the side labeling the death as unusual. KnivesDon'tHaveMyBack (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm still standing by my point of Steve Irwins notability, I have no evidence of Steve Irwins experience with Stingrays (I can study snakes all my life dosn't mean I'll be ready for a bear) he died during Oceans Deadliest, which was his first encounter with stingrays(if you disagree provide sources). Your point is that his unusualness lies in the fact of his notability and the fact that a barb pierced his heart. His Notability is totally irrelevant and the cause of his death's relevance to this page is still under discussion. LethalHobo 8:03, 1 April, 2010 (UTC)

Notability aside, I agree with his inclusion based on the fact that being killed by a stingray barb through the heart is unusual. How can you say that it's otherwise? --JeffJ (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

From the article's header: "This article provides a list of unusual deaths – unique, or extremely rare circumstances recorded throughout history. The list also includes less rare, but still unusual, deaths of prominent people." For your reference. --JeffJ (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

LethalHobo, you clearly misapprehend my point about Mr. Irwin's notability. Mr. Irwin is notable because he built a career on dealing with animals of all stripes -- including some very dangerous animals. Commonsense dictates that his vast experience equipped him with skills transferable to dealing with animals he had less experience with (if indeed he did have less experience interacting with stingrays -- I find it unnecessary to search for sources to the contrary because I can concede this point and it does nothing to undermine my argument). A more persuasive rebuttal would be to say that Mr. Irwin's notability is a proxy for his profession, and it is quite predictable that a person who deals with animals all the time will die by an animal. The above critique seems to be premised on some very uncharitable assumptions about the proponents of this event's inclusion (i.e., assuming they are misled by Mr. Irwin's fame and merely want to post his death because he is famous). In any event, arguendo, conceding that notability is irrelevant then JeffJ's point above still stands. Death by stingray barb through the heart is unusual. This would be so whether this was Mr. Irwin or someone with no claim to "notability" whatsoever. I have never argued that Mr. Irwin's death is unusual solely because of his notability. If anything, it is an ancillary consideration. But that consideration aside, and even conceding your point for the sake of argument, Mr. Irwin's death is still unusual. KnivesDon'tHaveMyBack (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I concede, it isn't that important. LethalHobo 23:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC

More apocryphal, unusual deaths

How about Jesus of Nazareth? he was reported by his followers to have risen from his death after being crucified and buried! this may be apocryphal, but its widely reported and seems notable. also, the jewish prophet Elijah was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind. not sure if thats a death, but its surely unusual, and no one saw him after that, so he can be presumed missing. oh, and by the way, unusual is entirely subjective, therefore this article should be deleted. the details of these unusual deaths belong in the main articles as notable, but the collection here of various unusual deaths is original research/synthesis. the criteria here are inherently undefinable. this is just a trivia list for the perverse (which i am, no slight intended, but WP:Perversion as a central tenet for article creation does not exist).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the top of this page, you'll see that this article has been nominated for deletion five or six ... maybe even seven ... times, due to concerns like yours. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

sorry, i neglected to mention that i was aware of this. makes me sound sort of dense. I may in the future nominate for deletion, again, but i wanted to state my concern on the talk page so it was noted somewhere other than the archives. thanks for helping me to clarify my intent.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely you are also aware that a new AfD requires a review of previous AfDs to see if your reasons for a new one have not yet been debated. Given this list's history of spirited and comprehensive AfD debates, I think anyone would be hard pressed to find an issue with the list that has not yet been addressed. Verkhovensky (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, thank you for that friendly reminder, i hadnt checked the history. however, in reviewing the last two afd's, i find that the most recent one was really a massive afd for multiple articles, without enough time to discuss this article specifically, and in my mind was a frivolous use of the afd process, as the bulk of the articles are capable of being well defined. the next most recent afd was no consensus, with the admins opinion that there were valid concerns raised about the definition of unusual and the criteria for inclusion, which i dont believe have been addressed since that afd. thus, if i choose to bring this up for afd, i dont believe it will be considered as unwarranted.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Not letting reality get in the way of a good story.

So another fantastic story of someone dying in an explosion that borders on physical impossibility has been added. Jenny Mitchell's story just doesn't make sense. The highest grade of hairdressing peroxide is 12%, which isn't even classified as a DOT oxidizer. Various news reports are calling it "highly flammable" which it is not. I know you guys have dismissed my similar concerns in the past, but I figured I'd bring it up again, in case someone decides to stop believing everything that's printed in newspapers. Gigs (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The article says that HP might have mixed with other chemicals in her car creating combustible fumes. --JeffJ (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just reading the article on hydrogen peroxide and it is used as a rocket propellant. From what I can tell it is mixed with alcohol in rocketry and it's not inconceivable that alcohol (rubbing or drinking) was one of the other chemicals in the car. 12% is the upper range for bleaching hair, but we don't know what effect other chemicals may have had. But even if HP wasn't the culprit, just accidentally blowing yourself up in your car by lighting a cigarette is pretty unusual. --JeffJ (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The only plausible scenario in my mind is that somehow it mixed with activator and liberated oxygen, creating an oxygen rich environment, in which a fire could easily break out. Of course we can't put this theory in the article unless someone else writes it. Rocket grade peroxide is much higher concentration, lower concentrations will not work. Anyway, we should just beware which claims we repeat, since some of them are just false (like the peroxide itself being flammable) Gigs (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The news story specifically says that hydrogen peroxide fumes were suspected in the explosion. Of course a bottle of liquid hydrogen peroxide exploding is ridiculous, but that is not what happened. Hydrogen peroxide vapors mixing with another substance and resulting in an explosion is certainly possible. Verkhovensky (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The current text in the article is much more plausible. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping us honest! Verkhovensky (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Do multiple instances disqualify a cause of death?

• A number of people have been decapitated by elevators. Doesn't that make this cause of death not that unusual? Isn't there an implication of it being unique or unheard of outside the instance given for it to be on this page? Edison (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The deaths don't have to be unique to be unusual, yes, multiple incidents could disqualify. I wish I had a hard and fast rule to quote, but we usually rely on editor consensus if the event falls into a grey area. That aside, I wasn't aware that elevator decapitations were anything but rare (or unusual). If you van provide sources to show that this or any other death is not unique, then please share. It'll help us reach an informed decision. --JeffJ (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Unnamed victims

I see the chef story has been added. How about a rule that if it was "unnamed victims" you assume it's an urban legend, because it usually is? The chef story sounds entirely made up, regardless of how many news sources have copied it around in a huge game of telephone. Gigs (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment. I am also very suspicious of entries with unnamed victims. I am not sure I would support an automatic strong presumption of invalidity based on that alone. I think it is best to judge reliability based on the quality of the source. The single source for the chef story was a tabloid article that was about one paragraph long and written by "Staff Writer." Because that is obviously unreliable, I removed the entry. Verkhovensky (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Anacreon and Aeschylus

COPIED FROM MY TALK PAGE:

Would you be kind enough to explain why you deleted Anacreon and Aeschylus from the list?Wolfymoza (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Aeschylus: Virtually all scholars believe the eagle story to be a myth or legend. [3], [4],[5]. And the accounts are inconsistent with some claiming that the eagle dropped a stone, thinking his head was an egg [[6]], or that it was a Lammergeier, not an eagle. Many encyclopedias don't even mention the story. As such, I don't think it appropriate for Wikipedia to perpetuate it. --JeffJ (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Anacreon: Again we have another very dubious story that's given little credibility in the main article. But that aside, choking to death on a seed doesn't strike me as being unusual. --JeffJ (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As for Anacreon I was a bit unsure too and I go along, but as for Aeschylus, I think Pliny is enough source to give it an entry. Also, many deaths on that list are legentary, and cannot be conclusivly be proved to be true or false. I think the note on the top, (many of these deaths might be legendary) covers for all that. If we add this death -on Aeschylus- is highly doupted, could you consider leaving it?Wolfymoza (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Many of the ancient legends are considered apocryphal, but editors leave them in place if there is no scholastic evidence that they're fabrications. In the case of Aeschylus, there are several sources that discount the legend, many main-stream encyclopedias that omit the legend, and sources that offer alternate versions (i.e., it was a rock dropped by a lammergeier), that it would be inappropriate to perpetuate what is very likely a fabrication. --JeffJ (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Alexander's I death

Sorry, but i must stand by Alexander's I death. Monkey attacks the dog? The King and not someone else defending the dog? The monkey's mate also attacks? And the King dead by the bites? And all this not in some zoo or wild-nature scene but in a park in the centre of Athens? Nah...that’s pretty unusual all right. In any case the article's description is: "The list also includes less rare, but still unusual, deaths of prominent people." So, either this sentence must be removed, or Alexander and similar cases should stay. Also, in my opinion, "unusual" describes not only the death per se, but also the circumstances leading to it. Please refer the changes you wish to make to the discussion page, and take opinion of others, and please leave the entry till the matter is discussed and decided upon. Thank you.Wolfymoza (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Empedocles and Heraclitus

Diogenes Laërtius in his work Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, provides many accounts of the death of Empedocles based on sources: 1. The story about him leaping in the crater of Aetna was mentioned by Hippobotus, but Diogenes comments that “But afterwards the truth was detected by one of his slippers having been dropped”. But being objective goes on and says that “Pausanias, however, contradicts this statement.” 2.Diodorus, of Ephesus, mentions that he leaped on a fire on a bank of a river. 3. Timaeus contradicts all the above stories as fause. 4. Neanthes, of Cyzicus mentions that “…broke his thigh ; and he was taken ill in consequence, and so died, at the age of seventy-seven. And his tomb is in Megara.” 5. In a letter of Telauge “it is said that he slipped down through old age, and fell into the sea, and so died”.[7]

As for Heraclitus, the same thing goes, Diogenes Laërtius mentions a number of accounts. The account of him been covered with manure is mentioned as an attempt to cure his dropsy. Hermippus states that for the same reason, "...he ordered his servants to plaster him over with cow-dung; and being stretched out in that way, on the second day he died". Neanthes, of Cyzicus mentions that "...as he could not tear off the cow-dung, he remained there, and on account of the alteration in his appearance, he was not discovered, and so was devoured by the dogs". Ariston, stated in his account of Heraclitus, that he was cured of the dropsy, and died of some other disease. And Hippobotus gives the same account.[8] Wolfymoza (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Killed by a computer chair

If someone can verify this. [9]. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find even a remotely "reliable" source. --JeffJ (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources or deletion

I urge people who have taken interest in the past in this list, to come to a consensus to the following standard: legendary cases of unusual deaths must first cite the earlier possible original source / s, or be deleted. A very good example of what I mean is Hypatia. The source given is [10]in which we read: "A few years later, according to one report, Hypatia was brutally murdered by the Nitrian monks who were a fanatical sect of Christians who were supporters of Cyril. According to another account (by Socrates Scholasticus) she was killed by an Alexandrian mob under the leadership of the reader Peter". But in the entry we read: " was murdered by a Christian mob by having her skin ripped off with sharp sea-shells; what remained of her was burned. (Various types of shells have been named: clams, oysters, abalones, etc.. Other sources claim tiles or pottery-shards were used.)". See where the problem lies? Where from "skin ripped" and "remained of her was burned" popped out? Someone must find the exact text of Socrates Scholasticus, and mention him as a source, either by direct link or by reference only if no on-line text is available. Or /and provide a different source.

Having done this work, then the remaining entries will withstand the usual scrutiny and editing of users. Till then, I propose that for all such above entries, people should not go around deleting them, but simply replacing the source with . If a source is not filled in within a reasonable time, the entry will be deleted. Please comment and discuss, thank you! Wolfymoza (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You want people to delete valid sources and replace them with fact tags? Gigs (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No my good friend, I don't know how you got the exact opposite of what I am proposing. I want people to delete links and pages, and replace them with original sources. One more example can further illustrate the point. On Aeshcylus, this [11] is the kind of page-link I propose removing, in which is mentioned "...killed by an eagle which, in its desire to split open a turtle it was carrying, mistook his bald head for a boulder". While the page mentions the description of his death, it bares no sources. This is not an original source. And replace it with this, [12], (Valerius Maximus, Factorum ac dictorum memorabilium libri IX) in which is mentioned “…on who’s head an eagle dropped a tortoise, having mistaken his shiny head-because he was bald- for a rock, in order to eat its flesh, and he was perished because of this great tragic incident”, which is the exact account, -in fact the original latin text,- directly from the olderst original source, in this case Valerius Maximus. Wolfymoza (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Our policy is to avoid relying too much on original (i.e. primary) sources, and to rely mainly on secondary sources. WP:PSTS. Gigs (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Attila

I have edited the section and placed a valid source to show theories on his death. While some dispute that he died of a nosebleed it is generally agreed that he died of asphixiating his own blood.--Adam in MO Talk 07:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the entry for two reasons. The first is that there is no definitive evidence regarding his cause of death. Second, death from esophageal hemorrhaging (and related asphyxiation) is not unusual: Google Search --JeffJ (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The source is acceptable per wp:rs and according to the lede: "This article provides a list of unusual deaths – unique, or extremely rare circumstances recorded throughout history. The list also includes less rare, but still unusual, deaths of prominent people.

"--Adam in MO Talk 01:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to rephrase: Death from esophageal hemorrhaging (and related asphyxiation) is relatively common. Here's one article from the above-mentioned Google search. In the article, the University of Hamburg identified 45 cases in 6038 autopsies. --JeffJ (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Something that affects .7% of the population is rare.--Adam in MO Talk 02:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

But not unusual. .7% of 6 Billion is 42 Million. 42 Million cases for the current population is hardly rare. Now factor in the number of cases throughout history. --JeffJ (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I remember as part of the Steve Irwin discussion some users thought that perhaps up to eight other deaths by a sting ray would eradicate its unusualness. Granted that view was not part of the consensus, but 42 million is really pushing it. And surely there are many more medical conditions that affect an even smaller percentage of the population, and this list does not catalog every death of a famous person by those. Verkhovensky (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. The deletion of Attila should stand then. I am clearly against consensus here. Thank You.--Adam in MO Talk 16:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_unusual_deaths&diff=next&oldid=373851998 I believe I was (Or, I thought I was) correcting a grammar mistake, not making an unnecessary edit. If the grammar edition was wrong please state that rather than just "Unnecessary" - Little confusing... --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It is correct with or without the word "for" - personally I prefer it with the word (as you did) but it's a judgement call. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I definitely think the entry flows nicely with the "for," but I think JeffJ is trying to be as minimalist as possible because the article is so long. Cutting a word from a single entry may seem perplexing, but taking out one extra word from each entry can make a big impact on overall length. I think both edits in this case were made in the utmost good faith, but perhaps an explanation more linked to the goal of minimizing overall article length would have been clearer. Verkhovensky (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. I just thought (that) it was an unnecessary additional word, especially as an edit. Just trying to keep it tight. --JeffJ (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

not unusual

• 2007: Kevin Whitrick, a 42-year-old man, committed suicide by hanging himself live on a webcam during an Internet chat session.

He died by hanging himself with a rope. There is nothing unusual about this. The way in which his body was discovered is unusual. I am not sure it fits in this article.

The article is about unusual deaths, not unusual causes of death. Hanging oneself is not unusual; hanging oneself live on the Internet is. But this has been debated before. Please see the archives for the full discussion. --JeffJ (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Decades

Decades end at the stroke of midnight of years ending in 0 (zero), NOT at the end of years ending in 9.

There was no year 0. Time progressed from BC 0001 directly to AD 0001. i.e. the 'first' decade was from Jan. 1 0001 - Dec. 31st 0010.

As such, the fatality at the top of the '21st Century' list should actually be at the bottom of the '20th Century: "2000: Airline passenger Jonathan Burton..."

I'm uncomfortable making the change myself as I am only a casual reader of Wikipedia and I'm unfamiliar with its inner 'code' workings. Dave 10:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davesilvan (talk • contribs)

Good point. I noticed that the item was out of place, and corrected the error. If anyone thinks the incident, which occurred in the year 2000, actually does belong under the "21st century" heading, there's a Wikipedia reference for that: 20th_century, which makes it clear: "The 20th century of the Common Era began on January 1, 1901 and ended on January 1, 2001 at 12:00 AM." NameIsRon (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

The advocates of this entry make a good point, and I will try to address it. The context of the prayer to death and the irony certainly make this an interesting death, but it still does not abide by the standards of this list. The context of this death is strange, but it is missing a critical causal link. The death by cholera after the prayer to death is very ironic, but that contest did not cause his cholera or have anything to do with it, really. All of the accidents and booby traps on this list are on here because the strange and often ironic circumstances are causally related to the unusual death. Inventors killed by their own inventions on this list might be killed by a fall or other commonplace injury, but the unusual circumstance of testing homemade parachutes and what not are causally related to the deadly falls and injuries. The prayer to death in Ahmad's case was simply a coincidence, and without the critical causal connection probably cannot justify its place on this list. Verkhovensky (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this summary provided above, however user Asimnawazkhan clearly does not and has indicated on my talk page that if the entry is removed, he (or she) will remove other entries such as Alexander Woollcott from the article as he/she does not think it warrants inclusion. The entry on my talk page was made after I removed the entry for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and left an edit summary advising that the matter should be taken to this talk page prior to the entry being re-added. In his/her message on my talk page, Asimnawazkhan has also claimed that the entry for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has been removed from this page due to the colour of his/her skin. MC Rocks (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is ironic, but not unusual. Many people, day-to-day, say things like "May God strike me down if...", and many people died of Cholera. If Ahmad had been the first recorded case, that would have been unusual. Or if he had said "May God strike me down", then was immediately struck down (by anything), coupled with his fame, would have been unusual for the purposes of this article. But it was a common-place statement (Google gives over 84,00 hits for "May God strike me down" coupled with a common-place death. Further, there have been many famous deaths by Cholera:

Other famous people believed to have died of cholera include:

• Zachary Taylor, 12th President of the United States
• Inessa Armand, mistress of Lenin
• Judge Daniel Stanton Bacon, father-in-law of George Armstrong Custer
• Daniel Morgan Boone, founder of Kansas City, Missouri, son of Daniel Boone
• George Bradshaw
• Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot
• Charles X of France
• Juan de Veramendi, Mexican Governor of Texas, father-in-law of Jim Bowie
• Henry Louis Vivian Derozio, Eurasian Portuguese Poet and Teacher. Resided in India.
• John Blake Dillon
• Alexandre Dumas, père, French author of The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo, also contracted cholera in the 1832 Paris epidemic and almost died, before he wrote these two novels.
• Mary Abigail Fillmore, daughter of U.S. president Millard Fillmore
• John Foulds, British composer
• Elliott Frost, son of American poet Robert Frost
• Timothy Fuller, Massachusetts congressman and father of Margaret Fuller
• William Godwin, father of Mary Shelley
• Major General Edward Hand, Adjutant General of the Continental Army and congressman
• Ando Hiroshige, Japanese ukiyo-e woodblock print artist.
• Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
• Elizabeth Jackson, mother of U.S. president Andrew Jackson
• Rutka Laskier (the Polish Anne Frank)
• Adam Mickiewicz
• James Clarence Mangan
• Mohammad Ali Mirza Dowlatshahi of Persia
• Grand Duke Constantine Pavlovich of Russia
• James K. Polk, eleventh president of the United States
• Honinbo Shusaku, famous Go player.
• Samuel Charles Stowe, son of Harriet Beecher Stowe
• Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, composer of The Nutcracker and 1812 Overture, though some historians argue he deliberately infected himself.
• Carl von Clausewitz
• August von Gneisenau
• William Jenkins Worth
• José de Urrea, noted Mexican general, participant of Texas Revolution and Mexican-American War
• Pedro V, King of Portugal

--JeffJ (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why bother listing all those people who died of cholera, when you're the one who said "The article is about unusual deaths, not unusual causes of death" in reference to the Hanging death on webcam? For what it's worth, a prominent religious figure struck down by the death he wished on someone else, is in my opinion, not significantly less unusual than a webcam suicide.Hell Hawk (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Being of Indo-Pak origin I am no stranger to the teachings of Ahmed and the oft-spoken circumstances of his death. Verkhovensky concludes that he fails to see a causal link between the prayer and Ahmed's eventual demise. With all due respect I would like to bring his attention to Majmooa-e-Ishteharaat, Collection of Advertisement of Mirza Ghulam, vol.3 p.578-579. The citation contains the letter dated 5th April 1907 which Ahmed published following the prayer duel. Further on the 28th of April Mirza Ahmed is understood to have said "Once I meditated towards God about it (the prayer duel) and in the night I received this inspiration 'ujeebo dawat adDaaee'. For Sufis the big miracle is acceptance of prayers" (Akhbar alBadr Qadian, 25th 1907, p.7 Column 3) inviting consideration to the notion that Ahmed was waiting for the fulfillment of his prayers.

Causation is not vitiated because of an excessive lapse of time which i understand is what you may be trying to mention. The prayer was in 1907 and the death in 1908. I do not wish to state the obvious but I'm afraid I must. Ahmed's death is a case which involves religion and religion is understood to be timeless. If Ahmed's death had been a result of cholera 50 years following his prophecy it may be still have been deemed to be unnatural and absurd but in fact it was just a year later. The followers of Ahmed were eagerly awaiting the death of Molvi Sanaullah to establish the truthfulness of the claim of their own Messiah. Unfortunately for them, and to the joy of many of Ahmed's adversaries, Ahmed developed Cholera the following year and died almost instantaneously. Mir Nasir Nawab writes "When i reached Hazrat Saheb and saw his condition, he addressed me and said: 'MIR SAHEB. I HAVE DEVELOPED EPIDEMIC CHOLERA'. I think After that He (MIRZA) did not say anything clear till he died next day at 10 am." (Hayat-e-Nasir, p.14).

It's pertinent to note that MC Rocks can not talk on my behalf and unilaterally conclude that I completely disagree with what has been written above. I'm afraid agreeing or disagreeing with Verkhovensky's analysis is a discretion which only i can rightfully exercise and in no way may do I authorise anybody else to make that decision on my behalf. It should also be noted that I am new to Wikipedia and that I did not know of this talk page or for that matter how to access it. I saw the hyperlink "talk" in front of his username and duly followed it to make my point. After having had my entry removed multiple times with the absence of any reason I became frustrated and hence my remarks on MC Rocks's page. I'm glad I manged to find this page, by accident. If any clarification is required regarding the entry I will be happy to make it. Asimnawazkhan 10:46am 27 July, 2010 (GMT)

Arrachion

I can't find an article on him [, but cracked.com mentioned him being apparently an actual person and I was hoping someone would clarify his crazy death:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18642_the-6-greatest-things-accomplished-by-dead-bodies.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redvans (talk • contribs) 07:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Mike Edwards

I believe that this article may count as an unusual death, so thoughts please?

[13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.173.1 (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

what is unusual?

if a tree branch falling on someone is unusual, i'd say a utility pole is at least as unusual. the tree branch entry is there, so i see no reason to remove my entry about a utility pole.

in fact, i'd say it falls into the category of a freak accident and is therefore unusual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloggyelf (talk • contribs) 05:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article reads: "This article provides a list of unusual deaths – unique, or extremely rare circumstances recorded throughout history." That incident is neither unqiue (plently of people have been killed by falling poles) or extremely rare. --Stickee (talk) 05:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

well then the tree branch one has to go also. Bloggyelf (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The tree-branch death was a bit iffy... But it was somewhat unusual in that the branch didn't just fall, but was shot off. Either way, i don't feel that strongly about to agrue for or against. The utility-pole incident did at first sound unusual, but the pole didn't just fall over, it was knocked over after an SUV hit the guy-wire. Had the pole just toppled over without assistance I'd have voted to keep the entry, but injuries and deaths from objects and structures collapsing/falling from auto collision isn't terribly unusual. --JeffJ (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

2009 Entry of Kim Sa-rong

I hate to make light of something like this but is a child neglect case unusual enough to be included in this article?--Kencaesi (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Nanda Bayin, Renaissance, 1599

This lists a legend that says he laughed to death, but the wiki article on the individual says "The abdicated king survived for another year in captivity in Toungoo but was assassinated by Natshinnaung in November 1600." (shortly after saying that he abdicated the throne)

It seems as though this person doesn't belong in this article, unless "stories about unusual deaths" also fall under the scope of the article. Many deaths unconfirmed as unusual except in legend remain in the list. 204.111.115.132 (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Death of a former NV gov.

Kenny Guinn, former NV gov., fell off of a roof and died. In August 2010 I think. Apple8800 (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

So.. how is that unusual? Happens to plenty of people. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Litvinenko poisoning

He is the first known case of deliberate poisoning in this manner. Removing, read about a fifty year old radioactive poisoning case at the time, looking for citation. Could be first such fatality. MartinSFSA (talk)

Well he was the first polonium-210 poisoning. It's also unusual in that it was a political assassination. Gigs (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Haven't found cite, but this was of a defector. So quite similar. MartinSFSA (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The entire football team killed by lightning

This dubious event is cited to this article: [14] which mentions that the report from a single congo paper was unconfirmed. I've raised similar concerns before, so this may seem redundant, but are we really going to blindly reprint every bit of dubious hearsay that happened to get printed in an otherwise reliable source? Gigs (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

L'Avenir appears to be a major newspaper unless you have information to the contrary. --JeffJ (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not so unusual as unlikely

This list needs to be tidied up big time. it's just become a trivia page. What is unusual about someone killing themselves with a chainsaw, it's not nice but it's not usual. Or someone who hung themselves on a webcam. What's unusual about that there have been witnesses to executions since time immemorial. This list is becoming a joke. I know that is difficult to define "usual" but there needs to be clarity between what is construed to be "unusual" and what is tragically unlikely but not unusual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.56.61 (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The numerous discussions about this list has led to some workable criteria of unusualness that will warrant an item's inclusion on this list. Those criteria include:

• Rarity: A human death by a coyote might not seem unusual at first blush, but as one of only two reported deaths of this type, it has earned a spot on this list.
• Circumstances: This criterion could probably use some more clarification, but here's the basic idea. A suicide by gunshot is not unusual. A suicide that requires three self inflicted shotgun blasts? Unusual! Death by chainsaw? Not unusual! Cutting your own head off with a chainsaw not by accident, not by depression, but to protest moving out? Unusual!
• Victim: The heading on the list specifically tolerates a lower level of unusualness for famous victims. Perhaps irony is a bit of a concern here. Sigurd the Mighty, feared Viking conqueror, killed by a lowly infection caused by the skull of a vanquished foe? Unusual!

This is my own attempt at the synthesis of criteria for this list. I invite others to refine and add to it. Verkhovensky (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

How about "physically possible" or "not an obvious hoax"? Here's a site... many of these bizarre deaths are obvious hoaxes/lies/coverups to anyone with half a brain. It didn't stop many newspapers from reprinting them. Lets take number 9 on that list. We are supposed to believe that an aerosol can just exploded in a fiery explosion, out of the blue, with no provocation what-so-ever. That just can't happen. A more likely scenario is that the kid was heating it with a torch or a lighter or something. But the newspapers faithfully report the lies of a 16 year old trying to stay out of trouble. Gigs (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are critiquing another website here. But Wikipedia does rely on mainstream newspapers as sources, and if the newspaper is found to be wrong, the Wikipedia entry is corrected or removed. To simply discount entries because they don't seem true to you falls under the category of Original Research, something that Wikipedia does NOT rely on. Everyone is welcome to debunk an entry with other verifiable sources - and it happens a lot! - but to just disparage this article and its entries out of hand smacks of trolling.--JeffJ (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Editorial discretion is not original research. I'm not simply disparaging the article. I'm offering constructive criticism that the laws of physics and common sense should guide our editorial discretion when it comes to blindly repeating claims published in "reliable sources". Gigs (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully that's part of what would be considered while weighing "circumstances". - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I still have issues with that. First, "Editorial discretion allows editors to evaluate sources, balance claims, and otherwise distill bodies of information into accurate, verifiable and comprehensive articles." There's nothing in this guideline that suggests that we dismiss mainsteam media reports because we don't "believe" it's true. And comments like "many of these bizarre deaths are obvious hoaxes/lies/coverups to anyone with half a brain" might suggest that you think most editors here, who diligently maintain this article, have half a brain. This kind of inflammatory comment is typical of trolls. Either way, a reliable source is a reliable source, and if the source is subsequently corrected, then the article is corrected. If you think that mainstream media (particularly multiple mainstream media sources) are not reliable sources, then what alternate would you suggest?--JeffJ (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft Wheelwell Deaths

I deleted the entry on Keith Sapsford because it does not appear that these kinds of deaths are all that unusual. See the Wikipedia entry on aircraft stowaways. --JeffJ (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

2010: Simone Black

This entry keeps getting reverted by anonymous users and I don't want to violate the three revert rule. The entry is a legitimate news item, but I do not believe that a drug overdose is unusual. Posting the suicide note on Facebook might be unusual, but the death itself was rather common. A Google search returns several Facebook suicide notes, hints, etc. Consensus? --JeffJ (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Everyone needs to calm down a bit. I see multiple 3RR violations on this page, which is definitely not a good sign. For the record, I'm with Jeff and Verkhovensky that the silo thing doesn't really need to be listed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and just to put this to rest: per the US navy, "Therefore, the 21st century began with 1 January 2001 and will continue through 31 December 2100." (Incidentally, I got that link off of the 21st century article.) — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ugolino della Gherardesca

In Dante "Inferno" Canto 32 there a moving account of the death of Ugolino, who was deliberately starved to death together with all his sons, by political opponents. Dante also implies possible cannibalism by Ugolino, of his sons, after death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.31.88 (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't sound terribly unusual. I can't cite examples off the top of my head, but I'm sure there have been other prisoners left to starve over the millennia.--JeffJ (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Valdés Traimaqueo deletion

Deleted Juan Carlos Valdés Traimaqueo as his death was not so unusual. The sources said "Having consummated the sexual act, the adult began to have seizures, so her daughter alerted the owner of the establishment called the emergency services." and "After having consummated the sexual act, the adult began to have seizures, so her daughter called the owner of the premises." (Translated from Spanish) The entry in our list suffered from other defects: 1. described him as a pedeophile; 2. said she was 14 rather than actually 16 (she was 14 when the incest started; and 3. described it as rape (in different versions) when we do not know the age of consent in Chile (perhaps 16 year olds can legally consent to sex in which case the act, whether or not revolting, is not rape}. More importantly, people die during and after sex. The fact that he took 2 Viagras does not establish a causal connection between the drug and his seizures/heart attack.--S. Rich (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)15:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Everything said above is patently false. The sources did not talk about "seizures", they said "cerebrovascular accident", the former name for Stroke. At no point did the sources say that the girl was 16 and "14 when it started" either, they talk everytime about a 14 year old, and do say that she didn't remember when the abuse started (which might well mean it had been going on forever). Third and final, while taking 2 viagras "does not stablish causal connection", the fact there are medics that examined the patient quoted in the sources saying that this healthy man of 40 died because of a viagra overdose does. Now, is it unusual or not when a pedophile, or ephebophile, or serial molester, overdoses to have his "tool" working, and dies as a consequence of it? If it is not, delete it. If it is, don't make up false reasons to justify a deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.26.120.40 (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Viagra commonly causes heart problems (medics always ask if patents are taking it before administering certain medications because of overdose issues). That's not really unusual, and any unsavory sexual aspect is irrelevant for this article. Remove it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I certainly did not want this discussion to debate Viagra per se -- rather whether my deletion of the item was justified. Still, I take umbrage over whether I said anything that was "patently false". The mention of "seizure" was made because the source used the term. The sources said she was 16 when he died and that the abuse started when she was 14 (or earlier?). There are no false reasons for the deletion -- rather, the death was not that unusual. Back to the Viagra question, the medics were hardly qualified to opine on whether he was healthy prior to the incident. Only a medical examiner can make such a determination. Viagra itself does not cause problems, but can certainly exacerbate pre-existing problems. Let's not let this single deletion devolve into a Viagra debate. There is another page for that!--S. Rich (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

L'Olonnais

Does François l'Olonnais deserve a spot on the list? He was a French pirate notorious for his cruelty and his fate, as related by contemporary Exquemelin seems... bizarre, to say the least.--Menah the Great (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say no. I didn't see anything in the main article that made his death unusual.--JeffJ (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article says he was eaten by cannibals (rare, but not that rare). However, the Exquemelin quote implies that the cannibals cut him in little pieces while he was still alive and threw them into the fire, implying he was so hated not even cannibals wanted to eat him. That would make it really rare. Can someone with more knowledge sort completely this?--Menah the Great (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that cannibalism is not at all rare, but has been a common practice in parts of the world since the dawn of mankind. Being butchered alive isn't unusual either. And you are arguing that he was eaten by cannibals, but not eaten... --JeffJ (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Weak members of the list

I think that a number of the deaths listed are not particularly unusual. In particular,

• 2002: Kenneth Farr, a 37-year-old man from Penarth, Wales, was partially decapitated when an unsecured safety barrier in a supermarket carpark was blown through the windshield of his car by a sudden gust of wind.

These are much more often falling tree limbs and parts of buildings.

• 2003: Dr. Hitoshi Christopher Nikaidoh, a surgeon, was decapitated as he stepped on to an elevator at Christus St. Joseph Hospital in Houston, Texas, USA on August 16, 2003.

Although gruesome, aren't elevator accidents pretty common?

• 2005 Joshua Woods, 6, was killed after a Boeing 737's landing gear snapped off, causing it to overshot the runway and strike the car he was in at Midway Airport in Chicago, Illinois.

Struck by a crashing airplane is a common modality of airplane-related deaths.

• 2007: Humberto Hernandez, a 24-year-old Oakland, California resident, was killed from being struck in the face by an airborne fire hydrant while walking on a sidewalk; a passing car blew a tire and swerved onto the sidewalk, striking the fire hydrant. The force of the water pressure shot the 200-pound hydrant at Hernandez with enough force to kill him.

Note the poor sourcing here.

• 2007: Kevin Whitrick, a 42-year-old British man, committed suicide by hanging himself live on a webcam during an Internet chat session.

Aside from being witnessed, how is this unusual at all?

• 2008: James Mason, 73, of Chardon, Ohio, died of heart failure after his wife exercised him to death in a public swimming pool. Christine Newton-John, 41, was seen on video tape pulling Mason around the pool and preventing him from getting out of the water 43 times.

Deliberately drowning somebody is common.

• 2008: Isaiah Otieno, 23, a Kenyan student living in Cranbrook, British Columbia, Canada, was killed when a Bell 206 helicopter crashed on top of him as he walked along a residential street.

Again, hit by a crashing aircraft is a regular occurance. "Plane crash kills x, including y on the ground".

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

Suicide in custody is effected by many means. Is this one really worthy?

• 2009: Diana Durre, of Chambers, Nebraska, died after a 75-foot (23 m) tall Taco Bell sign fell on top of the truck cab she was in. Strong winds caused the pole to break at a welded joint about 15 feet (4.5 m) above the ground.

Usually a tree limb, happens all the time.

• 2010: Jimi Heselden, owner of the Segway motorized scooter company, was killed when he accidentally drove off a cliff on a Segway at his estate and drowned in the River Wharfe.

Is this supposed to be unusual because he died riding a machine from a company he worked for?

In summation, I think that secondary sources must be found that treat the subject of unusual deaths or that call a death unusual well after (or removed from) the event. The current system of Wikipedia editors reading a news story and adding them to this list is WP:OR. Many of the above deaths are sourced to local news channels, or snopes.com. Abductive (reasoning) 06:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with using a news story as the only source. Seeking a secondary source for a recent event will be very diffiult.

Having said that, your comments on all these deaths are legitimate - however, as you'll see in above discussions, the circumstances of a death can make it unusual even if it's a common cause of death - e.g., being drowned by somebody else is common, but the circumstances of the James Mason case make it unusual enough for consideration, because he wasn't held under water for a couple of minutes but was forced to stay swimming until he was exhausted. Similarly, elevator deaths are one thing, but a witnessed elevator decapitation is another. So I think those two are legitimate contenders to stay.

But drawing such distinctions is always a judgement call. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Abductive makes some good points, but for the most part I agree with DavidWBrooks. Above I tried to distill some of the unsualness criteria for items on the list. Other parts of this discussion (many of the archived threads) grapple with the idea that any death on here can be deemed not unusual if it was boiled down to the cause of death, which appears to be the source of a lot of Abductive's criticism. Drowning? Not unusual! Drowning after falling a great distance? Happens all the time. Of of a cliff? Still pretty common. On a Segway? Haven't heard of too many of those. And when you were the owner of the company? How unusual! Though I do agree with Abductive that there definitely are weak members on the list, like the recently added Daniel Gocus death.Verkhovensky (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll remove a couple that are really weak. Abductive (reasoning) 07:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that there are some weak entries and sometimes it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. The helicopter crashing on the pedestrian is a good example; People being killed on the ground by crashing fixed-wing aircraft is actually pretty common especially when buildings are destroyed or wreckage is strewn over a large area. But to have a helicopter just fall out of the sky on top of a pedestrian walking down a residential street, without the wide-spread damage normally associated, is unusual. So consider the larger picture. Death of pedestrian by crashing aircraft - Not unusual. Death of pedestrian by crashing helicopter on a residential street - Unusual. But don't be afraid to research it. I just recently discovered that death from stowing away in aircraft landing gear is not at all unusual. --JeffJ (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone ever survived in the landing gear? Abductive (reasoning) 07:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I can recall at least one occasion. The stowaway suffered from exposure but did survive. I think a second stowaway in the same incident died. But this is getting a bit "chatty" for a Talk Page. :-) --JeffJ (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)