Talk:List of selfie-related injuries and deaths

Another case, reported by only a single source I could find
http://huzlers.com/teen-dies-trying-to-snap-a-picture-for-the-new-trend-selfie-game-2014/

If anyone can confirm this story with a second (reliable) source, it might be included. Samsara 21:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I am so glad the community decided to keep this
I bet the folks over at the Darwin Awards would get a kick out of this — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeowulfBrower (talk • contribs) 06:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The Telegraph gave it a shoutout. It's the global community's article now. Remember when "shoutout" was the cool new word? Anyway, selfies are 12-8 versus shark attacks this year, but it's still anyone's game. The sharks need to hurry, though, because humans don't stop taking selfies in winter. They just slip more. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * ... Because it certainly puts the lie to anyone who says that Wikipedia is anything more than a pop-culture aggregator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Menkauhor Kaiu, the Gateway Protection Programme, the Coinage Act of 1873...yes, just the typical teen's Facebook interests. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It pretty much just aggregates all information ever. I mean, there's an argument to be made that some of these lists (list of police killings, list of selfie-related injuries and deaths, ect.) aren't encyclopedic... but they're useful and informative and can be used for future research, so I don't see any harm in them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite all information. Still no Dave McKigney, despite the story. Accidentally died in a sort of selfie way, but distracted by the actual apparition of a moose, not the virtual notification of a lolcat. Remember when "old school" was the cool new word? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree, all these folks should get Darwin Awards. Anyone notice and above-what-you'd-expect number of these folks are from India?...and yes there's a ref for this[www.cnn.com/2016/05/02/asia/india-teenager-dies-gun-selfieac] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.211.236 (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

help Wikipedia?
I just showed this article to teachers at Tec de Monterrey working today at our wiki event (Reto Wikimedia). They would like to know if "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." does NOT mean "have a selfie accident to enrich the page" ; P  Thelmadatter (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No more than we advise getting on a Peruvian stamp, having a rail accident in Spain or building a utility helicopter. But no less, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Contested entries - no evidence of a selfie?
Moving these here for now as the first does not indicate intention to take a selfie rather than any other kind of picture; the second was originally phrased as "taking a selfie" in the article but this was contested by another editor, apparently on the basis that the word "selfie" was not explicitly used in the source. Community to decide. Samsara 12:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

August

 * The 17-year-old daughter of the US ambassador to Thailand fell 22 stories to her death after she climbed onto the balcony of a NYC apartment to try to take a picture during a party.

January

 * A 25-year-old college student from Chicago visiting San Diego fell off Sunset Cliffs while posing for a picture.

Citation and Relevance Questions
I read the article referred to in the second sentence. It appears to be yellow journalism, possibly churnalism. Furthermore, it references this list as a source. It also references Mashable UK which has an image but no real source that I could see. Mashable refers to Conde Nast which reports different figures, and Al Jazeera which reports no figures at all.

I would be bold here but I expect discussion is needed. I am very new to Wikipedia editing but am eager to learn more. Other questions I have regarding this article: Why is the first sentence cited at all, isn't it a self-evident declaration about the list? What is the relevance of the third sentence? Wouldn't that be relevant to a list by country? Does this list qualify for 'Cause of Death'? Other x-related death lists are drug, space, LGBT, and suicides attributed to bullying. A list of things concurrent with death or injury seems to open the door of notability much wider. Ex: This is a list of serious injuries and deaths that occurred during, or in immediate connection with, crossing the road; This is a list of serious injuries and deaths that occurred during, or in immediate connection with, having your photo taken; This is a list of serious injuries and deaths that occurred during, or in immediate connection with, eating.

Again, very new, very curious. Any explanation would be appreciated, as well as guidance in style for this section. Fiachaire (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Selfies of injuries
I've removed a few instances of selfies being taken of unrelated injuries. Selfies that result in injuries or death may be a notable topic (currently at AFD), but selfies of injuries isn't. If the selfie is not one of the causes of the death or injury I don't think it should be listed. Meters (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Along somewhat similar lines there are two questionable entries that I would like other opinions on:
 * April 2015: Woman beaten for posting selfies on Instagram.
 * May 2016: Wife shot for posting selfie on Facebook, and intervener killed. Meters (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And now my initial removals are being restored. Please discuss whether this article should include selfies that that are taken of injuries. Meters (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * In many of the instances on this list, no selfie has been taken. The assumed desire for a selfie is being conflated with the actual thing and with a presumed cause of death or injury. These are examples of actual selfies with direct connection to injury and death, not only do the sources support it, but these sources have expert testimony and evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiachaire (talk • contribs) 23:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Re: undoing of deletion. A woman in the process of bleeding from her face posted a selfie over wifi as she had no access to a landline or cell reception, alerted police to her injury and avoided dying from it. A man shot during a spree evoked the headline "The post shooting spree selfie is real". Fiachaire (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that there was a selfie taken at some time during theose events, just whether a selfie which is taken after the injury (which is not related to the selfie) is worth including. If we include these the criterion seems to include selfies which simply show the wounds. By that standard if someone breaks an arm and takes a selfie showing the scars a few years later we could include the info (as long as the events are reliable sourced). Meters (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I get that. But again, these injuries are reliably sourced and are related both by the sources and by the standard of the lead. I believe what you're suggesting is that being related isn't sufficient reason to be on the list. That the relationship must be causal or correlative. I would also like to see discussion clarifying the standard for the relationship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiachaire (talk • contribs) 08:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe the debate about selfies causing death has focused on two aspects:
 * 1) Selfie culture encourages dangerous "dare" or "stunt" selfies, where a more spectacular selfie gets more attention and respect from peers.
 * 2) The necessary operation of the photographic device diverts attention from one's surroundings and may lead to a lack of situational awareness or loss of balance.

I think the definition used in this article should match the one that is commonly used in the public debate. Samsara 13:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I quite like the changes you made to the lead, though I'm not sure the title of the article really matches. Also the cited source of debate, the Telegraph, references this article in its article. Is that ok under WP:CIRCULAR? Also among the selfie-related deaths and injuries you deleted, the one about the "reckless livestreamer" seemed to meet the second aspect listed here. What's the distinction being drawn? Also, the AP source for the line about the prevalence of selfie deaths suggests "The statistic may in part be due to India's sheer size, with 1.25 billion citizens and one of the world's fastest-growing smartphone markets." Shouldn't the article reflect this? Also, Priceonomics is again the key source here, and, as mentioned elsewhere, is an e-commerce source. Is that appropriate for Wikipedia? Fiachaire (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Selfie and live stream are two different things. Samsara 14:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Selfie says that 'a selfie is a self-portrait photograph'. The opening line of self-portrait reads "A self-portrait is a representation of an artist that is drawn, painted, photographed, or sculpted by that artist." If you feel inclusion in the list is exclusive to artists then I suppose this is a valid way of defining a selfie. The page for photograph does seem to hold up the distinction from video. It seems unlikely to be an issue so long as sources, particularly in the lead, can reasonably be presumed to be using the same definition of selfie. Full disclosure: I placed the cite check on the page for selfie some time ago, along with an entry on the talk page requesting a discussion on how selfie was being defined. I did not however seek to alter the definition myself. Fiachaire (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Review of 2014
Have read each source. Comments follow citations.

March
Source sources Spanish online daily Ideal, which I could not find, and selfie is only in headline.
 * A 21-year-old Spanish man died from electrocution after climbing on top of a train to take a selfie with friends and touching a wire that (contrary to the assumptions of the group) turned out to be live. One of the friends was hospitalized and as of 18 March remained "in serious condition".

April
Sources are tabloid journalism. Sources copy and paste from where? Refer to their publisher (content mgmt), and have "expert" who focuses on appeal of train tracks. Rings true but no reliable source. Source claims woman took selfie, added caption to selfie, uploaded selfie, and then got into an accident, police in source are quoted saying 'this is what happens when you text and drive' Xenia Ignatyeva, a 17-year-old Russian girl, took a selfie from a bridge that was an entire 28-feet off the ground in order to show off to her friends. She lost her balance and fell on a cable, which electrocuted her to death.
 * A 17-year-old Russian amateur photographer climbed atop a railway bridge in Saint Petersburg to take a selfie. She lost her balance and fell to her death.
 * A 32-year-old woman from North Carolina collided with a truck moments after posting selfies of herself online.

May
Not sure about notability, but selfie was taken while motorbike was not moving. Pilot did take selfies before crash, indeed, took them before flight. Report says cellphone use contributed. Washington Post reports that multiple camera flashes distracted pilot in 'instrument meteorological conditions', multiple camera flashes does not equal selfie. Pilot was also unqualified to fly. Unfamiliar with Gulf News, could find no other source. Reliable or no?
 * Puerto Rican musician Jadiel El Tsunami died in an accident shortly after taking a selfie on his motorbike. He had previously released a track entitled, "Me Descontrolo" ("I lose control").
 * In the United States, the pilot of a Cessna 150K and his passenger were killed when the pilot was distracted taking selfies and lost control of the plane.
 * In Kerala, India, a 15-year-old boy was killed by a speeding train while posing for a selfie on the track.

June
Tabloid journalism, no meaningful links.
 * A 16-year-old girl died in Italy after plunging 60 feet while she was trying to take a photograph of herself on the seafront during a school trip to the seaside town of Taranto.

July
Was 'having a selfie photograph taken' doesn't sound like a selfie, no other sources, sounds arguably racist, has conflicting report about student being unwell prior to incident.
 * A 14-year-old high school student in the Philippines fell to her death after losing her balance while taking a selfie with a friend near a staircase landing of their school in suburban Pasig. According to doctors, she sustained a sharp blow to the head from the fall and broke a rib which pierced a kidney.

August
Source has no content whatsoever. Tabloid journalism, says 'posed for 'selfie unclear if confusion over selfie or photo. Witness had 'no details' and source says 'apparently' trying to take selfie. Unreliable source.
 * A 15-year-old boy in the Philippines was critically wounded after accidentally shooting himself while taking a selfie in which his other hand was holding a gun to his chin.
 * A 21-year-old Mexican veterinarian, who had been drinking, pointed a gun to his temple for a selfie and fired a shot, killing himself.
 * A Polish couple fell to their death off a cliff in Portugal after crossing a safety barrier to take a selfie with their children. Their two children who were present at the scene survived.
 * In Kerala, India, a 14-year-old boy was electrocuted while attempting to take a selfie on top of a stationary train.

October
Rests on reliability of Inquirer.net
 * An 18-year-old woman drowned in the Philippines after posing for a group selfie on a beach with friends and being captured by a strong wave.

November
Observer sources Daily Mail - Tabloid journalism. Fiachaire (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A 23-year-old student from Poland fell to her death while trying to take a selfie on the ledge of the Puente de Triana in Seville, Spain.
 * From the format you have posted this in, I cannot see what the citations are that you're trying to discuss. Samsara 15:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Edited format. Cite numbers have changed since posting, perhaps the citations as well. I do not agree with all my previous comments and would be willing to delete or strike them through if appropriate. As it was not properly considered before posting I would also support complete removal by myself or a more experienced editor, in particular Samsara. Again, if that is appropriate. Fiachaire (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Source reliability is a factor of what the source is being used for. If the source says "Person died taking a selfie" then every source here looks OK. It's simply reporting a fact of what happened, probably from police records, there's no analysis or reason to believe the fact didn't happen. -- Green  C  13:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Some do not say "Person died taking a selfie", some do not say anything at all. My concerns about reliability generally fall under WP:NEWSORG. Given that 'selfie' is subject to a multitude of definitions, debate, and sensationalism, I would argue applying the standards at WP:NEWSORG would be a relevant guide. But I don't believe I've helped to do that with the above list. Fiachaire (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "some do not say anything at all" .. which one? I looked at the 20 below they all deal with selfie accidents. #5 maybe a little questionable. News sources contain factual and opinion content, this is factual content. Reported deaths are usually covered in multiple sources including obituaries. I would suggest if you have some reason to believe a story has been fabricated, do additional research and see what comes up. If the only source you can find is a single low quality that is short on details let's look at that more closely. Removing material from the article without doing further research first would be a problem of WP:PRESERVE (policy). -- Green  C  20:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The 12th citation. Perhaps it is a browser issue, but I see no content here: https://anc.yahoo.com/news/15-year-old-boy-accidentally-shoots-self-while-taking-selfie-232209362.html I have done additional research. An important example may be the plane crash in Colorado, which comes from a very reliable source, but is based on an official report which is readily available and does not support the idea the crash was 'selfie-related'. But this has all been discussed before (on this page, in the AfD, and, tangentially, I have asked for clarification on how Wikipedia defines selfie on the talk page for selfie), and rehashing it here seems like a disruption. Also, there is a difference between being reported in multiple sources and having multiple sources reprint the same report. This is mentioned as questionable in WP:NEWSORG. I will again say, I do not believe the list above is going to support helpful discussion for this article. Fiachaire (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok I fixed cite 12 (soft 404). -- Green  C  23:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems unlikely an editor could "do additional research" on "Vince (not his real name)" for his selfie-related-gun-wound-and-"talking to himself while staring blankly". But appreciate the (soft 404) Fiachaire (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * ABS-CBN is a reliable news source. However, one could use a Google search window of July-October 2014 and search for "15 killed selfie" and you can see there are more sources. -- Green  C  02:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If you feel it's reliable, fine. However your Google search seems to return articles repackaging the ABS-CN report. (I only read the top three.) WP:NEWSORG: "Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source that has simply appeared in multiple venues." I would say we are still dependent on the reliability of a news source owned by the largest entertainment and media conglomerate in the Philippines, which is ranked 138th on the world press freedom index at RSF.org (Palestine is 132nd and Afghanistan is 120th). The broadcasting company is owned by a dynasty, has a content officer and executive officer, not an editorial board (Again, see WP:NEWSORG). It's Wikipedia pages (broadcasting and corporate) talks about employees 'masterminding' and 'doing their magic'. Laughable as NPOV. If, on the news site, you press About Us, you go to corporate, there you can learn about the board of directors or check out the Press Room: "The ABS-CBN Social Media Newsroom is designed to provide the latest news about the ABS-CBN Corporation to journalists, bloggers, investors, analysts, and the general public who are interested to know more about the products and services offered by the country’s largest and leading multimedia conglomerate." Still, it's not like I can prove solid reliable journalism isn't what we're looking at. Fiachaire (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually the Metro.co.uk article is not the same as ABS-CN who made the initial report. Metro made their own report and mentioned the ABS-CN report but it's a different UK-based news agency with a signed reporter. For example this credits both Metro and ABS-CN. "Republished stories" are when the text is the same not the facts the same. But maybe you can convince enough people that Metro and the others are "republished" news stories, and not the original signed articles as they appear. -- Green  C  13:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, deathandtaxesmag.com does refer to both, arguably to create the impression that the story is notable and dynamic since "Metro - News...but not as you know it" had more to say. However Metro did not have more to say about the information relevant to this list, all it added was a link to another story on their site. If you value deathandtaxesmag.com deciding to report a source presented the same information with different words, then you have made a valid point. If these practices have continued to pass the standards of source reliability (where source distinguishes between the work, the writer, and the publisher), then my position seems unlikely to be novel or to garner support among Wikipedians, though I appreciate the thought. Fiachaire (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, you say "News sources contain factual and opinion content". It is true that newspapers announce content as opinion, but that does not make your statement comprehensive. For example WP:NEWSORG also points to human interest stories where taking a benign factor (say mattresses) and sensationalizing it (say as a cause of cancer due to trace formaldehyde) might not be appropriate for an encyclopedia. These reports, however, do make an effort to be factually-based. What I mean is: factual and opinion are neither mutually exclusive nor comprehensive and Wikipedia and varied news sources have different ways of evaluating them. I do agree an obituary would be an appropriate source, but it would seem these reports frequently occur before an autopsy or an obituary. Finally, I have not removed any material because of the list above. Fiachaire (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * We are reporting, in the article, that a person died and how they died. It is factual content. If the source sensationalized that fact is besides the point because we are not reporting the sensationalized aspect, only the fact of death. If we were reporting the sensationalized aspect the source quality would need to be much higher. -- Green  C  23:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You are suggesting that, from a sensationalized source, "we" may "report" the un-sensationalized aspects of the source? Fiachaire (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * We can report the fact a person died. Maybe your idea of sensationalized is different from mine, would have to see the source. -- Green  C  02:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * We are reporting the belief that a persons death or serious-injury was related to the desire to take a selfie. Fiachaire (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed that the Reuters article on the Colorado plane crash is categorized as 'US' and 'Oddly Enough'. Oddly enough is characterized as weird, odd, and funny news stories. Following 'Oddly enough' leads to: Related Topics: Entertainment Top News Lifestyle Oddly Enough Blog. Oddly Enough's "Latest News" headlines are "British family treated to a night in Eiffel Tower apartment" "Davey the quokka predicts victory for Australia PM Turnbull" "Kellogg's cereal cafe to snap, crackle and pop into Times Square" "Draw or discard? Recruiters use mahjong to find prospects" and "Lithuanian village crowns prettiest goat in annual pageant" I also noticed that in the article about the plane crash 'selfie' is subject to single quotes while 'predicts victory' and 'prettiest goat' are not. Fiachaire (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah it's not uncommon for news sources to report weird deaths because it doesn't cost any money to have a standing search of the wire feed for "bus plunge", etc.. that's how they make money by getting free news stories with perennial appeal, it's like local TV news ambulance chasing. -- 23:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. But even if Wikipedia sources ambulance chasers, I do think that Reuters' Oddly Enough having placed single quotes on selfie is significant. Furthermore, a source that makes "money by getting free news stories with perennial appeal" may not be as reliable as the report from the NTSB : http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/02/03/ntsb.report.pdf 'Selfie' is not mentioned, nor can it be. The term they use is self-photography and they have no record of self-photography on the flight. They do for a prior flight: "During the climb out portion of flight, the pilot uses his cell phone to take a self-photograph. The camera's flash was activated and illuminated the cockpit area. The pilot's cell phone appeared to be on a user screen consistent with a camera application. The pilot landed and can be seen using his cell phone during the landing rollout. The recording appeared to have ended normally." Fiachaire (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Selfie is a slang term for taking a picture of ones self, the term itself is a placeholder in the article title not a defining characteristic for inclusion. The source is Reuters which would be reliable. The NTSB said "Contributing to the accident was the pilot's distraction due to his cellphone use while maneuvering at low altitude," though they don't have the actual video evidence of the crash, the conclusion due to prior behavior in the hours leading to the crash. The single quotes is likely because it's a slang term, a fairly new one, and there is probably a style guideline. When I did research for the barrel bomb article I found the earliest AP articles from the 1940s put 'barrel bomb' in single quotes because it was a new term (back then), but a few months later the single quotes disappeared as it became a more commonly reported. -- Green  C  02:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Where does your definition of selfie come from? It doesn't match Wikipedia, the OED, AP stylebook, The Guardian, Wiktionary, or the Washington Post. For the most part they don't match each other either, and The Guardian has reported the term "may yet be an anachronym". The report reports all cellphone use by the pilot and 5 passengers on the 7 flights which did not end in disaster. That is self-photography, regular photography, video, texting, and checking the screen. "Cellphone use" > selfie. The report also describes what the plane did before plummeting. It does not even suggest that the pilot 'tightened the left turn', it simply states that it happened. Your point about the barrel bomb seems reasonable, and a secondary source is preferable (though I do not feel I am "interpreting" the primary source, and certainly not with the intent of including the interpretation or the source on Wikipedia). If, in a few months, Reuters removes the quotes then it would surely be a more reasonable candidate for this list. Ditto for not being "Oddly Enough" news. But you are the more experienced editor, and I am not making any WP:BEBOLD moves. Fiachaire (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You can do whatever you want. In my experience the question would come down to what would consensus say if we held an RfC. And I think most people would agree that Reuters is reliable, it would be WP:OR to guess Reuters meaning of a single quote, that selfie is taking a picture of ones self or whatever similar act or definition. --  Green  C  13:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Reuters is the publisher of the source, a source is also its writer, and its work (the thing itself). I should not guess the meaning of single quotes. I object to "'selfies'" presence in the source (work), particularly as the report being discussed is readily available and uses clear language. As such, I questioned the reliability of the work. If, as per Reuters Style Guide, the single quotes in a headline denotes a quotation, it seems problematic that the source of the quote is not mentioned. I do not define selfie and a consensus has not been met on the term. There is nothing to suggest enough people want a consensus. Perhaps absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and the consensus is 'It's less restricting not to have one'. If somebody got hurt and somebody somewhere along the line said selfie, it belongs here, mightily defended. I was wrong to think otherwise. I appreciate your insight in the above entries. Fiachaire (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Dolphin death
I removed a report of the possible (i.e., contested by some sources) death of a dolphin at the hands of a selfie taking crowd. It's not certain that the dolphin was not already dead, and the dolphin was certainly not taking a selfie. There were no human deaths or injuries involved so I don't think this entry belongs in the article. Opinions? Meters (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest clarifying the criteria so as to only include human deaths or injuries. If the dolphin case is acceptable what's to stop us from including a case where a selfie taker steps on his dog's paw or on a bug? Meters (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Verifiability would stop us. A selfie-taker stepping on a bug is unlikely to receive global news coverage. --McGeddon (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We report on animal deaths in the "Deaths in XXXX" articles (Deaths in 2016) so there is precedence. More so we shouldn't hamstring the criteria with arbitrary predetermined notions of what is important while excluding events that are notable according to reliable sources. The list should be more flexible to deal with whatever happens. Re: how the dolphin died it almost doesn't matter since it's notability was tied up in the belief that it died due to tourist selfies. -- Green  C  01:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We only mention non-human deaths in the "Deaths in XXXX" articles if the animal (or the death, I assume) is notable enough to have its own wikiarticle. If there is an article about this particular dolphin or its death please link to it. In this particular case we don't even know that the death was related to the selfies since one of the sources we already cite says that the dolphin was already dead. It certainly does matter how the dolphin died. Taking a selfie with a dead animal does not qualify for inclusion in this article. This is the same thing we dealt with before, with additions being made of people taking selfies of their injuries. I'm still looking for other opinions on whether we should clarify the criteria to specify only human injuries or deaths. Meters (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

List of Pokémon Go-related injuries and deaths
Might be time. Currently tracked in the main article. -- Green  C  13:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

India official stats on selfie deaths
The official reports on selfie deaths look terribly under-reported. We can show more deaths in this article alone, but there are many more that never make the news. For every selfie death in the news there are probably many more. For example


 * On July 27 2016, a 24-year-old woman was swept away to her death by the swollen waters of Baandal river near Maldevta area on the outskirts of Dehradun, India. She was taking a selfie at the time of the incident, bringing the toll of selfie deaths in Dehradun to four for the year.

Who were the other three? I've seen other reports that casually mention this was the Xth selfie death in that city or district that year. -- Green  C  23:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * If Priceonomics would do another article using this list, perhaps CNN would pick it up again, increasing the 'awareness' in smaller, provincial, or 'alternative' sources. Or perhaps The Telegraph will cite this list again for our lead. Of course if our other sources continue to be vague, incomplete, or less than thorough in their 'investigative reporting' the result will be much the same. The cycle will have to start again. Still, it could make official reports look more like this list. Fiachaire (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * One thing about our list, it doesn't show totals or totals by country so it's difficult to parse. If it was in table format it could have columns such as "Country" and "Number killed or injured" . I guess it wouldn't show totals either, but that would be easy to calculate by adding up the numbers. Or perhaps have a simple table with totals by country by year. etc. -- Green  C  12:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * So, present the information as geographically-driven, or by nationality (with tourists being the exception), and rather than depend on any outside reports or research for data or totals, we present our own count as self-evident. That could work. Alphabetical, per capita, or total hits on our list? Although the strongest trend does seem to be chronological, and even that may be tainted as we already cite from sources which got their numbers here previously. Still, why be beholden to the past, if other sources have validated this list as its own source? The list does seem be growing grotesque and untenable at faster rates while selfies become more and more lethal. Is there a list we might model your table on? Fiachaire (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, with sortable columns you can sort on any column such as date, country, number of casualties, type (fall, drown, etc..). By default listed by date. An example..

(note use of in date field). The question becomes do we have 1 giant table for all years, separate tables for each year, 1 table for every 5 years etc..? -- Green  C  14:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems to improve readability quite a bit. My hunch is, at this point, 1 table would provide the most information the fastest for more queries, but it's just a hunch. Fiachaire (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok. Unless you want to do it, we could create a subpage to work, and whenever we have the time add some entries, until its done. Like at List of selfie-related injuries and deaths/table. It would be a lot for one person to create in a single edit. -- Green  C  15:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * If you set it up I can definitely help with entries. I've only done a few edits with tables, so it'd be better if the structure/format was laid out for me. Fiachaire (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Fiachaire, started at List of selfie-related injuries and deaths/table with the first 4 entries from the list converted. There is an empty template at the top to cut and paste into the table for each entry. The date format I thought dmy would be best because most of the deaths are in India. I made a list of general death-type categories at the top.. it should only be a handful of general categories, not overly detailed. Use "Other" if not sure, and we can look at what's in it later and see if a new Type can be created. -- Green  C  17:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The date format seems best for a number of reasons. I agree that detail is not helpful to death-type. Is death-type a causal category, or something else? The first two entries would seem to be suicide and bombing as easily as the others are transport, etc. I also don't understand why refs are separate from descriptions. I don't object, and they can be merged later unless it is a technical issue. Descriptions should have location and dates removed to avoid repetition. Victims names are not inherently notable, and I do not feel the need to include them at the moment though I'm open to correction. Fiachaire (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I would just copy in the text as it exists, other than removing the date at the start of the sentence. Editing the text should be done in main space where others can see what's happening with a history. Not sure I would agree about removing location and name information necessarily, it makes reading dull with generic information in every entry - lets deal with that after the table is in mainspace. Refs are often separated in a column in tables, makes it cleaner and easier to work with. Categories could exist if there are enough entries to warrant but only 1 or 2 of a type would be better in "Other" .. something might exist in multiple categories but for example I thought the car bomb was primarily about the bomb, not a vehicular or train accident. -- Green  C  02:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Privacy & notability of names; the proposed table
From WP:BLPNAME "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event....When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories."

Having looked at other death-class lists (specifically, 2009 flu pandemic table June 2009, List of fatalities from aviation accidents, List of horse accidents, and Deaths in June 2016) it seems that notability is established when using the names of private individuals in death as well. The pleasure or entertainment value some find in listing victims names does not seem to have qualified as "significant value". Unless notable, names should be removed.

In a similar vein, the anecdotal 'description' seems inferior for the proposed table. I suggest avoiding it and the problematic category of 'type' of selfie-related injury or death by replacing both with 'cause/circumstances' as is done at List of fatalities from aviation accidents (I also like the flags). Removing names takes precedence over making a table, other changes can be discussed in its context. ~ Fiachaire (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * it seems that notability is established when using the names of private individuals in death as well No idea what you mean by that.
 * Earlier versions of the article omitted names. For previously non-notable individuals, it is unclear what value the use of a name adds. General attributes (e.g. age, gender, occupation, nationality) are more informative but should be used with discretion (e.g. nationality stated for tourists, occupation if it is relevant to the age (e.g. student, high-school student) or circumstances (e.g. pilot)). In my opinion, the original style should continue to be followed. It is sufficiently informative and creates no conflicts (e.g. applicability of BLP only to living people). Samsara 12:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What it means is we agree. Though it could be clearer. Fiachaire (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

A type category helps readers see what is the most common cause of death by selfie by sorting on that column. For example it would be useful to know that most deaths-by-selfie in India are caused by drowning, while most in the USA are by firearm etc.. or to quickly sort out the deaths by animal which may be a topic of interest for someone. It creates new perspectives on the data which is one purpose (and advantage) of having a sortable table. It's not very problematic to categorize, most of them fit easily in under 8 categories or so. We deal with categorization issues all the time on Wikipedia. -- Green  C  16:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable enough. I was thinking of your comment above regarding the bombing being typed as other. But other can be dealt with case by case later on. ~ Fiachaire (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Fiachaire, just curious, do you have any connection with Priceonomics, a commercial data collection company compiling deaths about selfies? I noticed you used them as a source, that they use Wikipedia as a source, and you started Draft:Priceonomics. -- Green  C  16:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't. CNN uses them as a source. I don't know who cited CNN originally. Priceonomics, as you noted, uses this list as a source, and is cited by other sources previously cited here. I didn't want to delete the CNN reference (though I think it should be deleted), but felt it important the circular and commercial nature of the source be somewhat available to readers, if only for completeness. I have drafted an article for Priceonomics, as its blog is cited in major media, academic journals, and on Wikipedia. I hope to shape an acceptably neutral pov on it, but, as I begin, I am more likely to err on the side critical, not of Priceonomics per se, but of more established reputable sources feeling pressured into adopting the content they engineer for self-promotion. In short, I personally think they are good at engineering click-bait puffed up with cheap data, and struggling papers are glad to have mass appeal advertising which appears to be news supported by expert input. That, however, would make a lousy article. The facts and history of the company are interesting enough without proselytizing.
 * I also didn't remove the CNN citation from the first sentence. Near as I can tell the lead is standing heavily on the content of the Telegraph article which has been repeatedly criticized as nonsense. ~ Fiachaire (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, I noticed the connections and thought I would ask rather than harbor suspicion. Thanks for the info about Priceonomics. BTW there's also content at Selfie, not sure how much should be there vs. here in terms of general discussion. -- Green  C  19:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it was a good question to ask. I've edited Selfie as well. I put the cite check at the top of the page a while back with a direct to the talk page where I wrote about "Defining the Selfie". My suggestion there is that reliable sources disagree on what a selfie is (sometimes substantially, sometimes technically), and the page itself only cites a page which tells you how to pronounce the word. I'm open to consensus, policy, or guidelines clarifying, but, for example, if selfie is defined as self-portraiture and self-portraiture is defined as an artists portrayl of self (as it is on Wikipedia), then a lot of what we think of as selfies is unlikely to qualify. Of course one person's logic is another person's sophistry, but I think that's why we use talk pages and require sources. ~ Fiachaire (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Double beheading Mexico - March 2017
The source is weak and the circumstances sound more like something a drug cartel might do than a real accident assuming it occurred. -- Green  C  04:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Number of deaths
As selfies have obviously become dangerous, it would be useful to indicate the evolving number of deaths worldwide, by country.Maxgalopin (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

A new review article Suggestion
I don't have access to this article. Even if I did, this is not my topic. Anyone interested in extracting content from it?

Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot. 2017 Feb 14:1-6. doi: 10.1080/17457300.2016.1278240. [Epub ahead of print] A comprehensive study of worldwide selfie-related accidental mortality: a growing problem of the modern society. Jain MJ1,2, Mavani KJ3.

Abstract Since Oxford dictionary has described 'Selfie', selfie deaths have received a fair amount of coverage but the extent of the problem and the data behind it have not been appropriately explored. The aim of our study is to obtain epidemiological characteristics of selfie-related mortality worldwide with the objective of providing an insight to 'Why selfie', 'Why risky', 'Psychological basis' and 'measures of control.' Despite thousands of web pages, very few scientific articles are available in medical journals. So, we went online via Google search engine compiling every reported instance after confirming it and verifying the information in Wikipedia. Non-fatal injuries and non-selfie type of photography-related deaths were excluded from the study. From 2014 to mid-2016, 75 people have died while attempting selfie in 52 incidents worldwide. Mean age of the victims was 23.3 and 82% were male. India is the most affected country and Russia and US being second. Fall from height, drowning and rail accidents are the top three modes of death. Large-scale use of cell phone worldwide and underlying risk in selfie behaviour seems the culprit. Inability to compare selfie with non-selfie photography due to lack of data is definitely a limitation. Worldwide initiatives are being taken like 'NO SELFIE ZONES' but still a multifactorial approach is required before it gets too late. KEYWORDS: Accident; death; injury; mortality; selfie; world PMID: 28632035 DOI: 10.1080/17457300.2016.1278240 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zipbop (talk • contribs) 17:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Palouse Falls, Washington
This content was reverted apparently by a family member. The revert is supported by this source which says he was not taking a selfie. -- Green  C  19:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the original source for this entry was The Daily Mail, which Wikipedia no longer considers a reliable source. Meters (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Table sorting
I'd like to suggest the tables be re-combined into a single table. The reason is when sorting on columns the data becomes fragmented. For example, show all selfies involving animals is now very difficult, defeating the purpose of the "reason" column. Or sort based on number of casualties to discover the worst incidents. Or sort by nation to see how many are in India. The columns are defeated when the table is broken into yearly sections, which is an arbitrary break anyway. There's nothing wrong with having a large table, they exist in many places on Wikipedia. There is some limit.. 5 years? 10 years? It's not there yet that the downside of breaking the table needs to be done yet. -- Green  C  13:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree with this; I've now combined the tables into one. Thanks for the suggestion! Entranced98 (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Suicide and terrorist attack
Should we really include those on this table? They don't seem like they're really selfie-related; while they took selfies, the first was deliberately trying to kill themselves and the second, the terrorist presumably didn't blow up the bomb because they were taking the selfie, and they would have been injured regardless just by being nearby. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * They are selfie-related injuries/death with a selfie component. The purpose isn't to only show Darwin-like selfies where people die because they were taking a selfie. -- Green  C  02:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Another one to add? Dec 2017 report of Nov 2017 death
https://globalnews.ca/news/3916952/china-rooftopper-falls-stunt-gone-wrong/?utm_source=770Calgary&utm_medium=Facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.4.63 (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

New entries
These could be added:


 * 
 * 

The "Indian man killed by wild elephant while taking selfie" theme is starting to become pretty common. -- Green  C  16:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know much about editing Wikipedia pages but I thought I'd bring this up: Fstoppers: "Three Die at Party for Instagram Influencer After Dry Ice Is Poured Into Pool for 'Visual Effects'" Helloandyhihi (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Casualties column: Differentiate between injuries and fatalities?
The nature of each entry would be easier to understand if the Casualties column was enhanced to indicate both number of injured and number of fatalities, or made even more clear by splitting this information into two columns to allow for sorting entries based on outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.77.107.157 (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

List becoming stagnant and random
To be honest this list has not been well maintained recently. During the summer months, there should be 10 or more new entries each month (based on experience of adding previous years). For 2018 so far, only 10 entries added for the *entire year*. Unclear what purpose this list is, other than a random sampling. Prior to October 2016 it's more complete. -- Green  C  21:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just Darwinism. The pool of "people likely to die when taking a selfie" shrinks every year.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  23:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I wish! But no, they are easy to find with Google. For example August 1, 2017 - September 1, 2017. -- Green  C  00:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Journal study rips off Wikipedia
This study (Agam Bansal, Chandan Garg, Abhijith Pakhare, and Samiksha Gupta - "Selfies: A boon or bane?", J. Family Med Prim Care ) is a rip off of the Wikipedia list. Granted, they did some additional number crunching which is useful but they should have credited Wikipedia for doing the work of finding these incidents in the first place. -- Green  C  19:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) The number of incidents (137) closely matches what Wikipedia has. This is suspicious as I know there are many more out there by searching Google. Our list is far from complete, yet it strangely closely matches this report.
 * 2) The categorization scheme is nearly the same on Wikipedia (Animal, Transport etc).
 * 3) They limit it to English-language newspapers, because this is the English-language Wikipedia.
 * 4) They don't make the data public.
 * 5) The date starts October 2011 the same as Wikipedia.

I noticed that they listed 48 people dying in a fire which clearly refers to the incident listed here that lists 48 people being *injured* in a fire in Chennai. Given that this is the single largest source of "deaths" in their study, I further question the reliability of this study. -2604:2000:DD00:3D00:6DE8:1A51:3158:32C4 (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

New entries

 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.237.101.229 (talk) 09:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft Entries
Entries at the draft stage below.

Xyxyzyz (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Xyxyzyz those are good finds. Couple ideas: Cheers. -- Green  C  22:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Do not use real names in the description, instead say "A 16 year old girl" etc.. this if for BLP reason
 * 2) Make sure there are no duplicates. It's hard to check as sometimes the same incident is reported on different dates and ends up with duplicate entries.
 * 3) Try to say something about the selfie in the description, since this is the criteria/purpose for the list.
 * 4) Keep sources in the sources col no need to have in the description.

Australia December 31st 2017 incident removed
The final report into the air crash referenced in the article as a possible 'selfie' related fatal incident has now been published by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/cause-of-fatal-2017-sydney-seaplanes-crash-revealed-in-final-report/news-story/f362d908cadace196eed88be9fb448fb

The cause of the crash has been determined to be that the pilot was incapacitated by carbon monoxide engine fumes https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2017/aair/ao-2017-118/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.250.167 (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Present tense description
Why is the 24 April 2019 incident described as if it was a story, while all the others are written in past tense? I was wondering because it seemed out of place, and I'm not sure thats enough to warrant an edit. Here it is for reference

''A 21-year-old man goes for a swim in the Gumpen waterfall pool. The waterfalls are hard to reach, but social media posts from recent years made them famous for a great view of the lake, the gushing waters, and people bathing in tiny natural pools. As the man is unable to get himself free of the waterfall swirl, his friend of the same age jumps in to help him out of the 4–6 °C cold water. Both drown.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addicted to LitRPG (talk • contribs) 01:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

33 year old Belgian in November 2021
No mention of this one? 174.0.48.147 (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to add it if you've got a reliable source for it. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 19:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Selfie Vélib, Paris 2014.jpg image
From the angle that he's holding the phone, isn't it more likely that he's filming his bike ride, than taking a selfie? Lord Belbury (talk) 08:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Rémi Enigma
died in the summer of 2023 after falling from a high rise 2A02:8440:4314:8ED9:0:5B:C98C:7D01 (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

length conversions
Can we please get all the distances listed in the article auto-converted? There's a lot of measurements in feet, while some are in metres. I don't mind the mix (as sources often list one or the other), but there should always be a fitting metric/imperial conversion. Electricmaster (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)