Talk:List of unusual deaths/Archive 11

Tycho Brahe
This would appear to be a poorly sourced addition. Note that the reliable sources used do not even claim to know precisely what the cause of death was, which makes any claim that it was "unusual" unsubstainable. This would fall short of the sourcing requirements for this list.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ridicolous. It is excellently sourced, and that the real cause is unsure does not make the episode less worthy of inclusion. It should be amended to make it clear it is unconfirmed, but it is such a widespread and well sourced case (both in general and about unusualness) that it is almost a textbook case for this list. Everything else is original research put on top of sources.-- cyclopia speak! 13:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, Cyclopia, it's a textbook case of why most of these "historic" cases are problematic: the facts surrounding many of these events are shrouded in rumours and legends.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course they are shrouded in rumours and legend: and so what? This is not the List of unusual deaths that have been unequivocally, meticolously determined to be exactly as reported. -- cyclopia speak! 14:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you reexamine WP:RS.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Utter rubbish, and no better than we have come to expect from you.
 * This has six sources added (out of countless ones, not even starting on the Czech ones), from the likes of the NYT and the Grauniad. Time give the direct quotes "a fatal case of politeness." which would be enough for most people, and "Brahe makes a good case for strangest historical death" which ought to convince even editors like you and your buddy RedPen. What are you seriously claiming here? That "unusual" and "strange" aren't synonymous? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that phrasings like "ostensibly from both the uremia caused by his burst bladder and a fatal case of politeness", " there has been mystery about whether the Dane whose observations laid the groundwork for modern astronomy fell victim to natural causes or was murdered", "Historians had long thought that Brahe died of a bladder infection, but recent tests have suggested that mercury poisoning may have been the cause of his death, according to media reports", and "most likely died of a burst bladder" show that none of these sources are certain as to why death occurred. This isn't "list of deaths that would have been weird if they actually happened this way but we aren't sure if they did".&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So a death cannot be "unusual" unless the coroner has a cause of death nailed down beyond any doubt? Rubbish.
 * Also the burst bladder has been the canonical explanation since his death and the jealous murder theory or the recent (pre-testing) claims that imminent tests would show evidence for mercury poisoning have never been credibly more than journalistic pot-boiling. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why, yes, Andy, encyclopedias tend to report factual material, rather than rumours and speculation. Death by bladder infection isn't particularly odd, either, so at best you have a pile of sources speculating that they would have called a common thing unusual if it had actually happened, but they aren't certain that it actually happened.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The strangeness of his death is not peritonitis, but the underlying cause of politeness (and look, a direct cite for that too). You are very well aware of this and it is dissembling of you to pretend otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * VALID we use the best available sources, not the most sensationalistic just because they happen to use a particular phraseology that will support their inclusion in a particular article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * What you have direct source for (the politeness) is that many people believe this to be the cause. That doesn't make it a fact, that makes it folklore. Even if he did die of bladder infection, there's no good reason to believe that holding his urine a single time led to his death. Not even your sources make that claim. It's not dissembling of me to state that folklore and ancient mysteries don't belong in a list of factual events.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What I have a direct source for about politeness is that Time is prepared to stake the good name of its journal by going to press and making such a statement under their imprimatur. That, per WP:RS, is how we work here – your comedy double-act notwithstanding. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

encyclopedias tend to report factual material, rather than rumours and speculation. - False dichotomy. Rumours and speculations are facts as well: the rumour content per se is not a fact, of course, but that the rumour exists and that it says certain things is a matter of fact. Conspiracy theories on the Moon landing are rubbish, but that the conspiracy theories exist and are notable cannot be denied. Provided such things are reported as such, they absolutely belong to an encyclopedia. -- cyclopia speak! 15:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If this article was titled "Fables of unusual deaths", this material would probably be suitable for that. And Andy ... cut with the personal attacks. I am applying WP:RS. Your Time source says "ostensibly from both the uremia caused by his burst bladder and a fatal case of politeness". Ostensibly is Time's way of saying that they are uncertain that it is the actual cause.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No. This has nothing at all to do with WP:RS. It has to do with the fact that you are arbitrarily restricting the article scope to cover only cases which are absolutely unequivocal. There is no reason for that. In fact, the article could even mention death events that were widely considered to be unusual but then later proven to be fictional, if labeled as such. You are perfectly entitled to think otherwise, but do not mask your own personal opinion on what the article scope should be behind WP:RS.-- cyclopia speak! 15:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "restricting the article scope to cover only cases which are absolutely unequivocal. There is no reason for that." ahh, yes there are reasons, they are called policy: WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:NOT and WP:LISTSC. You know, the fact that we are here to make an encyclopedia and not a random blog of stuff we find interesting funny or gruesome.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in WP:V, WP:NPOV etc. is written that Wikipedia should cover only certainly factual events. If you think so, you're welcome to bring Loch Ness Monster, Unicorn and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories to AfD. Let me know how it goes. That is not about building a "random blog", that is about reporting one of the most notable stories of a unusual death ever described, regardless of the fact there are doubts on its veracity.-- cyclopia speak! 23:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

While I don't mean to imply that my voice is of any special importance here, it does seem to me that the fact that there is a source explicitly calling the death strange meets the criteria set out in the consensus position in the RfC. I don't read the consensus as requiring a unanimity of sources, nor even a requirement that there be more than one source with that type of phrasing. Further, the source seems to meet WP:RS for the type of information that is being requested. It's possible that you could take this to WP:RSN, though I'm not sure that would solve what is clearly still a deeper division despite the prior discussion(s). But whether you use that noticeboard or another, y'all have to find some way to resolve this without edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added another source and image for Tycho Brahe. As this is Movember, he is worth including for his impressive moustachio alone but there is more, much more to relate. Warden (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Tycho Brahe seems to me to be almost certainly appropriate for inclusion, though I understand that there are concerns about the quality of the sources; that's an editorial issue, one that needs to be worked out between involved editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I added a source, image and content about Tycho Brahe. RPOD reverted some of this material, "irrel off topic trivia is not needed in an article already bursting with trivia".  The material in question concerned Brahe's famous last words, ne frustra vixisse videar and the death of his pet moose in another drinking accident.  This material seems neither trivial nor off-topic as these details commonly occur in accounts of Brahe and his death and are both related to the death.  Other details such as his being an astronomer and having lost his nose in a duel seem appropriate in providing context and likewise routinely appear in accounts of the matter.  Per WP:SAUCE, RPOD should not make claims that material is trivial or off-topic without providing sources to this effect as it would obviously be inequitable if only one side of this dispute has to bring sources to support their position.  Note also that RPOD's revert was one of a series which broke WP:3RR.  Warden (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Patsy Campbell tanning booth death
The trouble is that article is a personal soapbox for these two and their own agenda that nothing belongs here (and repeated AfDs show that there is no support for that particular blanket approach). Look at the latest addition – how long before one of them reverts that by conflating "tanning booth" and "death by skin cancer" [which this was not] and then claiming by pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that the cited "the first death caused by burns from a tanning booth" is invalid because "tanning booths cause cancer and people die of cancer"? Just look at the edit history for this article. Has there ever been another article (including Ulster, Gaza and Lady Gaga) with such a prolonged campaign of single-sided POV from such a narrow klatch of editors? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It was an easy prediction, indeed.-- cyclopia speak! 15:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I reverted that, as an admin enforcing consensus. None of the three sources met the consensus requirements in the RfC (that is, that there is not clear support for an IAR decision to ignore RS showing that the entry meets the definition of the page). You, and cyclopia, and anyone else, are welcome to try a new form of DR to see if you can advance your position that explicit RS are not required here, and that simple editorial judgment (OR) is sufficient so long as there is consensus on each item. Since an explicit RfC with a fairly clear result was just arrived at, your probably next best step would be either WP:MEDCOM or WP:DRN; I'm sure you're all aware of the strengths and weaknesses of both. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The first reference says Dr. Alan Dimick, a University of Alabama burn expert, said he believes this was the first death caused by burns from a tanning booth. First time someone died from that, would make it unusual. Unusual defined as  "not normal or usual, different or strange in a way that attracts attention, not commonly seen, heard, etc."  But we had this discussion already, and the random group of editors to show up and comment didn't all agree one way or the other, so no sense arguing the same thing over again.  Unlike some people, I don't do that.   D r e a m Focus  17:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that would not make it unusual, it would make it the first time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The only time it ever happened like this, so yes, quite unusual since its never happened before or since.  D r e a m Focus  20:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * What? That edit is following the RfC consensus. There is a clear source, by a reliable expert, stating that it was a unique death. You are not enforcing consensus, you are violating it. -- cyclopia speak! 23:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Cyclopia, maybe we've got our signals mixed; I'm talking about Patsy Ann Campbell, recently added by User:JohnWilsone; there's nothing in any of the three sources (even if we count Snopes as a source) that says that it was unusual, strange, weird, or any other word of that nature. I just re-read all three sources; am I missing something? As for Tycho Brahe, I was actually arguing in favor of inclusion. So, to summarize, for me:
 * Patsy Campbell is prima facie not eligible, as the sources lack the key descriptors we need, and thus removing it is an administrative action (an enforcement of consensus). Qwyrxian (talk)
 * I am talking about Patsy Campbell, where there is a source stating that it is a unique case of death. That is the key descriptor we need, exactly. This is exactly in line with the consensus of RfC and the rest of this talk page discussion.-- cyclopia speak! 23:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi I am new to Wikipedia. Please help me and guide me while I am editing this article. I am very interested in these kind of articles and I would like to contribute. Please guide me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinewbie1 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Some claim WP:common sense is actually WP:original research which isn't allowed at all. So even if everyone agrees the death is in fact unusual, you still can't have it unless a reliable source uses word "unusual" or a synonyms.   D r e a m Focus  20:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

bad myspace page
Was there a consensus that in addition to being filled with random bits of trivia that the page should also be cluttered with random pictures so that it visually looks as bad as the content? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You are as yet a voice crying in the wilderness. Until such time as you get Kww to impose the admin's content veto on your behalf, then leave them alone. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The terms "cluttered" and "random" and the phrase "visually looks as bad as the content" seem to rather betray your stubbornly held POV here, TRPOD. Surely, all articles dealing with people benefit from displaying images of those people? It's Wikipedia policy to add appropriate images. And perhaps you can explain why you think the article is "filled with random bits of trivia"? There are several editors here who try to ensure that all entries comply with the agreed criteria and remove or sideline those that do not. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As has been said many times, there is no objective criteria upon which readers and editors can compare. And while a few sections have been reviewed so that they at least have a reliable source that uses the word "unusual", there are many sections and entries for which that is not true and they are simply trivial items an editor thought were unusual linked to some website. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How many of the article's seven sections did you have in mind? The word "unusual", or a synonym thereof, used in a WP:RS, looks quite objective to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * how short is your memory? as has been discussed, the random usage of the word "unusual" by a random journalist is not in any way an "objective" method of determining whether or not a death is really unusual in the scope of history (which is apparently what this article is supposed to cover). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not as short as my patience, alas. So, on what basis are you deleting entries? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So if they use the word "weird" that's not the same as "unusual" and so it's invalid; but if they do literally use "unusual", then that's just not objective.
 * You want it both ways, so long as the answer is always to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen TRPoD remove entries that a reliable source described as "weird" or any reasonable synonym thereof. I've seen him question the reliability of sources, but that's a separate issue. Can you show me a case where reliable sources described the death itself as unusual/weird/strange and TRPoD proceeded to remove it anyway?&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh Andy please stop misrepresenting me. What I want is someone who is a recognized expert in the area of "unusual deaths" making the assessment that a death is "unusual" so that we are not violating our NPOV policy by making and presenting claims that are not actually accurate. The fact that Joe Yahoo journalist happens to pad his submission with the word "unusual" is not in any way evidence that even he was using the word "unusual" in the context that we are using it in this article. Misrepresentation of source used out of context is harmful to the community and the project. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What is harmful is your continuous wikilawyering and refusal to acknowledge sourcing,in the transparent attempt to curb any development of this article - just because you cannot accept it hasn't been deleted, I suppose. This is getting very disruptive. In any case I support and welcome the images. -- cyclopia speak! 14:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We have two editors who tried quite passionately, arguing all over the place, to delete this article, who failed to do that and are just trying their best to delete as much of it as possible.   D r e a m Focus  17:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It just tickles me to no end that the article now clearly announces itself for what it is. Upload all the pics you want!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Chrysippus
I can't find the source given for Chrysippus: at Googlebooks. How does this work actually describe the death of Chrysippus? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The very circumstances of the death itself is contradicted by the source.

"Diogenes Laërtius gives two different accounts of his death. In the first account, Chrysippus was seized with dizziness having drunk undiluted wine at a feast, and died soon after. In the second account, he was watching a donkey eat some figs and cried out: "Now give the donkey a drink of pure wine to wash down the figs", whereupon he died in a fit of laughter. His nephew Aristocreon erected a statue in his honour in the Kerameikos. Chrysippus was succeeded as head of the Stoic school by his pupil Zeno of Tarsus."


 * I do not think we should include mythical deaths. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The note at the top of the Antiquity section says "Note: Many of these stories are likely to be apocryphal." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, i know that. But that doesnt alter the fact that we are including stories that are highly likely to be simply stories as if they are actually "unusual deaths" instead of "fictitious stories that people made up that include unusual deaths". Encyclopedia's shouldnt be carrying disclaimers like that. No disclaimers in articles -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer or reasonable explanation? Do we delete all those articles for "mythical or fictitious" people? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * if they are being misrepresented as actual living people, there are indeed issues that need to be addressed. But we are talking about the issues with this article and all of the pesky policies and guidelines that it crosses.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ... if they were living, they wouldn't be here, lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Unusualness
TheRedPenOfDoom recently Chrysippus from the list because "source does not call it unsusual". I it, adding five additional sources: Admittedly, these are not the most reliable sources, but they were added only to establish that his death is widely considered to be "unusual", not to establish the circumstances of his death (which are already supported by a reliable source). TRPOD again this on the basis that "not one of them is reliable". (In neither case was this added to Talk:List of unusual deaths/Sourcing issues.) I have since found a more reliable source on the issue of unusualness and  it.
 * Cracked.com: "The 5 Historical Figures Who Died The Weirdest Deaths"
 * Fun Trivia: "Unusual Deaths"
 * Valerius Minimus: "Karmic & Unusual Deaths"
 * Mizozo: "Top 6 Most Unusual Ways to Die"
 * The Listicles: "Ten Weird and Unusual Ways to Die"

Since being "unusual" is subjective, it gives rise to the interesting question: if the circumstances of a death are supported by reliable sources (so the facts are not in dispute) and a significant number of other sources refer to the death as "unusual" (but these sources do not meet the Reliable sources criteria), can a mass of non-reliable sources ever be sufficient to establish that the death is considered "unusual" enough to warrant inclusion on this list? Particularly for ancient examples such as this (over 2,200 years ago), it would seem unlikely that a scholarly publication on philosophers would describe a death in terms of being unusual, however, the concept of being "unusual" is more likely to be documented by modern-day sources. I'm certainly not advocating that reliable sources should not be needed to verify the circumstances of each death, but Chrysippus is frequently held up as one of the classic cases of unusual deaths throughout history and it seems at odds that we might exclude it simply because it is not described as such in an academic text. It could at least be written in the article as "often reported as unusual". —sroc &#x1F4AC; 01:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * the fact that "unusualness" is subjective and hence makes a poor encyclopedia article topic has been the subject of much discussion. And no. Non reliable sources cannot be used to verify a claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Unusual" is of course subjective and only Red Pen is allowed to judge it. In a moment his on-call admin will be along to threaten you with a block for having had the temerity to add sources. The behaviour of both of them disgusts decent editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to agree that the present attempts to enforce 'rules' in relation to this article runs against the spirit of the community consensus at successive AfD discussions to preserve it. To insist that reliable sources use particular words in relation to the death for it to qualify misses the point that even when they do those sources are themselves using subjective judgement - it still gets us no nearer an objective measure which must necessarily remain subjective. The article is problematic, but it will not cease to be so this way. --AJHingston (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * while there was not a consensus to delete, there has most certainly NOT been any consensus that the policies do not apply and that rules should not be enforced. Many of the "keep" !votes infact articulated support for creating and enforcing objective standards. and the RfC Talk:List_of_unusual_deaths was in fact an affirmative consensus that reliable sources identifying as unusual must be provided. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No-one is advocating that we ignore the rules. The rules call for sources, sources are given, RedPen deletes anyway because he doesn't like it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's untrue: you frequently advocate including information that is not supported by reliable sources. TRPoD tends to have fairly good judgement about what constitutes a reliable source.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * RedPen considers a source to be inadequate if it so much as mis-spells "unusual". I am happy to see "weird" and similar as a valid synonym for it. I also have grave doubts about an editor who is both working quite so hard to delete an article, and working to blank it piece by piece, as to the GF of their piecemeal deletions. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, there's no doubt that this is effectively deletion the hard way, which is why I called for doing it straightforwardly. A list of unusual deaths that contains only items that conform to policy will be very short. I had thought it would be empty, but I've been persuaded that it may contain a handful of elements. Certainly not a list worth keeping, but one has to keep in mind that removing badly sourced material and original research improves the encyclopedia.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "deletion the hard way" sounds like an agenda quite contrary to the ouctome of the recent RfD. But please list your handful here, so we can see what we'll be left with when you and RedPen have finished. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I proceed slowly and carefully, Martin. There's no rush, but a quick scan of the article for items that have multiple reliable sources that directly describe the death itself as unusual doesn't uncover many items. There was actually a fairly strong consensus that the current article contents are problematic, most simply felt that it was outside of process to delete an article that had any salvageable content. On the other hand, I still feel that the amount of effort it is going to take to get the article cleaned up in the face of intransigent resistance to sourcing constraints is more effort than the resulting article will be worth, but a large group of people decided that even though they felt no obligation to fix anything, their opinion that the article was fixable mandating keeping it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The best way to proceed, I'm sure. But, an enlightening equation. Still like to see that handful, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Simply wanting to "delete an article the hard way", after multiple failures to RfD, sounds a little too much like Disruptive editing to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Unusual" has to be claimed in a reliable source, because "unusual" is the key criterion for inclusion. Contrary to Andy's misapprehension, the community consensus had nothing to do with throwing away the rules for this article, it was that the article content was capable of being controlled through application of existing rules and processes. &mdash;Kww(talk) 02:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * So why do we keep getting edit summaries for removals which say "more common than you think" and "happens all the time" etc., etc., rather than "source does not say it was unusual"? Isn't that the only suitable edit summary apart from "source is not reliable"? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Show me examples and we can discuss the cases. When I've seen it, it's been cases like the ones that triggered this discussion: reliable sources didn't describe the death as unusual, and someone had added a gossip column or community portal that did in an effort to bypass sourcing standards.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Gosh, how underhand and downright sneaky. Show us the gossip and we can discuss the bypassing. But yes, a third possibility is of course "reliable sources don't describe the death as unusual". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Look at the list at the top of this section. Even the author of the section admits that he used bad sources because they contained the desired description while his good source did not.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So why did it get deleted and not go to Talk:List of unusual deaths/Sourcing issues? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The holding pen was offered as a good faith effort compromise for those who objected to direct application of WP:BURDEN to content that had been in the article a long time without proper sourcing. given the lack of showing of any reciprocal good faith efforts, the lack of its use for poorly sourced newly entered content should not surprising. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So who gets to decide? What criteria are used? How long is a "long tome"? Why does it have to be "a long time"? What are these "reciprocal good faith efforts" that are so lacking? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Chrysippus was on 11 December 2013 and  on 13 December 2013, less than 48 hours later.  This is presumably the "long time" TRPOD refers to.  And here I thought citation needed served a purpose.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 10:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently I was not clear. The "holding tank" was not envisioned to hold all suggested entries -newly added entries would be subject to scrutiny and immediate removal as per WP:BURDEN. Rather for items that had been in the article at the time extensive clean up efforts were initiated in fall of 2012 would be given special treatment of being placed in "holding pen" because of the number that were being removed in short periods of time to allow for closer scrutiny by those who thought there might be something appropriately sourceable.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And was your proposal met with agreement by consensus and a record made for future reference? Or is it an "informal policy" that only you know how to apply? I'm still not sure what you mean by "a long time". How long is that? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you feel that use of the holding tank is a good idea, go ahead and use it. Add anything that has been removed that you think people could find good sources for in time. Despite accusations of being TRPodD's "pet admin", I can guarantee you that I would view removal of material from the holding tank without consensus to do so as disruptive.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * By your own admisison, Kww. you're not here to improve the article, you're here to destroy it. But I don't recall ever accusing you of being RedPen's "pet admin". You've never looked like much of a "pet" to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm here to improve the encyclopedia, Martin, which is the point. Did you miss the widespread consensus that the article is a serious problem, or just focus on the lack of consensus to delete it outright?&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The consensus I saw was to keep the article and improve it, K. Not "delete it the hard way". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Where "improvement" meant correctly applying policy to its contents. I think people were engaging in wishful thinking when they thought that much content would survive. We'll see. For now, the goal is simply to make certain that every item is sourced to multiple reliable sources that directly describe the individual listed death as "unusual". There may be a few such deaths.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. How many other editors agree with you? Wasn't it "a handful" of deaths? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Reading over the AFD, DRV, and RFC, I would say that the general consensus of participants was that the article should be held to policy, with another group feeling that the article should be deleted instead. There was a very small group that essentially said "let's relax the sourcing standards for fun articles like this", but that was a distinctly small minority. The current sourcing standard for this article is multiple reliable sources that directly describe the death as unusual. So far, I've only been working on items where there are no reliable sources that describe the death as unusual. When that's complete, I'll begin on the ones that have only a single source and see if I can find a second. If I cannot, I will remove them from the list.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My reading of the AFD, DRV, and RFC is that there were a range of views, not just two distinct "camps". But is the consensus for only the exact word "unusual"? How will you decide if removed items should go to the "holding area" or not? And how hard will you look for a seoond source, when you argued so strongly to delete the entire article? Why don't you look for reliable sources, for those entries which have none, before you delete them? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that its use has completely failed in its purpose of enhancing cooperation and is now being used as a club against me, you can pretty well bet that I have no intention of using it again. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So, that was it's purpose? Well, that's entirely your choice; no-one expects you to have to use it. In fact no-one expects you to have to edit the article at all. But not sure why a few simple questions about the holding tank constitute a "club against you"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The purpose was: last fall I began looking closely at various sections and noticing masses of unsourced content, non reliably published sources, and sources that did not identify the death as unusual. When I then began to remove these bad entries en mass per WP:OR and WP:V there was a great hue and cry on the talk page and edit page summaries of reversions that it was not fair to suddenly require content to meet sourcing requirements without giving editors a chance to find sources. So the holding pen was born - when mass cleanups were initiated, the poorly sourced items that had been in the article for a long time and were being removed in large quantities, they would be placed in the holding pen allowing editors who wished to search for appropriate sourcing time to look for it. In exchange, I had hoped that the relentless attempts and reinsertion of unsourced and poorly sourced content would stop and perhaps even that others would begin making a forthright effort to ensure that current items in the list were actually appropriately sourced. Neither of those, nor any other mutually collaborative efforts came from the other parties. And now, you are making what sound like accusations of breaking some kind of commandment that every piece of clap trap entered into the article MUST be given a chance for resurrection by being placed in the WP:FAKEARTICLE. Well, no it does not. In the next cleaning spree those who think something worthwhile is being lost, they will just have to hew and cry. Or they could prevent it by affirmatively ensuring sources.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * thank you. with i am now likely to use the holding pen again. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I made no commandments. I make no accusations. It's hue, not hew, by the way... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Citation needed is primarily useful when removal of the disputed material would require rework of the surrounding article. There's no need to let a problematic article like this one continue to accumulate poorly sourced material by using tags.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously the remover gets to decide if they feel that catering to people who object to standard policy being followed here is going to gain cooperative editing from others or if it is just a waste of their time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As for those "reciprocal good faith efforts", it's not often that I see people adding reliable sources to existing entries, nor do I see people refrain from forcibly edit-warring in poorly sourced material like Hannah Twynnoy. I don't think anyone seriously thinks the Malmesbury Tourist Board is a reliable source for classifying deaths, yet, here we are, with yet another poorly sourced item in the article because people can't seem to accept the need for reliable sourcing.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I am quite on the fence on all this. On one hand, I agree a mass of poorly reliable sources does not make a reliable source. As such the argument of is weak at best. On the other it is, at this point, clear that is not here to improve the article, but to stifle its development to prove his point against it (Yeah, this fails WP:AGF, but I've seen enough of this behaviour). See this edit summary for example, which is quite disingenuous, and uses a totally subjective assessment for deletion of the entry, ignoring the sourcing. There is a middle ground, which is what our policies say: follow sources, just follow sources, on both sides. -- cyclopia speak! 14:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard headed "Malmesbury.com and their expertise on analyzing death statistics" which suggests that this particular source may not be used as a WP:RS as it does not have "expertise on analyzing death statistics". I had thought that any WP:RS was acceptable for support of cases here. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * the same policies apply everywhere in wikipedia. whether a source is "reliable" is dependent upon a number of context specific factors. the RfC at the top of the page has confirmed that this article is not exempt from the standard application of those content policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Weird column means the newspaper believes its a weird/unusual death

 * Kww has repeatedly removed an entry. despite two reliable sources describing the death in its "Weird" column of their newspapers. If the newspaper is a reliable source, used as such throughout Wikipedia, and it believes a death is unusual enough to make an article about it in its "weird" section, then shouldn't that be sufficient to put the death on the list?  Note the discussion should be here, not somewhere with less attention.  The reliable sources noticeboard bit that Kww started after being reverted multiple times for removing that entry previously, had only four people participating.  Those being Kww and TRPOD, who of course argued constantly to try to delete this article entirely, refuse to stop insisting it shouldn't exist, and are determined to destroy as much of it as possible, plus one editor who said The Huffington Post was a reliable source but felt the other source wasn't, but made no comment about the issue itself, and one other person who roamed by stating their opinion that the word "Weird" had to be in the article itself not just in the web address and above the article saying it was "Weird News".  More opinions please.   D r e a m Focus  17:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Huffington Post is, of course, quoted and used as a source all over Wikipedia. So if it classes something as "weird" I would have thought that was sufficient for most people to consider it unusual. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * While Huff Po is used as a source "all over Wikipedia", it is not used "all over Wikipedia as a source for representing the mainstream academic understanding of "unusual death"". What exactly identifies their expertise in that area? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't even know how to respond to something this ridiculous. How is a major award winning newspaper like the Huffington Post not mainstream?  How would any newspaper or other reliable source identify their expertise in anything at all?  Do you think they have a guy with a college degree for this subject who goes around giving his expert opinion to everyone? Its clearly a reliable source, and should count.   D r e a m Focus  00:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * They, and particularly their "weird news", are not mainstream academic view. RS / NPOV -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur with TheRedPenOfDoom. All these clickbait articles are garbage of the highest (lowest) order, and are certainly not evidence of unusualness. I note also that User:Dream Focus neglected to include me in the list of horrible people who try to edit this article in accordance with Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd disagee that Huffington Post articles, even the ones in this particular "populist" column, are "garbage of the highest (lowest) order". But which source(s) would you argue are sufficinely robust to provide "evidence of unusualness" as far as deaths are concerned? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * When was the last time a "weird news" won a pulitzer? or was peer reviewed? In the pecking order of reliable sources, to call it "garbage of the highest (lowest) order" is being kind. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * When was the last time an obituary writer won a Pulitzer prize? Obituaries are the largest source of information for biographies here at Wikipedia. WP:Reliable sources does not say that you have to win a prize to be a reliable source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to rediscuss whether this is a reliable source or not, take it to the RSN again. Based on the conclusion reached at RSN that the sources are not reliable, I removed it. Please stop with the accusations as well: I am only trying to attempt to repair this article by ensuring that each and every entry is supported by reliable sources. That's a good thing. That the article remains a list of poorly substantiated opinions is a bad thing.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree that being in the "weird news" or "oddities" as it is called by the Associated Press would be a de facto reason for inclusion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with this notion. Calling something by the AP, a primary source, de facto evidence of weirdness is exactly the wrong way to proceed with this article. See much debate above regarding sourcing. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Associated Press is not a primary source. The documents that they collect and whatever video they collect without adding any voice-over narration are the primary sources that they use to synthesize a story. In that respect, the Associated Press is no different than the New York Times, and both sell their articles to other outlets for a price. Both are reporters taking primary material and analyzing, condensing it, putting it in chronological order, and converting it into a narrative. The Pulitzer Prize does not go to primary sources.
 * Kww, there is no reason not to discuss it here, where those concerned with the article will see it and might actually participate.  D r e a m Focus  07:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that you'd have to clarify in the advice at the top of the article that a suitable "RS" would have to exhibit expertise in the analysis of mortality rates. Um, how many of those expert sources are there in the public domain, by the way? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I dont know. I have been asking for those who say the article is appropriate subject that is widely covered to provide some experts -and none have yet been produced. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Very few. That's why it's very difficult to have a policy-compliant list of unusual deaths.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Are there any that fit your requirements? Why not list them at the top of the article? Do they all support the "handful" of cases you promised us? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Being somewhat flexible, I won't argue with cases where people can find multiple major news outlets or academic sources that directly describe the death as unusual (or a reasonable synonym thereof). The essential problem with this topic is that there are no reliable sources to draw on for the general case, only "Ripley's Believe It or Not" class books. I have made no promises that there will be a handful of cases left when the process of repairing this article is over, that's an obviously informal estimate. There may be as few as zero. The first pass is getting rid of the obviously inappropriate material, such as the case we are discussing here: a "news of the weird" column in the Huffington Post isn't a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. That getting rid of the obvious cases takes so long is disheartening, and demonstrates that the deletion arguments were correct: even if this article can be repaired in theory, in practice there are too many editors that won't follow sourcing policies for ths article to be anything but a source of conflict for years to come.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it demonstrates nothing of the sort. And I'm not sure there are any "obvious cases" to get rid of, only questions of how to provide more appropriate sources. But flexibility can be a very good way to avoid conflict, especially years of it, I'd suggest. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This particular case of a Huffington Post "weird news" column is an obvious case of bad sourcing. I don't see why anyone would defend it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm talking about "unusual death" = a case, "supporting reports" = source(s). And I'm sure it's very easy to find less reputable sources than the "Wierd" column at Huff Post - why, some might even suggest malmesbury.com, lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So, Kww, you actually admit you are trying to delete the article by this method? Tolerate some entries now, while eliminating most of them, then get rid of the rest later on as well? Just keep thinning it out until nothing is left? Good way to game the system.  D r e a m Focus  14:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not an "admission", DF. When people go too quickly, people argue that people that want to retain material don't have time to respond or research. I'm giving you time to respond and research. If you see an item with a dubious source and can find a few reliable sources to support its characterization as "unusual", go ahead. The fact that there aren't reliable sources that characterize deaths as "unusual" means that you probably won't succeed, but feel free to surprise me.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, how much time are you giving "us"? What does policy say about that? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say that the time limit expired somewhere before the seventh AFD based on the chronic presence of poorly sourced material. Poorly sourced material that remains is certainly living on borrowed time.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

skype-my-rope.com
Where is the evidence that suicide broadcast live on the internet is "commonplace"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Suicide by hanging is common. Just because he had his webcam on, doesn't mean he died in an unusual way.Czolgolz (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The circumstances contribute to the unusualness. I think this was a deliberate and planned aspect of the act, not just coincidence. Although coincidental webcamming might have made it more unusual. The point is that the removal of any item from the list should be because "no WP:RS source describes it as unusual", not because of the personal opinion of a single editor who provides no evidence to support his or her view. If there is doubt over the reliability of a source, the case can be moved to the holding pen until a suitable source can be found. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree completely with Martinevans123. Sticking to sources is the only way out of WP:OR.-- cyclopia speak! 21:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * this illustrates the problem here. If two sources describe it as unusual, and 20 sources fail to use such a word, just noting it as another death, why would we then consider that death unusual? The criteria proposed are terrible, we need another RFC to get better criteria. I think it should be a combination of academic and news sources, that would serve as a much stronger filter.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we usually second-guess sources who do not say something as sources against that something? Do we ask for every source to say everything possible about the given topic? -- cyclopia speak! 21:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE yes, we do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Um no, we don't. UNDUE has nothing to do with what we're talking about. We're not talking about a minority viewpoint in the context of a larger topic -it's not like there is a controversy between people thinking "this is mundane" vs "this is weird" (except on this very talk page, I'd say). If there were sources saying "this is a very mundane death" vs "this is an odd one" explicitly, then you'd have a point. But in general here some sources simply do not make a judgement on the issue of unusualness, and some do. Just like not all sources about Britain will discuss all aspects of Britain. -- cyclopia speak! 21:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why any source would report "just another death", unless it was in "Births, Marriages and Deaths" section. The issue as I see it is that news sources report unusual deaths all the time, but don't see the need to insult their readers by using the word "unusual". It's just obvious that it's noteworthy ... because it's unusual - why else bother to report it! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * yeah, great idea- lets just list all deaths reported in newspapers, that should be a nice, short, maintainable article. When we have sources, academic, professional sources that understand and study death statistics, telling us that several thousand people are killed every year by lightning, I don't think it's OR to downplay some small-town rag's claim of an unusual lightning death. This is the essence of WP:RS and WP:undue - by prioritizing and accepting a claim of unusualness from non-specialists, and then ignoring copious other research in scientific sources which disputes the claim of the unusualness of that particular way of dying, this is abuse of sources.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you've missed my point. I wasn't actually suggesting that. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC) p.s. this is "List of unusual deaths" not "List of unusual ways of dying". Where is this "copious other research" in relation to just these two particular cases? hmm, some small-town's rag, yes?
 * Triage is what you need to be thinking about, Obi-Wan Kenobi. Even if you think the material is problematic, if people can find two sources from things we would generally treat as reliable, it isn't the worst material in the article. Focus on items that haven't got any decent sources first. When those are gone or repaired, then it's time to look at the items with only one decent source and see if there's a second or if that one source is truly a voice in the wilderness. If this were a short list of things with a couple of reliable sources each, that may be the best result achievable under our policies.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Team lightning strikes (missing those moving goalposts)
Where is the evidence that lighting strikes which kill an entire football team are "commonplace"? (even in Africa?) Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Find reliable sources that describe it as unusual. Discussion of whether it is commonplace or not is irrelevant.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "take it to the talk page, lightning strikes and public suicide are not unusual, or even uncommon". Some sources: - "freak blast of lightning", "10 Bizarre Stories of Lightning Strikes", "truly freak blast of lightning" Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are numerous cases of entire golfing foursomes being struck by lightning. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia's own Lightning strike article, "An estimated 24,000 people are killed by lightning strikes around the world each year and about 240,000 are injured." Abductive  (reasoning) 08:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * .. and killed? Where are they? How many is "numerous"? Enough to make it commonplace? But even comparing numbers sounds like a bit like WP:OR to me. I think we should simply stick to sources. This was an entire football team all at once. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "A bit like?" They should teach this in classes on WP:OR. -- cyclopia speak! 09:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A quarter of a million people per year. That's common. No OR there. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But we use sources that describe an event as "unusual", not comparative statistics. But what's the source for 250,000 deaths from lightening strikes every year? And does the source tell us how many of those were footballers in teh same team all playing a game? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Names of "experts"
Naming people other than the victim inline clutters up the article. This is a separate issue from the ongoing debate over what constitutes a valid unusual death. The ref is there for people who want to learn more. Users who put such information inline are using Argument from authority to attempt to bolster the validity of a particular entry. Abductive (reasoning) 09:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The opinion of an expert is wholly relevant to establishing a death as "unusual" and the name and institution of that expert, who is quoted verbatim in the report, is also entirely relevant. It is the norm to attribute quotes in wikipedia articles. Such information is not "clutter". You've now removed this three times without any Talk Page consensus to do so. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC) p.s. and why do you put "expert" in quotes - are you actually challenging this man's credentials? on what evidence?
 * This has nothing to do with talk page consensus and everything to do with you reverting every edit I make, and generating an excuse afterwards. My argument is based on sound reasoning. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But I have not "reverted every edit you have made". I've replaced material that you have removed without any discussion. Please don't accuse me of "inventing excuses afterwards." We don't add or remove items here based on "your reasoning", whether that happens to be sound or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Martin, unless there are multiple reliable sources describing the death as unusual, Abductive is well within his rights to remove the material. There is no requirement to discuss prior to removal, and, with a list that is in as bad of shape as this one, it's safe to make the presumption that the removal is justified unless you can provide that second source.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * K, I thought you had just pledged to give other editors "time" to find, or at least look for, additional sources? My principal objection was to the personal opinions, presented as valid reasons by Abductive, in his edit summaries. But we were dicussing the names of experts here, not whether a case is supported by multiple sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The speed at which Abductive proceeds is of his own choosing. I have been proceeding slowly, and plan on continuing to do so. I'm simply saying that with a solitary source, there's nothing preventing him from removing something. If he begins to remove things with multiple reliable sources, I will object.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your cautious approach is to be heartily welcomed. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Holiday moratorium on edits
Could I suggest a holiday moratorium on edits? It's obvious that there is no clear agreement on inclusion criteria, so let's spend time here, lay out all the options, and come to consensus. How many sources, of that type, using what adjectives, and can we use other (academic) sources to dispute claims of "unusualness" of a death per WP:UNDUE and WP:RS. The constant edit warring isn't helping anything.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Rather depends on the unusual yuletide tally, I'm afraid. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Man run over on freeway
According to one user, a man getting run over on an Interstate is somehow unusual. In this user's twisted, revert-every-edit-Abuctive-tries-to-make reasoning, this makes sense. Does any secondary source think a man getting struck by vehicles on the freeway is unusual? No. Pathetic. Abductive (reasoning) 10:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a general consensus here that the criterion for inclusion is the death being described as unusual, or similar, in a WP:RS. Items should be niether added nor removed on the basis of personal opinion - whether you think personally it's "pathetic" or not. And please don't accuse me, in your edit summaries, of "reverting everything you do" and engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * uhh, no. meeting WP:RS is the MINIMAL requirement. Per policy V. A single source that happens to call a freeway death "unusual" is giving that perspective WP:UNDUE weight in the clear evidence of how common such deaths are. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Even "clear evidence" of how common freeway deaths are may not necessarily address particular aspects which make an individual death unusual or unique. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * every death is "unique" - all you have to do is place enough qualifiers - he was the only man hit by a red ford with the license plate CV3 YY3 on a Tuesday afternoon in December at the corner of Maple and 163rd. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So every death is unsual? Some "qualifiers" will be more significantly unusual than others. The general point is that statistical rates of mortality, based on "type" or "medical cause" of death, will not address the circumstances or the situation. News sources do not typically report road deaths because of the licence plate of the vehicle involved. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are proving TRPoD's point. Every death is unique: there's something about it that makes it the only one of its kind. That means that being unique is not evidence for being unusual.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What utter sophist nonsense. You argue tooth and nail that nothing is "unusual", despite sources describing it as such, but then you pull a self-serving rabbit out of a hat by happily describing every one as axiomatically "unique". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems quite a paradox. I think it depends on what you mean by "its kind". But if you think I am proving any of RedPen's points, feel free to ignore what I just said. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that this one primary source is just that; a single primary source. The source has been challenged by some editors, and no secondary source can be found which says the death was unusual. Contrast that with a death I am not sure really happened, but would be a good one to include on this list if it did; a zookeeper was giving an elderly elephant an enema when the elephant let go with a huge amount of feces, knocking the zookeeper down on the concrete floor and into unconsciousness. Buried under the elephant poop, he suffocated. Such a death would doubtless have many sources, some of which analyzed the event and its rarity, and would be a slam dunk on this list. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Such a relief that you're imagining an elephant and not a bull. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Cupboard death
Neither source provided in the recent cupboard death is (A.) secondary and (B.) opining that the death was unusual. Rather, they quote somebody as thinking he was robbed and forced into the cupboard, and another person saying the death was due to a bizarre accident. This does not rise to the level required by WP:PSTS. Abductive (reasoning) 09:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should the source be secondary, and why doesn't it meet PSTS? Because reading that policy, it seems A-OK with the edit.-- cyclopia speak! 10:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that no newspaper reports can ever be used as they are always "primary sources"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that reasoning presses a bit too far for now, Abductive. Technically, you are right: the average newspaper doesn't have the expertise to produce a report labeling a a death as unusual. In practice, the agreement has been to require multiple such sources. It's an imperfect criteria, but causes less turmoil.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * .. if these discussions go on for much longer, could someone please lock me in a cupboard...? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * the average newspaper doesn't have the expertise to produce a report labeling a a death as unusual. - Given that newspaper report deaths and incidents on a daily basis, I'd say they're extremly qualified to decide what is unusual and what is not.-- cyclopia speak! 16:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * the average newspaper is reporting on daily news and not on the global history of the world. They do not have expertise on the subject of this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Good faith
I can only speak for myself, of course, but let me just state this; I strongly believe in this list and have no intention of ever allowing it to be deleted. My concern is only for it to be well curated. I feel that for this list to be encyclopedic, it must abide by the same rules as all other Wikipedia articles, including:


 * 1) WP:Verifiability
 * 2) WP:Reliable sources
 * 3) WP:Primary Secondary and Tertiary Sources

Specifically, Wikipedia articles are required to have multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources for every single fact that is challenged. What I and other editors here have been doing is challenging the primary sources (chiefly newspaper articles) used in this list. Therefore, the onus falls on the editors who want to include a particular listing to come up with multiple independent secondary sources for each listing that analyze the death and why (or how) it is unusual. There are such sources; a while ago on this talk page I mentioned The Book of Lists (a tertiary source) which has list(s) of unusual deaths. There are many other curated collections of such lists in print, online and on TV (1000 Ways to Die). It would be best if this list confined itself to those unusual deaths that appear in more than one of these sources. Abductive (reasoning) 19:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are required to have multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources for every single fact that is challenged. - Challenged by another source - yes, absolutely. Challenged by your own personal opinions - no, not at all. Between a source and original research, the source has the upper hand.-- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 21:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, challenged by any editor. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you quote such policy? WP:CHALLENGED says nothing like that. Unsourced stuff needs a source and can be removed/challenged by any editor. Sourced stuff, even to a primary, cannot be removed just because a random editor challenges it. -- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 14:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * V, WP:UNDUE, OR "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research" - is that "policy" enough for you? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If a source says that a death was "unusual", I'd say it was "directly and explicitly supporting" the notion that it was unusual. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The context for our article is " This list includes unique or extremely rare circumstances of death recorded throughout history" - most journalists writing for their local paper are most certainly NOT assessing the death as "unusual" in that context. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought that we couldn't use reports in "local papers" anyway because they would be primary sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Any editor has the right to assert that a given statement supported by a single source is incorrect. All sources make mistakes, and we aren't slaves to those mistakes. That's the general case. An inclusion criterion for this particular list is multiple sources that describe the death as unusual or some synonym thereof. Removal of an item credited to a single source is simply removing material that doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. As always, the fix is simple: find a second, reliable source that describes the death as unusual or some reasonable synonym thereof. If not, leave it out. If you are unable to find a second source that describes it as "unusual", the person that removed it is nearly certainly right to have done so.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it nearly certainly depend on what that source is? e.g. The I-Spy Book of Usual Deaths etc., Or are we saying that all WP:RS sources are equally good (or bad)? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * When there's only one source in existence, it's still an aberration and can be left out simply for not meeting the inclusion criteria. It's only when there are multiple sources describing something as "unusual" that the reliability needs to be carefully examined and at least two reliable sources found.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? I think there may be one or two claims in other articles that are supported by only single specialist RS sources? Or are these all "aberrations" that can be left out? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE when challenged that a single Joe Yahoo reporter's opinion is what is determining the status "unusual death" multiple sources will be required. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So how come we have three monkeys here?! That seems quite surreal to me. What a shame captions aren't allowed. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Nitaro Ito
"1979: Nitaro Ito, a candidate for Japan's House of Representatives, died in an attempt to gain sympathy during his election campaign. Having persuaded one of his employees to punch him in the face, Ito then stabbed himself in the leg. He hit an artery causing him to bleed to death before any aid could be given." This death was sourced to "Book of Lists". Is this a RS source or not? Does it says death was unusual? Can more details be provided, e.g. page number. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * its likely to be this. If it is considered a reliable source, we will need to remove the "deaths from laughing" from the article as this book has a list of 15 people who died from laughing countering any claims that it is in fact anything close to unique. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not the "List of close-to-unique deaths". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

BBC list of unusual Victorian deaths
The BBC published this list of unusual deaths. Some are already incorporated in this list here. Do the ones that don't need additional citations? - 1Veertje (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The BBC seems like one of the best possible sources, doesn't it. But yes, we are supposed to provide "multiple WP:RS sources". Otherwise they could go to the holding area until a second one is found. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Number 4 seems like a simple case of compulsive eating. Maybe I watch too much television but the only unusual part seems to be that the patient was able to keep the compulsion hidden. -1Veertje (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We have to keep our own (common)sense to ourselves, I'm afraid. If the source says it's unusual then, as far as this article in concerned, it is. Although the expected retort here will probably be something along the lines of "this article is not called "List of unusual Victorian deaths". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That is just plain hogwash. The content in the article cannot be our opinions and must be identified as unusual by the source per WP:V and WP:OR, but we certainly can -and in fact MUST - use our observations and intelligence when applying other content policies such as WP:UNDUE and V -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

While the BBC is in general one of the most reliable sources, that does not guarantee that all BBC stories are reliable. In this case they do not seem to be putting any of their investigative or analytical powers behind the story. It is a fluff piece in which they are merely reprinting stories that appeared in the papers of the time, and as we know, not every newspaper is an actual reliable source. There are many of these that are questionable and have all the hallmarks of good ol' urban legends stamped all over them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Hogwash"? I thought I had seen the BBC used as a source in other articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:SOUP much? not read policies WP:UNDUE and V much? WP:TE much? --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, of course. Must be Hog soup? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WW1
what about Henry Gunther. he charged against a german machine gun position 60s before the armistice came into affect at 11am. the german soldiers tried to wave him off but he had other things in mind and got killed. last soldier who died in WW1 and what stupid story.
 * we would need reliably published sources which specifically identify the death as "unusual" or "bizarre" or similar so that it is not simply Wikipedia editors opinions that it is an unusual death. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

New source of unusual deaths
This article over at the BBC is a gem. "10 truly bizarre Victorian deaths"
 * 1) Man dies from eating a surprised mouse which eats his guts.
 * 2) Man dies from alarm clock.
 * 3) Pall bearer dies when coffin is dropped on him.
 * 4) Hair ingestion.
 * 5) Mob murders marauding mummy.
 * 6) Scaredy cat scratch fever.
 * 7) Modesty is the death of drunken sailor.
 * 8) Four reasons not to own a bear given to drink.
 * 9) Laugh it up, laugh it off.
 * 10) All bets are off.

I think 1,2,5,6,8 are interesting and candidates for our prestigious list. #7 is a bit of a stretch for inclusion due to the proximate cause of death, but it bears consideration. Any one have some comments on these? #2, #4, and #10 seem to be more along the lines of a Darwin award. I like to saw logs! (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I like to saw logs!, useful to see what's in the list. We could have discussed the items individually. Perhaps you could copy the list and comments into the other thread? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

i think there all unusual and BBC said its unusual also its an reliable source. FYI im the guy who actually submitted 3 of the 10 victorian deaths.Also how is unusual deaths "prestigious". Smelly Cat' 10:23, 10th Janurary 2013. —Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Only 1,4,5,8,9 are unusual, the rest arent amusing or happended too often to be unusual. Smelly Cat —Preceding undated comment added 15:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Rasputin?
What about Rasputin? His death was pretty notable and unusual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.206.240.131 (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Heart attacks are not unusual
Heart attacks are not unusual, they are one of the leading causes of death. Heart attacks in public places or at special events are not unusual either happening hundreds of times every year. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It would be sheer WP:OR to claim that. As you are so incessantly fond of repeating, we rely on secondary sources, not OR. Your insistence that if being killed by zombie aliens isn't unusual because a source only used the term "fantastically bizarre" in reference to it is also an insistence that if a source describes some particular heart attack as "unusual", then we also treat it as unusual. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My dear Andy, I am, as the policy states, opposed to article content being based upon WP:OR ("Wikipedia articles must not contain original research."). And if you really dont think deaths from heart attack are common, you really should not be editing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What edit are we talking about? -- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 15:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to be suggesting that the relevant prevalence of the medically-defined cause of death is a valid, perhaps the only valid, criterion in assessing the "unusualness" of a death. Most people would argue, I think, that circumstances can play a significant role in any assessment. But, putting this entirely aside, I thought the criterion agreed on for this article was that secondary sources should describe the death as unusual or some synonym of this word. Medically-defined cause of death is thus, surely, irrelevant? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your claim "Heart attacks are not unusual" (which although seemingly uncontroversial in general, you're actually extrapolating here to mean "All heart attacks (with no exceptions) are not unusual" is the part that's OR.
 * Of course heart attacks are common. However some are unusual, for some unusual reason. When such heart attacks are described in RS as unusual, then we either thus treat them as unusual, or we indulge your unsupported OR here in that "All heart attacks" are commonplace. You can't have it both ways: your regular claim is that only slavish and literal interpretation of a source is accepted (to the point that "bizarre" is not considered a synonym for "unusual"). If you enforce that literal a following of sources, then when a RS calls a heart attack "unusual", then we also have to consider it as unusual. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not "attempting to have it both ways". I am not attempting to insert into the article my obvious, though currently uncited, claim that heart attacks are not unusual. The insertion of article content based on WP:OR is  what is prohibited  by the policy. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you are using your own OR to justify removing death described as unusual, based on your own belief that "all heart attacks are usual" thus none are, or can be, unusual, even when stated as such by RS. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is one of the most grotesque cases of wikilawyering I've ever seen. Overriding RS with your own OR is almost as bad as adding such OR yourself. What if I removed that Earth is round from articles, just because I believe it is not, and I justified it as "well, I can remove stuff based on OR"? I doubt I'd last five seconds. -- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 21:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a case of "live by the sword, die by the sword". I will say, though, that very few reliable sources would classify a heart attack as unusual, and, if someone linked to something that did describe a heart attack as unusual a trip to WP:RSN would be in order to see if a broader audience believed that the source actually was reliable in the context of categorizing deaths.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly which death, or deaths, are in dispute here? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Roopkund
I was just wondering whether anyone else thinks that TheRedPenOfDoom might have been a bit heavy-handed to roll back my submission:
 * 850 AD: Roopkund, India: Hundreds of people were struck by an ice storm while in the open but travelling to safety.

After all, the Roopkund article, and the ref, make clear that this was an unusual circumstance (for the people who died), discovered and then much later explained in unusual ways. - Peter Ellis - Talk 00:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It was not a reliable source and the minimal requirements are that multiple reliable sources have identified the death as unusual. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you look at your source, you will see that it credits Wikipedia as a source.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have brought in the references from the Roopkund article. Are they relevant? Presumably. I thought that it was okay to have them at the internally referred article, itself. No? So, I'd now refer to them in the entry. Does that satisfy?- Peter Ellis - Talk 10:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide a pointer to where one of the sources describes the death as "unusual"? Not the circumstances surrounding the death or anything about the history of the investigation, but the deaths themselves.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with these specific sources, so I have no idea if they are reliable sources or not, but a bunch of people getting killed all at once by killer hail stones seems notable and unusual to me. Deaths by hail are rare and a bunch of deaths all at once by hail is beyond rare. The fact that it's being written about by various sources tells me the writers consider it unusual. I think we're being overly pedantic if we're requiring that a source use the specific word "unusual". We can glean that from context.Bali88 (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)