Talk:Faked death

Sounds strange

"uncovered after she claimed to have died during the COVID-19 pandemic."

I know what this phrase is trying to say but it reads oddly. Someone else could have claimed that she died, or she could have faked her own death but suggesting she, herself, claimed to have died just sounds wrong somehow.

Anyone have a problem if I change it to "faked her own death"?

46.227.49.108 (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Go for it! Making things clearer and not worse is always a good idea. DMacks (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, done. (My first ever edit to a Wikipedia article!) 46.227.49.108 (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution. DMacks (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Query

Hello, I was just wondering if the list this article contains is only for individuals found to have faked their own death. I just came across two articles about ex-CIA operatives who went "rogue" who are accused of faking their own death so I came to this article but I'm guessing that it is not for cases where it is just suspected that someone faked their death. Does that sound accurate? I don't see any hidden notes that provide a guideline for whom to include. Thanks for any clarity you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Liz, I don't see anything like that in the article, unless you think it could fall into the Faked death#Conspiracy theories and false speculation section. I don't think that has been discussed before. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Misleading

Many of these "notable deaths" read X faked his death in ____. In reality he died in ____. This implies the deception was not uncovered until the person's death, when really virtually all of these people were uncovered shortly after their attempted fakery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.83.158 (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that saying when they faked it and when they actually died implies that the fake was discovered on the later date. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Understandable representation of statistics?

"While some people fake their deaths as a prank or self-promotion effort, or to get a clean start, the most common motivations are money or a need to escape an abusive relationship. Men are more likely to fake their deaths than women.: 126–128, 213 " Women are overwhelmingly the victims in abusive relationships. I feel the wording of this elevates the perception of domestic abuse. First sentence says escape of an abusive relationship is a main cause. next sentence, men are more likely to take their deaths. I think this leads the reader to think domestic abuse is higher than it is where men are the victims 2A00:23C8:9607:D301:821:F794:2CF6:B0DF (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting observation! I wonder if solving it could be as simple as adding some further transition or break between the two sentences. For example:

"While some people fake their deaths as a prank or self-promotion effort, or to get a clean start, the most common motivations are money or a need to escape an abusive relationship.[refs here for that detail] Men are more likely to fake their deaths than women.[refs here for this detail]"

makes it look like two more-distinct items. Or:

"While some people fake their deaths as a prank or self-promotion effort, or to get a clean start, the most common motivations are money or a need to escape an abusive relationship. In terms of gender, men are more likely to fake their deaths than women.: 126–128, 213 "

to give a separate introduction for the second fact. DMacks (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

If memory serves, money is the most common cause, and abuse is significantly less common – though still significant – motivation. If 10 men do this for financial reasons and three women do this for safety reasons, then we still end up with money being the most common cause and men being the most likely gender. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)