Talk:List of unusual deaths/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Cody Porter

I wasn't feeling too strongly about this entry, but I thought I'd give it a fair shake. It still nags at me however, that it does seem somewhat "unusual", but at the same time it doesn't. Such is the crux of the problem with this article, eh? Another article on Deaths resulting from people trying to emulate TV/movie characters? That might be quite interesting and could serve as a poignant commentary on the influence of media. --JeffJ (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we include these guys?

Should we include this guy? At least as one of the deaths just in bold that is, no link to an article. Or is his death just seem unusual because he was a hyprocrite? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There's also this guy, killed by one of his own booby traps. At least, he could be included at List of inventors killed by their own inventions. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Autoerotic asphyxiation is not unusual. The booby trap man has been here before and was removed (several times I think). It sounds pretty weird to me... what to others think? NJGW (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If the booby trap guy has been added and removed several times, I'd hesitate to add him then. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Interesting, and (to me) unusual. But I'm sure that there have been others that dies from their own booby-traps (I can recall a case of 2 brothers in the 40's, I think, where one died after being crushed by a booby-trap). I like the inventor/invention angle. I don't want to see Wikipedia turn tabloid, but some of this stuff really gives a unique glimpse into people's souls. --JeffJ (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

1,000 Ways to Die

I caught an episode of a show on Spike TV called 1000 Ways to Die, and Garry Hoy's death was depicted (although the circumstances of the event were somewhat fictionalized and his name was removed). I don't care enough about the show or unusual deaths to do the appropriate research, but a few things come to mind:

• Those with interest in this article may want to take a look at the show and its Wikipedia entry to improve it and verify the factual accuracy of the show. Some of the events seemed like urban legend, although this may be due to the comedic and sexualized nature of the retelling of the events.
• Some of the deaths depicted on the show, if they can be verified, should be added to this article.
• If the deaths of an individual have been depicted on the show, as in the case of Garry Hoy, the reference should be added to any existing articles about that individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.221.66.27 (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

These really don't belong...

The following are really unnecessary:

1956: Nina Hamnett - other people have fallen out of windows.
1960: Inejiro Asanuma - traditional Japanese assassination, the only unusual thing is that there's a photo of the exact moment he's stabbed.
1974: Deborah Gail Stone - ??? not unusual at all. Accidental, not unusual.
1981: Kenji Urada - isn't this just an industrial accident?
1982: Vladimir Smirnov - accidental is not unusual.. plus its happened before.. 1559: King Henry II
1983: Sergei Chalibashvili - not anything unique
1987: Budd Dwyer - it was a famous event, but not unusual.
1992: Christopher McCandless - starving in the wild is far from unusual. Donner party ring a bell?
1998: Tom and Eileen Lonergan - being abandoned by accident has happened before.
1998: Daniel V. Jones - not unusual. Is it on the list because it was televised?
2000: Jonathan Burton - mobs have done worse.
2002: Brittanie Cecil - happened before, will happen again.
2003: Doug McKay - pretty simple accident, could've been avoided if he stopped to think.
2003: Brandon Vedas - the webcam didn't contribute to the death.. so he's not special really.
2007: Kevin Whitrick - same as the guy above. (Having both of these on the list makes both even less unusual.)

Sirpent (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that a number of these don't belong simply because they are not unique, which isn't really rationale for not including them. It's not a 'list of unique deaths'. All of the televised/publicly-broadcast deaths are unusual because it is simply not usual that people commit suicide/are assassinated on live TV. As for the Jonathan Burton one - "mobs have done worse"? I'm sure mobs have done worse than a lot of the deaths listed here. Julianhall (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Aeschylus

Objects falling from the sky kill people with relative frequency, but that aside, Encyclopedia Britannica states: "A ludicrous story that he was killed when an eagle dropped a tortoise on his bald pate was presumably fabricated by a later comic writer." - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/7413/Aeschylus

Microsoft's Encarta list details of his death but makes no mention of a tortoise or any other object falling on his head: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761555605/aeschylus.html

Older texts might repeat the tortoise and eagle story, but as the above, modern, references show, this legend has been debunked. --JeffJ (talk) 05:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

well, technically, they don't 'debunk' it. britannica merely states that it was "presumably fabricated", and encarta simply doesn't mention it. and the reality is, events that happened ~2500 years ago are damnably hard to verify or debunk. but since this article barely meets wikipedia standards to even exist, hardly worth bickering over...Anastrophe (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to argue semantics. But at the very least, we should avoid perpetuating dubious myths and legends, particularly in an article that, as you put it, "barely meets wikipedia standards". I would have been willing to leave the entry with a caveat about the authenticity of the legend, but I couldn't find one modern source that even considered it. --JeffJ (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Death of James Mason (2008)

Jc128842, why do you insist on stating the birth name of Mason's killer? Whatever404 (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it again because it's not relevant in this article. These items have to be kept as short as possible because there are so many of them - if people want more details, they can go to the full article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I insist on including the birth name, just as I would include an alias. If this incident or the people involved had their own article, then a reader could read further details there. As there is no main article, I believe that would should at least include the killer's alias. --JeffJ (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

They can read further details at the source. It's not relevant - we're not making a newspaper-of-record account here, just informing readers of an unusual reason for death. Similarly, we don't give their ages, nationalities, or details about their marriage, which is material that would be part of a full article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to pick fight, but there are numerous entries listing ages, nationalities, etc. --JeffJ (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to pare down all of the entries, removing extraneous details and focusing mainly on the unusual death in each case. That would improve readability, in my opinion. Whatever404 (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ages and nationalities weren't a very good examples for me to use, were they? They are reasonable information to include in some items (e.g., if the age is part of what's unusual).

But you're right, many of the entries need to be trimmed. I've been playing with this article for several years, and I bet 95% of the edits I've made involved removing extraneous information.

The goal of this article, I think most people agree, is to pique interest by giving a very quick summary (just one sentence if possible) of what made the particular death unusual, with a source and at least one wiki-linked term to find out more. Any other information iisn't needed here, although it's probably relevant elsewhere, because of the huge number of listings. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we need to keep things lean, but some entries don't have main articles and I don't think we should rely on external links too much. Theoretically, all Wikipedia articles could be pared down to a few lines and their external links. Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but rather make the point that it's a double-edged sword... What is too much, and what is too little? --JeffJ (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(un-indenting for readability) "What is too much and what is too little" is one of the main discussion points in all of wikipedia! Obviously it's a judgment call - especially in an article like this, which many people think is iffy in the first place. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

La Mettrie (1751)

The entry for Julien Offray de La Mettrie states: 1751: Julien Offray de La Mettrie, the author of L'Homme machine, a major materialist and sensualist philosopher died of overeating at a feast given in his honor. His philosophical adversaries suggested that by doing so, he had contradicted his theoretical doctrine with the effect of his practical actions.[31]

The source that is cited states: With an irony La Mettrie would have enjoyed, his death was early and unexpected. He was at the home of a friend in Berlin, asked there as a physician. Having eaten abundantly from an elaborate but spoiled pâté, he died of food poisoning on Nov. 11, 1751.

In the absence of a citation of an unusual death, should La Mettrie be removed from this article? Rick (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

List of extraordinary diseases and conditions, an article that was created by inspiration from this one, has been tagged for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of extraordinary diseases and conditions). Feel welcome to give comments and suggestions, because the main reason is basically the same as for this article: Lack of proper definition of what really is unusual, and therefore what to include or not, as well as making inclusions verifiable and without original research. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It survived the AfD, but is still in need for improvement, so further suggestions are very appreciated. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Titus' Flea

Emperor Titus of Rome was supposedly killed by an insect who flew into his nose. It may be exaggerated or false, but several of the others from the antiquity section are similarly apocryphal. Should it be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.122.209.93 (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Lul, who says Wikipedia can´t be fun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.66.254 (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, apocryphals are allowed. Sorta. Useful if you provide some kind of source (ref) though.

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( _t / _c) 05:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Death of Tim McLean

I added this, but apparently it was removed. I think the removal was wrong because it was a very unusual death in that it was spontaneous and without any apparent provocation. Teabeard (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's actually not that unusual for a person to be stabbed to death without provocation. Google "unprovoked attack" + stabbed and you get over 15,000 hits, although some will obviously be duplicates. --JeffJ (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It is also unusual because the victim's body was horribly mutilated and decapitated and apparently cannibalized to some extent. Does this happen often in unprovoked attacks on strangers? --Teabeard (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Often enough that it doesn't belong on this list. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, Teabeard, but the sticking point is that the victim died from the stabbing and everything else (though noteworthy) happened postmortem. There are plenty of cases of postmortem dismemberment or cannibalism and the article would soon be flooded. I would push for inclusion if the death was caused by the decapitation alone. --JeffJ (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The question "if an interesting thing happens to the body right after a not-overly-unusual death, does that make it an interesting death?" is one that has been debated often as part of this much-debated article. There's no clear consensus. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the cannibalism could play into the death if that was the motive. In other words, the victim was killed because the attacker was suddenly hungry and acted impulsively (as opposed to a premeditated, Jeffrey Dahlmer kind of killing). THAT would certainly be unusual. --JeffJ (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The motive seems to be that the killer heard a voice or voices telling him McLean was evil and was going to kill him, and that he mutilated the body because he somehow believed that McLean would have the ability to come back to life. Wouldn't you say this is a very unusual motive, right up there with cannibalism?

I think it is also noteworthy in that the victim was half asleep at the time and listening to music through his headphones and was spontaneously being stabbed by the person next to him. It is very unexpected, and I suppose a case can be made for it being notable in that it happened on a bus on a road in the middle of nowhere and brought greater attention to security on these greyhound buses. So there are quite a few reasons why this crime sticks out to me and I would even go as far as to argue it deserves to be included over some of the others currently on the list... Face it guys, if this crime weren't noteworthy it wouldn't have a Wikipedia article on it, but it does. I hear of crimes on the news every single day, but this one stands out to me. --75.128.92.14 (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Remember, this isn't a list of notable deaths, it's a list of unusual deaths. There are murders and mutilations by deranged people in the news far too often. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely not an appropriate article for WP

I really cannot believe that anyone thinks this can pass muster as a WP article. lists need inclusion criteria that are objective. a list of first deaths, ie the first time someone died in a certain way, would have objective criteria, but most deaths are actually caused by cardiac arrest, and the definition of a death which makes it a "first" would still be subjective. unique circumstances around peoples deaths might work: but every death is unique in some way. if there was a newspaper, magazine, or book which listed unusual deaths, we could summarize the contents here. this is essentially a multiauthor original essay in list form. why it could pass deletion test 5 times is beyond me. Now, for the first time, im doubting the ability of WP to rise above mere trivia. I think if articles like this persist we are going to end up as another Tragedy of the commons. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This article has survived six AfDs. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, a large number of editors feel otherwise. If you have become this disheartened with Wikipedia, you can also continue the never-ending struggle to find a better website.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

"... doubting the ability of WP to rise above mere trivia" - that was a reasonable comment four or five years ago, but these days it's kind of silly, as if (for example) the thousands of detailed mathematics articles are somehow tainted by existence of one or more unrelated silly WP articles. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to apologize for my comment, as i realized later that it assumes bad faith or incompetence on the part of any editors who have worked on this article. i still feel strongly that lists with subjective inclusion criteria, like the recently deleted lists of films and other projects in Development hell, are problematic. however, this article is perfectly sourced, and the deaths are unusual by most peoples standards, so this is light years beyond those other lists. the information here is very interesting, well written. i will NOT be proposing deletion for this article, and wasnt even intending it when i posted the above comments. I was mostly trying to articulate my concerns about the selection criteria for lists, which is actually always somewhat problematic unless the list has a precisely, probably only mathematically defined criteria for inclusion. so my sincere apologies for any and all editors to this article that have striven for well referenced items. and i can live with articles that arent up to my standards.(thats heavy sarcasm directed at myself. if i cant be happy until everyone and everything other than me is exactly the way i want it, then i will never be happy. and i guess id rather be happy than right, at least on balance. (or both)). thanks Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a labour of love.  :-) --JeffJ (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Unless this article is complete (which it currently isn't even close to) it is ridiculous (and I agree inappropriate) for Wikipedia to have. There are so many missed incidents that it leaves this article as highly irregular to be included as an "encyclopaedia" entry... Stevenmitchell (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Snore. --JeffJ (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

So mostly the article is inappropiate for inclusion because the term unusual is vague / the article has an incomplete list template, right? Just making sure.

This list would be a lot longer, but IPs keep on forgetting to include sources (searching through the history, quite a lot were factual, or have sources when googled..). But articles shouldn't be considered inappropiate because they're incomplete (there are quite a few, as can be seen here).

±µŒ ¤₦€ ₮ł-łË \/ʉ₦฿ʉ£§ ₣ÆÅ₩ ( _₮ / _©) 00:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Posthumous execution

I don't know if this is worth adding to the "see also" links ... I ran across it while looking up Oliver Cromwell. It seems in the olden days people would be so angry with someone who was executed that they would dig them up and "execute" them again, lol. Here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumous_execution . I am not a regular contributor to your article, so I have not added it. Just posting it here for discussion by people more involved in this article to decide if it's of interest. Tkech (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course that's perfectly appropriate for See also links both ways. Just be bold, the worst thing that can happen is that somebody reverts you. But I think that's extremely unlikely in this case. Hans Adler 21:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Several years of edits have largely agreed that what happens after death is not counted in deciding whether a particular death is unusual enough for this article. Since the whole point of posthumous execution is doing stuff after death, it doesn't seem relevant to this article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

But surely the intent of a posthumous execution is for the subjects to suffer a second, ignominious "death"? I think it is sufficiently relevant for "See also", at least as a last link. Waltham, The Duke of 19:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Unusualness aside, I don't believe that metaphorical deaths belong here. --JeffJ (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

more to the list

this link http://www.neatorama.com/2007/03/12/30-strangest-deaths-in-history/ has more things to the list. it would be cool if someone add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.39.109.16 (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Steve Irwin

I'm thinking the entry should be removed, because while stingray deaths are rare, I don't think they're that unusual (and some entries have been removed for less). Discuss...

±µŒ ¤₦€ ₮ł-łË \/ʉ₦฿ʉ£§ ₣ÆÅ₩ ( _₮ / _©) 03:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll just remove it.

±µŒ ¤₦€ ₮ł-łË \/ʉ₦฿ʉ£§ ₣ÆÅ₩ ( _₮ / _©) 04:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur. A notable and somewhat ironic death, but not unusual for the purposes of this article. --JeffJ (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. He was famous, and from what I understand, stingray deaths in humans are a somehwat rare occurrence. Wikipedia's own article on stingrays comments (I have added the bolding): "Fatal stings are very rare, but can happen, famously including Steve Irwin".98.220.41.194 (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Googling "stingray death" offers very few accounts of deaths, so this may be unusual after all. I would hesitate to quote the Stingray article though; The source that's cited throughout the article (and is listed as a citation on the rarity of deaths) does not provide any more information other than to say that New Zealand has some venomous indigenous animals. The actual journal may offer more, but unless you have a physical copy to peruse any issue of stingray deaths cannot be settled this way. I'm going to try to find an online resource to replace (or supplement) that one. In the meantime, based on a lack of online accounts of stingray deaths, I'm going to change my vote to Keep. Thanks Mysterious Stranger. :-) --JeffJ (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Is death by jumping out of a rollercoaster seat while the rollercoaster is in full swing unusual?

There have been a few reversions regarding this edit. I think that the accident was predictable and not unusual in the least. Any comments would be welcome. Thank you. Dr.K. logos 05:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Lots of acts of stupidity leading to predictable deaths get listed here. Unless you can show that this death is not unusual I don't see why it shouldn't be included.--JeffJ (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I see lots of other acts of stupidity in this article..standing in a bathtub full of water while trying to screw in a lightbulb, heating a lava lamp on a stove, taking a whole bottle of Viagra... I'm just saying. Yes, this girls death was predictable, very stupid, but yet unusual.

Ok. If that's the case let's include it. It's a matter of semantics. Rollercoaster accidents due to various malfunctions are common. Jumping out of your seat in a moving rollercoaster may not be common, and in that sense it could be considered an "unusual" act, but the resulting death is very predictable. This article should be about unusual deaths not unusual acts leading to predictable deaths. Anyway if the consensus is to include this I really don't care. Thanks for your input. Dr.K. logos 06:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The comments of another involved editor are pasted here from my talkpage. Dr.K. logos 06:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

== My contribution to unusual deaths ==

How is the 1995 case of Ryan Bielby at Kansas City's Worlds of Fun not an unusual death? Yes, it was a stupid decision on her part, but there are several stupid decisions in this list. Those that have changed light bulbs while standing in a bathtub of water, heating up a lava lamp on a stove, taking a whole bottle of Viagra don't count as stupidity? But are included in this list because they are unusual? Yet you keep deleting my additions?

Just for general reference (and this isn't directed at anyone in particular) this article is about unusual deaths, not unusual causes of death. The cause of death might be common, but it will be included if the surrounding circumstances make it "unusual". The Viagra death is a good example; Death by deliberate drug overdose is very common, but taking a whole bottle of Viagra to be able to have sex for 12 hours to win a bet is unusual. Similarly, hanging suicides are common, but hanging oneself live on webcam is unusual. For a more philosophical discussion on this article, please read the debates attached to the Nominations for Deletion at the top of this page. --JeffJ (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as somebody who has been involved with this page for many years - and many debates about what belongs - you've just put down an excellent description of how to make that tough call. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I see where you two are coming from, but figured this would make the list. I just hate that I wasted my time researching this and posting this here, only to have it nixed and deleted without any warning or discussion prior to the deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BriGuy1975 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see your point but I left messages in the edit summary, then took it to talk. I think there was a good amount of communication and your edit finally stayed. So the system worked. Also thanks to DavidWBrooks and JeffJ for their great points. Take care. Dr.K. logos 00:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, I'm not sure how to do this, but your list contains a bogus entry: Luigi Greco. It is stated that he died in a flash fire resultant from a spark igniting a kerosene soaked rag. Kersone, with combustion qualities similar to deisel, could not ignite in this matter. In fact, it appears that Luigi Greco is a none-existent person (no record of his mafia in Montreal).

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.245.79 (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Underlying assumptions?

I think we need to define clearly what constitutes an unusual death before proceeding any further with this project. What say you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.156.139 (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been the topic of much discussion in the past (check out some of the delete nominations above) with nothing near consensus, but is always worth considering again. Why don't you start? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

See the previous section. --JeffJ (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Luigi Greco

Uhm, I'm not sure how to do this, but your list contains a bogus entry: Luigi Greco. It is stated that he died in a flash fire resultant from a spark igniting a kerosene soaked rag. Kersone, with combustion qualities similar to deisel, could not ignite in this matter. In fact, it appears that Luigi Greco is a none-existent person (no record of his mafia in Montreal).

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.245.79 (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I found a fair bit of information on Luigi Greco and the Montreal mafia with a Google search: [1] --JeffJ (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Leon Trotsky death (Include?)

Leon Trotsky's death should be included. (discuss) --Zbrahead91 (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? --JeffJ (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Move to 21st or keep on 20th? "*2000: Airline passenger Jonathan Burton stormed the cockpit door of a Southwest Airlines flight from Las Vegas to Salt Lake City. The 19-year-old was subdued by eight other passengers with such force that he died of asphyxiation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbrahead91 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Why move? --JeffJ (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Aeschylus (bird dropping rock/turtle on head, 456 BC)

Here's my (reverted) entry:

• 456 BC: Aeschylus, an ancient Greek playwright, was said to have died as a result of an eagle dropping a turtle onto his bald head. This story, while probably fanciful, is not altogether impossible, as some species of sea-birds do drop bones and turtles onto rocks from great height in order to access the food inside.

The rationale for removing this was that it is probably made up, but after all that is what apocryphal means... I figured it could be considered for inclusion since it is repeated several places in ancient history records? Another comment made was that being killed by a falling object is not unusual, which seems somewhat facetious as you would no doubt include a listing for a victim of a meteorite, fallen aircraft engine or something else equally rare.

Comments welcome, thanks!  :)  • Gliktch •  ^(Talk)  00:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I always thought this was interesting. It stood out to me. If there are verifiable sources, I think it should be left in. Geeky Randy (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but just because it's interesting doesn't mean that it should be included. What you're doing there is essentially synthesis: you're taking two sources - one that says Aeschylus was said to have died a certain way, and one that says that seabirds drop bones - and coming to some conclusion that is not explicitly stated by either source - namely that the death is plausible. Unless you can find a reliable source that states such a position, it can't be included. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

MEOW! Both Gliktch and I seem to agree that there should be verifiable sources before this can be reinserted. Is your two cents that important that you can't agree in a more civilized manner? Thank you for bringing synthesis to our attention, but it appears you're telling us why we can't or why we shouldn't be allowed to instead of how we can or things to avoid/know before reinserting. Geeky Randy (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if my response came off a little bitey, but I really didn't mean it that way. We've had a great deal of issues with references and sourcing on this page, so I'm a little more hesitant when it comes to edits here. In your response you wrote that you thought it should be left in if there are verifiable sources - and in this case, there are verifiable sources, but the text still can't be included in its current form. As a side note, Gliktch raised the issue nearly two months ago, so the request is stale. Again, apologies if my reply was a little harsh, but I take sourcing issues pretty seriously, especially around here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, this article was created back in 2004 as List of people who died with tortoises on their heads solely to highlight Aeschylus. That doesn't affect the discussion, I just thought I'd point it out. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This has all been discussed before. [[2]] --JeffJ (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sharon Lopatka

1996 - Near the bottom of the 20th century section. "Her killer...was convicted of voluntary manslaughter for the homocide". Surely "...was convicted of voluntary manslaughter after torturing and killing her in response to an advert she allegedly posted online due to a [[insert specific fetish]]" would look better? Homocide and killer certainly spark the word murderer in my mind, rather than one convicted of voluntary manslaughter. Snaisybelle (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Folks can click through to see the details; this article can't include too much about each case - it's staggering long as it is! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Boston Molasses Disaster

I didn't restore it, but death caused by a wave of molasses seems pretty unusual. --JeffJ (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Although the imagery for this is pretty weird, this is where our lack of clear criteria starts getting out of hand. All of the below can be considered unusual in some sense, but the very fact that so many people die of industrial accidents makes death by industrial accidents not very unusual. (from Industrial disasters)

• Pemberton Mill was a large factory in Lawrence, Massachusetts, which collapsed without warning on January 10, 1860. An estimated 145 workers were killed and 166 injured.
• Minamata disaster. This was caused by the dumping of mercury compounds in Minamata Bay, Japan. The Chisso Corporation, a fertilizer and later petrochemical company, was found responsible for polluting the bay during the years 1932-1968. It is estimated that over 3,000 people suffered various deformities, severe mercury poisoning symptoms or death from what became known as Minamata disease.
• In August 9, 1965, 53 contract workers were killed during a fire at a Titan missile silo. The cause of the fire was determined to be a welding rod damaging a hydraulic hose allowing hydraulic vapors to leak and spread throughout silo, which were then ignited by an open flame source.
• Bhopal disaster in India (1984). A faulty tank containing poisonous methyl isocyanate leaked at a Union Carbide plant and left nearly 3,000 people dead initially, and at least 15,000 from related illnesses.
• Enschede fireworks disaster on May 13, 2000. A fire and explosion at a fireworks depot in Enschede, Netherlands leaves 22 people dead and 947 injured. About 1,500 homes are damaged or destroyed. The damage is estimated to be over US$ 300 million in insured losses.
• Qinghe Special Steel Corporation disaster, on April 18, 2007, a ladle holding molten steel separated from the overhead iron rail, fell, tipped, and killed 32 workers, injuring another 6.

Do we need to include death by methyl isocyanate? or by fire in a missile silo caused by ignited hydraulic vapors from a damaged hose? or by falling molten steel ladle? Or are these simply death by poisoning, fire, and crushing (and therefore the molasses deaths are from crushing/drowning/tsunami)? Industrial accidents are so common place that they have their own article, and I don't see the need to repeat a good deal of that article here. NJGW (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I did restore it. While in general industrial accidents are not unusual (explosions, fire, toxic release), I think anyone would agree that drowning in molten molasses is very unusual. (Have there been other notable -- i.e., widely-known -- examples of this? I didn't find any.) At some level any death can be abstracted to a higher-level cause that is not unusual. Strangulation is not usual, but Isadora Duncan's death surely was; Len Koenecke was just a homicide victim, but under very unusual circumstances. I think the Molasses Disaster would clearly qualify.

I think it should be in, it's just bizarre imagery and what a way to go. I mean, it's not for nothing we have the phrase "as slow as molasses". I just have the image of a huge wave of molasses creeping across the floor and everyone in no rush to evacuate that they forgot about it until too late. Orbtastic (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Dyaltlov Pass Incident

I think that this deserves to be on the list. It is a valid point that because the exact cause of their death is unknown that it could be indeed something mundane, but I think if anything the official cause of death in the coroner's report about a great unknown force is sufficiently unusual. And we could look at any one of these entries and say the specific cause of death is not unusual. Death by drowning? How decidedly commonplace! Death by drowning in a flood of molasses? How unusual! Death by blunt force trauma? How dull! Death by a great unknown force in the Siberian wilderness that resulted in irradiated clothes? How unusual! Just my two cents anyway. I really do appreciate everyone's efforts to make this a respectable list! Verkhovensky (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. We have to remember that this article is about unusual deaths, not unusual causes of death, which is to say that we have to look at the circumstances more that just the cause. The Dyatlov Pass deaths certainly seem unusual in circumstance. This aentry should be restored. --JeffJ (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to belabor my point:

2001: Bernd-Jürgen Brandes died from being stabbed -- 2001: Gregory Biggs, died after being hit by a car -- 2001: Michael Colombini, died from blunt trauma -- 2002: Brittanie Cecil, died from blunt trauma -- 2003: Doug McKay died from a fall -- 2003: Brian Douglas Wells, was killed by an explosion -- 2003: Dr. Hitoshi Nikaidoh, was decapitated -- 2003: Timothy Treadwell, was killed by a wild animal -- 2004: Phillip Quinn was killed by an explosion -- 2005: Kenneth "Mr. Hands" Pinyan died of acute peritonitis -- 2005: Lee Seung Seop died from exhaustion - Possibly unusual -- 2006: Erika Tomanu, drowned -- 2006: Steve Irwin, was killed by a wild animal -- 2006: Alexander Litvinenko, died from poisoning -- 2007: Jennifer Strange, died of water intoxication - Rare, but there have been several cases -- 2007: Humberto Hernandez, was killed by blunt trauma -- 2007: Kevin Whitrick, committed suicide -- 2007: Surinder Singh Bajwa, fell to his death -- 2008: Abigail Taylor, died of cancer -- 2008: Gerald Mellin, committed suicide -- 2008: David Phyall, committed suicide -- 2008: James Mason, died of heart failure -- 2008: Isaiah Otieno, crushed to death -- 2009: Jonathan Campos, committed suicide -- 2009: Diana Durre was crushed to death -- 2009: Sergey Tuganov died of a drug overdose -- 2009: Taylor Mitchell was killed by wild animals -- 2009: Vladimir Likhonos was killed in an explosion.

So if we just look at the death alone without regard to the circumstances, then we can eliminate all but a VERY few entries. --JeffJ (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a small note - two of the four editors who have returned this item to the list are anons whose only edit is this revert, which is often a sign of a single person hiding behind anonymity, and doesn't lend weight to their opinions.

Having said that, the problem with this item (in my opinion) for this article is that we *don't know the cause of death* so we don't know if it's unusual or not. We just know that people are mystified by it, and that mystification has gained a certain notoriety ... which seems to be different than any other item on this list. This isn't List of unexplained deaths, after all. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to your first point, I do believe that the entry should be on the list. I would put it back on, but I have never actually reverted its removal. I, like many editors, are probably resigned to inaction because of your immediate reversions. As for your second point, I think knowledge as to the very specific cause of death is a complete non sequitor. The findings in the Coroner's report should be sufficient to label this unusual, and the circumstances make it a home run for this list. Your focus on the uncertainty as to the very specific cause of death provides no reply to the earlier points made by myself and JeffJ - the specific cause of death is not what makes virtually any of these entries unusual, it's the circumstances! I do of course appreciate the lively debate - it's what keeps Wikipedia vibrant! Verkhovensky (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But is there any other person in this article whose cause of death is unknown? I don't think so (perhaps I'm wrong) - which is why this doesn't seem to me to belong.

Since its inception this has been an article which draws considerable debate about what should, and shouldn't, be included - and even whether the article should exist. So this amicable wrangling is part for the course. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your point that the deaths at the Dyatlov Pass are perhaps the only on the list where the exact cause of death is unknown is well taken. I suppose our disconnect is that I simply think the specific cause of death is immaterial. As artfully pointed out in JeffJ's post, the specific cause of death is almost never what makes any of the entries on this list unusual. It is the circumstances, and this incident certainly has the circumstances that warrant a place on this list. I think writing it off as something better suited to another list that doesn't exist seems to dodge the question a bit. I suppose my point is that even with the very specific cause of death unknown, the incident is an unusual death. Knowing the specific cause of death is not dispositive. Surely almost all of the entries on this list fit that narrow test, but I don't think that is why they have endured on this list. And if you want to get particular, the deaths of the Dyatlov pass hikers were "known" or at least reasonably certain - death by blunt force trauma, though I do prefer the coroner's more artful rendering. Essentially, I do not think the test for inclusion on this list is as narrowly tailored as the one you have posited. Verkhovensky (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think what is being said here is that while the mechanism of death is unknown, the cause of death is. So we do know the causes of death and we do have very unusual circumstances, so I believe it follows that the entry describes unusual deaths. I know we are delving into semantics here, but this entry provides an excellent acid test.--JeffJ (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(unindenting) Well, I still disagree - what is unusual in that incident is the inability to pin down the cause of death ("mechanism of injury" is a relevant medical term, at least in the US [3]) rather than the cause itself, which seems to me to make it a whole different animal than the other umpty-ump items in this charmingly weird article. Having said that, at least two knowledgeable editors have given it deep thought and feel otherwise, which seems to make it reasonable that it gets returned to the article and I try to think up better arguments for my point of view. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Good edit!--Seaphoto^Talk 21:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I simply cannot agree with this article being on here. Yes, perhaps the condition of the bodies are unusual, but the simple indisputable fact is this: The circumstances of their deaths are unknown and if you don't know what happened you can't call it unusual. For all we known they could of died very normal deaths that the examination failed to discover.Hell Hawk (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I invite Hell Hawk to read the entirety of the above debate. It has been repeatedly stressed that every single entry on this list is a very "normal" death - the list is rife with drownings, animal attacks, and blunt force trauma. The circumstances are what make a death unusual. The circumstances of the Dyatlov Pass incident are far more unusual than most entries on this list, many of which can only claim marginal unusualness from the minor notoriety of their victims. Once again, I stress that knowledge of the very specific cause of death should not be a litmus test for this list. But of course more voices in the debate are always appreciated! Verkhovensky (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I invite Verkhovensky to read my post. We do not know the circumstances of their deaths, we only know the condition of the bodies when found, quite some time after their deaths.Hell Hawk (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

We know a multitude of circumstances. They were in the Siberian wilderness. Their tent was ripped open. They were wearing very few clothes. The bodies were irradiated. One was missing their tongue. Others had a fractured skull, broken ribs, and other assorted injuries. Simply because they were not discovered immediately after their deaths does not mean that we know absolutely nothing of the circumstances. And the condition of the bodies as found should be enough to earn them a place on this list, because that condition is reasonably indicative of unusual circumstances surrounding the deaths of the hikers. The timing of the discovery is another non sequitor when it comes to unusualness. Verkhovensky (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, so there was an Avalanche that killed 3 of them and 6 froze to death. A scavenging animal ate one of their tongues sometime after they died, and they were not irradiated ( http://unitedcats.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/the-dyatlov-pass-accident/ ). Avalanche + hypothermia in the mountains, in February is not all that amazing.Hell Hawk (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It really helped nail home the unusualness of the incident and made no mention of an animal eating the tongue. It also doesn't dispute the irradiation. Keep up the good work! --JeffJ (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(unindenting) I am not sure someone's blog counts as a sufficiently reliable source. This is a fine, albeit uncorroborated, theory. I still think the circumstances earn this incident a place on the list. Verkhovensky (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Blogs don't count as reliabl;e sources. --JeffJ (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the section

A user has removed the section and I have reverted it pending discussion of whether it should be included on this page. Comments on inclusion are welcome. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"Unknown/unexplained" is not the same as "unusual" - Refute that or delete the section.Hell Hawk (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You're basing your assumption on a blog. If you can find a reliable source, I won't contest the deletion of the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm basing it on what's written in the List of unusual deaths article itself "Soviet investigators determined only that "a compelling unknown force" had caused the deaths", see the word "unknown" in there? It doesn't say "unusual compelling force" it says unknown. If you can find a reliable article that states an UNUSUAL cause of death, it should stay, otherwise say goodbye to that section.Hell Hawk (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue arguing with you about strict interpretations of a word. Personally I believe that inclusion would cause someone to become interested in it, find a reliable fact, and improve it. This article isn't taken verbatim from the sources, and it could've been rewritten to indicate something else. I won't argue with someone who is clearly going to continue the argument down the wrong path. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The wrong path? Recognizing that different words have different meanings? "This article provides a list of unusual deaths – unique, or extremely rare circumstances recorded throughout history. The list also includes less rare, but still unusual, deaths of prominent people." If it doesn't fit that description, it's gone.Hell Hawk (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This should definitely be included. This has been discussed at length among a number of users dedicated to maintaining the integrity of the list. Hell Hawk's argument has been made in the previous section, and the result of that discussion was to keep the section. Waiting for a few months and then deleting the section again without discussion is not constructive. And I want to say thanks to Kevin Rutherford for restoring the section and renewing the discussion. Verkhovensky (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice refuting of "Unknown/unexplained" is not the same as "unusual"Hell Hawk (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

To respond to Hell Hawk's concerns, the consensus is that specific knowledge of the actual cause of death is not the litmus test for inclusion on this list. Entries are on this list because of the unusual circumstances of the deaths, and not simply unusual causes. I agree that unknown/unexplained is not the same as unusual. But this article is not about unusual causes of death, it is about unusual deaths, and this broader view considers the circumstances of each case when determining merits of inclusion. Verkhovensky (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The circumstances of the deaths aren't known either. http://www.cracked.com/article_16671_6-famous-unsolved-mysteries-with-really-obvious-solutions.html - this opinion piece explains why you're being dense for believing an avalanche is unusual better than I could.Hell Hawk (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, it is an opinion piece. Although they are useful in helping to give an idea about an article, they are not to be cited concretely. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As Kevin said, an opinion piece is not a reliable source. And all of the arguments you are presenting about what is known and unknown and about alternate theories have all been presented, and the consensus has been to keep the entry. You are entitled and encouraged to have your opinion, but you are not entitled to circumvent the result of consensus when your opinions happen to differ with the majority. Verkhovensky (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The actual problem is that you can't refute the reasoning they use. There's nothing in the Dyatlov pass segment in the list of unusual deaths that suggests anything more than an avalanche. Just because you want to imagine there's some creepy urban legend twist going on here doesn't change the FACT that there's no solid evidence anything unusual happened. Do you want wikipedia grounded in facts or speculation? This is what this argument comes down to.Hell Hawk (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Damn, this conversation is moving way too quickly to keep up with. I think the section should not be included. That's my vote; add it on the pile. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think HelloAnnyong has the right idea to make our votes clear. In that case, I think the section should be included. Verkhovensky (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't what I was trying to get at. Voting isn't a substitute for discussion. Having said that, this thing is just going round and round in circles without any clear indication of stopping, so I was trying to break the tedium. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So Verkhovensky wants wikipedia based on Mob rule and not the facts? Because if you have any facts that show this is more than an avalanche, go ahead and lay them out.Hell Hawk (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I advocate Wikipedia based on reasoned discussion and reliable sources. If there are concrete facts that prove this to be an avalanche, I would be happy to concede. But as things stand now, the circumstances of the deaths are unusual and warrant a place on this list. And these arguments have all been made before, and the consensus has been to keep the entry. Verkhovensky (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Guys, this is getting out of hand. We're at a tie for whether it should be included. Let's just keep it in there, wait a few days, and see where this discussion goes. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually Verkhovensky, the consensus is that the article should be removed. Of the 7 people in this discussion, DavidWBrooks, HelloAnnyong, and myself think it should be removed. Only you and JeffJ think it should stay, Kevin Rutherford and Seaphoto have not stated a clear opinion. So that's 3-2 for it to be removed right?Hell Hawk (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Kevin has suggested keeping the entry. There is also myself and JeffJ. And DavidWBrooks, while offering similar arguments to what you have out forth, had actually conceded to including it. So that makes the votes 4-2 in favor of keeping it. Verkhovensky (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an odd situation (but of course, for this article, aren't they all LOL). It is the lack of information that makes the circumstances unusual. For now, I would keep this particular entry. If, at some later point, more information comes out and the cause(s) of death are determined, it may well no longer be appropriate to list them here.--Seaphoto^Talk 04:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

DavidWBrooks was conceding to majority opinion for leaving it, his personal opinion seems to be it should be removed. Kevin Rutherford created the "Removal of the section" header, so that's not really a clear indicator of the "yes it should stay category". You still have yet to address my point that the evidence points to anything more than an avalanche. Seaphoto, you're missing the point, lack of information is just that, lack of information, you can't call something unusual without sufficient evidence to indicate it is not normal, and we just don't have that here. Is an avalanche unusual? No. Did something other than an avalanche happen in this case? Not according to the evidence.Hell Hawk (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I want it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would you mind at least refuting my points (re:avalanche)?Hell Hawk (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I will give it a shot. My inclination is to say that the avalanche theory is just that - a theory. Indeed it has appeared on a number of blogs and opinion pieces, but to my knowledge there are no concrete facts in its favor. I understand that the same can be said for the "unknown compelling force" theory, but the facts that are known concretely do point to an unusual death (using the definition of the consensus that includes circumstances in addition to specific cause), thus meriting a place on this list. Verkhovensky (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy with other things tonight. I think when it comes to Wikipedia, I have seen a lot of things put in under the assumption of good faith that haven't been well sourced or are speculative. The assumption of good faith along with this inclusionism is essential to the site because of the fact that without it, the site could arguably be a quarter of the size that it is. I support the inclusion of the material as it will likely be improved upon as material from the former Soviet Union is released, as there is no guarantee that it was all declassified.Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for actually addressing the points. Let me pose this question to you, What if? What if it was an avalanche? If as Seaphoto said, more information somehow came out, and it was shown not to be unusual in anyway. If it was an avalanche, which parts are all that bizarre? Look, I'm open to the idea something weird could of happened here, but are you open to the idea that something normal could of happened here? If we do find out later that's it was just an avalanche, then the entry never belonged on the list, and unless you can reasonably preclude this is not the case, why does it belong on the list now?Hell Hawk (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I follow that argument: If further evidence comes out that makes it obviously non-unusual, the item would be removed - the same goes for any of the deaths on this list. I'm not sure that really affects the current status, though. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been monitoring this discussion, and I think that, given the state of the known facts, this incident clearly qualifies as an unusual death under the proper criteria. The avalanche hypothetical poses an interesting point, but misapprehends the presumption at play under the properly conceived criteria. Of course the incident could have been an avalanche. It could have been a meteor, or a solar flare, or a cold snap. But it also could have been something highly unique and unusual. In fact, the known facts suggest as much. Until we have verification that the deaths are not unusual, it seems consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia (see Verk's points, especially on inclusionism, supra), to keep this interesting incident on this list until proven otherwise. If new facts indicate that the incident was the result of something indisputably not-unusual, then the incident can be removed from the list. But the above spirited debate and the spirit of Wikipedia itself militates for its inclusion in this list until then. KnivesDon'tHaveMyBack (talk) 05:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This should be included

This deserves a spot. Man falls into a vat of chocolate and dies: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/09/new.jersey.chocolate.death/ 66.82.9.83 (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that it doesn't belong because he was killed by a blow from a piece of industrial machinery, which is (alas) quite common - not by "drowning in chocolate", which is what it sounds like at first. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with David here. Industrial accidents are quite common, and I'm not sure that even the whimsical touch of Hershey's chocolate can make this sufficiently unusual. But, of course, to practice what I preach I'll look for comparable accidents to see just how unusual this is. Verkhovensky (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Drowning in chocolate might have been unusual, but getting hit on the head by a piece of machinery... -- JeffJ (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Likhonos

The Vladimir Likhonos story is surely an urban legend. The fact that it's reported in news stories doesn't mean anything; most urban legends get traction because they get news coverage. The story borders on physical impossibility and has tons of gaps that don't make sense. I suggest that we reject any news-based reporting on that incident as a reliable source. Unless someone can come up with a forensic report or something more reliable, we should not include such a fantastic story. Gigs (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, verifiability is based on reliable sources. The incident was reported by the Associated Press. Are you saying we should throw out AP articles? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This story includes many impossibilities, such as an explosive that's so sensitive and powerful that a few crystals will blow someone's face off (and even detonate while wet), and yet was something that was assigned as a chemistry student's homework. The AP has reported urban legends many times before. We do not need to blindly parrot what a normally reliable source says when the claims are extraordinary to the point of being physically impossible. Gigs (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, isn't it your own speculation as to what is and isn't physically possible? I'd like to see what other people think about this one, but needless to say, I'm pretty sure it's worthy of inclusion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Associated Press is a reliable source (as reliable as any) and sufficient time has passed for any hoax to be revealed. And if it is revealed as a hoax, we'll remove it then. --JeffJ (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not original research to say "This is an extraordinary claim that requires stronger sourcing than just widely repeated news reports". WP:V says that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. It took years before secondary sources started reporting Jenkem as a hoax. Until that point Wikipedia simply repeated the uncorroborated news media accounts as true, even though many editors raised objections about the reliability of the widespread news reports. Gigs (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

But that's not Wikipedia's fault directly. WP:V also says "what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." So if all the reliable sources say it's true, we can only reflect that until such time when it's deemed untrue. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's within the realm of editorial discretion to exclude such extraordinary claims until further corroborating evidence (other than the same news story reprinted over and over) surfaces. I suggest that we exercise that discretion here. Gigs (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Alright, well, we've got two people for and one against. Anyone else have an opinion on this? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you're asking... My opinion is that since it's widely reported by credible sources, it stays. I don't think that anyone is disputing that it's an unusual death, so the only question is whether it's genuine or not. In the absence of any evidence that it's not genuine, and given that there are plenty reports that it is, it should stay. If it's later proved to be a hoax, it can be removed at that point. Julianhall (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been 3 months since AP published the article. I would think that if this was a hoax, it would have been exposed by now. -- JeffJ (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with HelloAnnyong, JeffJ, and Julianhall. If it is later disproven, then it can be be removed. And I agree with all of the aforementioned arguments in favor of keeping it. Verkhovensky (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)