This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of unusual deaths article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Per the 7th AFD, "all further nominations should be closed as violations of WP:DELAFD unless there is new or changed policy backing the AFD". And per the DRV "[The preceding sentence] should be read as an admonition against superfluous nominations. It is not a moratorium."

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_unusual_deaths&oldid=587040688#RfC:_What_qualifies.3F: IAR cannot be used by a minority party to simply assert that a rule that they don't like doesn't apply in a given situation. By definition, an appropriate IAR action will have the approval of an overwhelming number of editors. Such is not the case here. Thus, absent a clear majority in favor of an IAR position, and given the clear policy arguments in support of a normal WP:V approach, the clear policy based consensus is to keep this list only to those deaths for whom there are reliable sources (as noted by one person, these need to be high quality sources, not tabloid journals who regularly fling around these words for fun) that the death is in someway exceptional. All other entries (those for whom someone might say "Come on, this is obviously strange") should be removed.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

List of unusual deaths is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.

Article milestones Date Process Result September 9, 2004 Articles for deletion Kept February 18, 2006 Featured list candidate Not promoted May 23, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept December 12, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept March 29, 2007 Articles for deletion No consensus June 12, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept January 17, 2009 Articles for deletion Kept June 13, 2013 Articles for deletion No consensus June 25, 2013 Articles for deletion No consensus October 25, 2013 Articles for deletion Kept November 13, 2013 Deletion review Endorsed October 26, 2023 Featured list candidate Not promoted Current status: Former featured list candidate

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Death Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

This has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Megan Gibson (2011-01-14). "Wikipedia's 10th Anniversary: 10 Unforgettable Entries". TIME. Archived from the original on 2011-01-19. Retrieved 2010-01-15. This page, which doesn't claim to be complete, lists examples of unique or rare circumstances in which people have died. Gruesome? Yes. Distasteful? Perhaps. Fascinating? Definitely. Caitlin Dewey (2015-11-05). "The most fascinating Wikipedia articles you haven't read". Washington Post. Retrieved 2015-11-06. When the Wikimedia Foundation recently polled its staffers about their favorite pages, these lists of urban legends, weird deaths and under-touted revolutions were among the winners. No explanation necessary, tbh: They're all self-evidently fascinating.

Archives (index)

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• There is a holding tank for content, removed from the article due to poor sourcing, which may have been included in the article for a considerable time: Talk:List of unusual deaths/Sourcing issues. Following talk page discussion, and in line with WP:STALEDRAFT, it has been agreed that any content in this holding area not sourced within 6 months from addition should be removed.

The entry is supported by this source, which seems to be from a 1902 newspaper. But it is difficult to determine which newspaper this was and if it cab be regarded as a WP:RS. Although the very brief anonymous report is headed "A FARMER'S STRANGE DEATH", the circumstances seem to be entirely mundane. Any other views on this? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was The Argus, which has a bit more info on that site here. Based on that, it sounds pretty reliable to me. Reading the snippet, sounds like two guys were loading hay, and the dude on top of the load fell off when the horse stepped forward. That's... comparatively tame. I feel like this would be one of those "editorial oversight" ones that've come up here before. Yes, by the current standards it does qualify for inclusion, but that doesn't mean it has to be here. In the interests of trying to keep this page to a reasonable size, I think it can be left off. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. Perhaps Chaliceborn777 could also offer their view on this? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this article I see a lot of sensational newspaper headlines over commonplace deaths like gunshots or car accidents.Bkatcher (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The use here of this 2020 Adventist Record source, which lists "The Ten: Most unusual biblical deaths", raises some questions for me:

1. Is this source WP:RS? (although the claims are very easily checked)
2. Should Biblical deaths be included? (and perhaps other fabled/ apocryphal deaths)
3. Are deaths deemed to be "unusual" in the Bible also therefore generally unusual.

What do other editors think? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source says it's an "official news magazine of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the South Pacific", but includes apparent legends among the deaths, like Goliath. I'd say historically confirmed unusual biblical deaths could be included, though I can't recall any such right now. And the relevant caveat could be made in the list's lead. Brandmeister^talk 10:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fit with the current chronological sort, but perhaps we could introduce a new section (or split-out article) specifically for unusual deaths in religious literature? There's certainly enough of them, since many are literal acts of god, but the semi-mythical nature of them doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the page. Alternatively, what about a page for unusual deaths in antiquity? This would cover a great deal of the possibly-apocryphal but undeniably unusual deaths already present, as well as create a convenient place to tuck deaths sourced from religious texts (and an easy dodge around the quagmire of "is the Bible a reliable source" which I really really don't want to get into).

As a slight aside, given how absolutely massive this list is, anyone else think we should have another discussion about inclusion criteria? I'm kind of liking the idea of requiring a contemporaneous source to describe the death as unusual, which might help cut down on listicle-sourced deaths, but the problem with that is that the late 1700s-early 1900s used "unusual" and similar for any death with unknown circumstances. I lean slightly towards 1) a reliable source must describe the death as "unusual" or some synonym thereof; 2) a contemporary source (can be the same as #1) must do the same; and 3) a modern reader could reasonably agree the same with said source/s. Opinions? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should include deaths only referenced in religious texts, unless there's other, concurrant historians that collaborate. Deaths in religious texts could be an entire article in itself, and this one is already bloated. Bkatcher (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources given are these: ^[1][2][3] But they seem to conflict. Which is the more accurate account? Thanks.

Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be missing something but I'm not seeing how they conflict, necessarily? They all agree on Murichson's name, age, location, cause of death (haemorrhage), the whole thing where he couldn't seem to stop eating, that his sister yanked the snake out, and that the snake was 14 inches and had a glob of flesh on it. Two of the three mention dosing him for worms and speculate that field sleeping was the cause; the third simply says that physicians were called and that the snake might've slithered down his throat while asleep without specifying location.

The Sun-Journal article is the earliest one written and claims direct quotation of Lewiston Lady; both the Portland Daily Press and The Times and Democrat paraphrase this (in the latter's case, pretty much word-for-word). I'd assume that the other two picked up the story from them. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 19:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not as bad as I had thought then. Thanks for clarifying. What would you recommend in terms of sourcing here? Retain all three? Two have "strange" and the third has "almost incredible". I guess they may all be considered WP:RS. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my pleasure. Generally I prefer to have more sources, but given that they all seem equally reliable and Sun-Journal and The News and Democrat are almost identical, we could probably just keep Sun-Journal and Portland Daily Press and trim a teeny bit of pudge out of this behemoth article. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Behemoth"!? Whatever are you saying! A little bit a spring-cleaning never hurt anyone... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But yes, we now seem to be getting a flood of new entries based on the use of the word "unusual", in a single small anonymous report, published by a single regional newspaper, from the 20th or 19th century. There may be a case for a new WP:RFC to discuss if better and/or multiple sources are required. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chaliceborn777, re: Susan Grace Kelly, Agnes Harley, James Wilson, Romaine Romania and John Banks, I wonder could you possibly discuss these additions, before you add any more similar ones? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also James Doyle Jr. and Peter A. Rees? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging those who have been active lately; apologies if I missed anyone: Abductive, Aoidh, Bdblakley29, Bkatcher, Brandmeister, BrayLockBoy, Gildir, Martinevans123, Toadheart, Chaliceborn777, RBainbridge2000, Rori1911, TeeVill

Happy to open a formal discussion if needed, but if we can come to consensus on our own, might as well! I've got three points to bring up that I think (loosely) cover the bases for the moment:

• This page is massive.
• It's not getting any smaller.
• Should we do something about it? If so, what?

I think we can all agree on the first point, but if you'd like statistics, the List of Unusual Deaths is (at the time of this writing) sitting at 522,035 bytes, making it one of the top 100 Wikipedia pages by data size - it was 57th, last I checked. It's big.

I'd hope we can all agree on the second as well - people die, and the more time passes, the greater the odds of unusual deaths. In addition to that, the digitization of historical records, especially newspapers, makes it much easier to find even more unusual deaths for the list. I personally have been poking through Chronicling America and adding deaths as I find them, and I've still got more noted down that I just haven't formatted yet (a golf club victim, a guy who accidentally ate a sandwich soaked in battery acid, a freak decapitation, guy who got run over by his own hay rake, etc.).

So given those, we're left with the actual questions in point 3 - should we do something about the size and unchecked growth of this page, and if so, what? My opinion is that yes, we should do something about it; it's already huge to the point where I sometimes experience lag if I try to edit the entire thing instead of just a section. As for what specifically to do about it, I have a few thoughts that I'd like input on.

1. We go through with a weed-whacker and clear out anything unverified. This gets trickier the further back in time we go, but gotta start somewhere, right?
2. We go through with a bigger weed-whacker and clear out things with questionable sources. I'm talking infotainment listicles with titles like "You Won't Believe These 13 Weird Ways To Die (#7 Will Shock You!)".
3. We go from weed-whacker to machete and chop the article into multiple articles. By date/category would likely be the easiest way to do this - List of unusual deaths in Antiquity, List of unusual deaths in the 21st century, List of unusual animal deaths, etc.
4. We graduate to a full-on landscaping company and decide if certain unusual deaths aren't actually that weird. For example, we have several people currently on the list who drowned, but perhaps "seizure and drowned" or "vertigo and drowned" or "fainted and drowned" could be removed in favor of keeping "drowned self due to ex-wife's ghost" or "drowned in poop" or "drowned by a swan."
5. We let our landscaping company get picky about its clients and adjust the qualifications for inclusion. I previously suggested 1) a reliable source must describe the death as "unusual" or some synonym thereof; 2) a contemporary source (can be the same as #1) must do the same; and 3) a modern reader could reasonably agree the same with said source/s.

Don't know why I let this turn into an entire lawn care metaphor, but sure, why not.

Of these, I like #1, #4, and #5 the best. There's no reason not to get started with clearing out recent deaths that fail verification (honestly that doesn't even really need discussion). #4 is a little sketchier, as it's a judgement call; I thought deaths removed this way could be placed in the holding tank for review and reinstatement by any editor who disagrees, after which per WP:BRD they could be discussed here. #5 feels like a good idea, but then again of course it does, I came up with it. Adding the caveat that a contemporary source should call it unusual (or otherwise point out that it was exceptional, since the further back you go the more you see things like "terrible death" instead and if the death fits the other criteria then "terrible" is within the spirit of the page) increases the sourcing, which is rarely a bad thing, and the "modern reader" provision - while open to debate and interpretation - may help keep to a minimum more mundane deaths that happen to be called "unusual".

I'm not sold on #2; some of the sources that would fall under that umbrella include otherwise-reliable sources like the BBC. #3 seems like it could be a good idea, but I'll readily admit that I haven't done that before and I'm a bit nervous about it. I'd want a good solid consensus before getting that going.

I'd love to hear what other people have to say! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this article grow for quite some time with questionable entries based on a single reference, usually a local newspaper using an eye-catching headline, with the body of the text not mentioning any unusual/strange aspect. I think enforcement of the noted as being unusual by multiple sources criteria mentioned in the lede would cut down a lot of the bloat. - Aoidh (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a lot of these are referenced by small newspapers or the like, describing farm accidents or car wrecks as 'strange.' Bkatcher (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wholly agree with that description. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally go with 1, if there's nothing that can verify it happened (outside of antiquity cause we don't have a time machine), then it shouldn't really be on here in the first place TeeVill (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite option is #3. This has previously been done with List of last words and List of fictional astronauts, among others. I took part in the process of chopping up List of fictional astronauts and made some mistakes in the process, but someone else came along and corrected them, and the resulting articles have been going strong for several years now. This option also has the fun factor of choosing a new lead image for each article rather than just being stuck with Aeschylus' death. (I would also support removing all the Biblical figures other than Eleazar Avaran, although even that would be unnecessary if List of unusual deaths in antiquity were a separate page.) Gildir (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No real objections to #3, as long as the criteria for inclusion were clear and largely consistent. Re #5: ".. adjust the qualifications for inclusion.." - the current instructions at the top of this page say ".. the clear policy based consensus is to keep this list only to those deaths for whom there are reliable sources (as noted by one person, these need to be high quality sources, not tabloid journals who regularly fling around these words for fun) that the death is in someway exceptional." Maybe there is a case for explicitly requiring at least two RS sources for every entry (the current instructions are slightly ambiguous)? I think this would see a large number of entries disappear. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think we should delete all the ones that don't explicitly say unusual and that have unreliable sources. I also think we should keep Eleazar Avaran but Sisera since both have other historical documents backing them. Bdblakley29 (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bdblakley, you've now just added: James A. Moon, Andrew Westlake, Thad Jackson, James Gough or Goff, Morris Quinn and James Ferrera, Charles Salow, and 12+ cows, which all seem to be sourced to very brief reports in 19th-centruy regional newspapers. Are you prepared to argue for retention of all of these? Might it be a good idea to agree a pause on any additions while this discussion continues? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now Gwynette Erica Morgan? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully willing to argue why these should be kept and I don't think It would be a good idea. Bdblakley29 (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is a very good example of why the "more than one reliable source" criteria that has been part of the article since 2012 should be the standard and be enforced in the article itself. Otherwise this article will continue to expand with questionable entries sourced to local papers who use eye-catching headlines to describe deaths. A local community may consider many things unusual for their community that the wider world would not, and the easiest way to check against that is to enforce the requirement that there be at least two separate reliable sources for an entry. Simply enforcing the criteria that has already been in the prose of the article for the last 12 years would cut down on the size of the article tremendously and would help ensure that the entries listed are in fact actually considered unusual. - Aoidh (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to formally propose a pause in the addition of new entries while this discussion is in progress. What do other editors think? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Gildir (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if new entries need to be paused completely, but at minimum they need to meet the article's current criteria of multiple reliable sources absent a consensus that says this should not be the standard for inclusion. - Aoidh (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree that the existing wording, ".. deaths for whom there are reliable sources", is ambiguous? That it, it doesn't explicitly state that each separate entry needs at least two reliable sources? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The banner at the top of the talk page referencing the 2013 RfC is ambiguous to the question of whether one or multiple sources is needed. However, the prose of the article is not. The 2013 version of the article (which also mentioned the multiple sources criteria) was ~80k bytes (122 entries) and is now ~535k bytes (523 entries). It is expected that the article would grow in that time period, however the page has grown by ~200k in the last year alone, mostly due to questionable entries sourced to a single local source that does not meet the article's own criteria (the lede states the list is for deaths noted as being unusual by multiple sources). - Aoidh (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the lede is unambiguous. Although in practice "multiple" is taken to mean "at least two". I think all of those recently added, with a single source, usually to a regional newspaper, should be removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues with this; I would just add that potential new entries should probably be placed in the Holding Tank instead of just page history. I'm also comfortable with Aoidh's suggestion that new entries be permitted so long as they have at least two reliable sources. NekoKatsun (nyaa) NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that all proposed new entries first go in the holding tank? Or just those that do not have at least two RS sources? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh beg pardon, I meant that if new additions are paused altogether, putting them in the Holding Tank instead of just undoing them seemed like a good idea - especially for contributors that aren't actively following this discussion. It'd feel pretty terrible to submit an entry and have it removed because of a discussion you didn't realize was happening.

If not paused altogether, I would support Holding Tank-ing entries with just one source, and keeping those with 2+. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of, I should make sure my recent additions have 2+ sources each, looks like I'm OK for the Dunns and McDermott, but need more for Wynekoop, Hilda, and McCullar...

i agree with number 3. i think we should divide each time period into its own page. i think it makes the bite count a bit more smaller and less laggy. Chaliceborn777 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that there's been no suggestion or consensus that the inclusion criteria mentioned at the beginning of the article should be changed, in the next few days I plan to start going through and removing entries sourced to a single reference if I can't find a secondary source for them, which includes the recently added entries that do not meet this criteria. @Chaliceborn777 and Bdblakley29: You have both been adding a lot of entries in the past few days that do not meet the inclusion criteria of more than one source and/or use highly questionable sources such as WordPress blogs. This HistoryCollection from this addition is a WP:QUESTIONABLE source with no claims of editorial oversight or review for accuracy, for example. I would ask that if you would like these additions to remain in the article, to go through and add sources, and to ensure that new entries meet the criteria before adding them, to avoid their removal. - Aoidh (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Andrew Pontious.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-free file being used in a decorative manner to illustrate an individual entry in a list article which fails WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS. Non-free images of deceased individuals can be used, but typically only for primary identification purposes in the main infoboxes or at the tops of stand-alone articles about the individual themselves; such images are pretty much never allowed to illustrate indvidual entries in list articles, unless the image itself (not the subject but the actual image) is the subject of sourced critical commentary. If someone feels the subject is Wikipedia notable and want to create an stand-alone article about them, then a non-free image could most likely be used in said article; however, there's really no way to justify its use in this article per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Marchjuly (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-morning-call/101133365/

https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-gazette/101032333/

https://www.newspapers.com/article/daily-news/101135896/

https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-herald-sun/101133293/

This is a death I pretty randomly stumbled upon and seems to fit this list to a T, as it looks to me like a very unusual incident that is unique/probably hasn't occurred in that exact manner anywhere else. However, I'm not a reliable source, and since the sources don't explicitly describe it as "unusual", I wanted to check with people before adding this. The best I got is the Gazette or the NY Daily News' describing it as a "bizarre/baffling mystery" (with the Herald-Sun mentioning a "bizarre" trap).

Is this good enough, or should I just forget about it? LaughingManiac (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i mean the word 'bizarre' could/can count. Chaliceborn777 (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks for the input. Given the discussion above, I'll wait a few days to see if anyone disagrees, then BEBOLD and add this. LaughingManiac (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i know this sounds more like a demand but i feel like this specific part of the page is just a bit unnoticed. from what i c theres only about 5 deaths in the 1960s. do u think this page should be more noticed? id luv 2 hear ur thoughts on this. Chaliceborn777 (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just added Victor Prather (4 May 1961). Gildir (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also added Harold Holt (17 December 1967). Can anyone find sufficient reliable sources to declare the deaths of Valentin Bondarenko (23 March 1961), Dorothy Kilgallen (8 November 1965), Vladimir Komarov (24 April 1967), Jayne Mansfield (29 June 1967) and/or Albert Dekker (5 May 1968) unusual? I have been unable to do so. Gildir (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i found a ranker article that includes valentin but im not sure 4 sum reason. heres the link: https://www.ranker.com/list/bizarre-20th-century-deaths/notable-famous-deaths Chaliceborn777 (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i found an 'all that's interesting' article about kilgalllen but I'm not sure if its reliable or not: https://allthatsinteresting.com/dorothy-kilgallen quote: investigative journalist Dorothy kilgalllen was probing the John f. Kennedy assassination when she suddenly died under strange circumstances on November 8, 1965. Chaliceborn777 (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'the guardian' article about Vladimir komarov: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/20/russia-murder-space-agency-roscosmos quote: the case has shocked russians due to the high profile role yevdokimov has in state space program, as well as the strange circumstances of his death. Chaliceborn777 (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

found an article called '12 unusual celebrity deaths you've never heard of...': https://www.vintag.es/2018/02/unusual-celebrity-deaths.html Chaliceborn777 (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

cant find anything for Dekker tho Chaliceborn777 (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nvm found a source for dekker and quote: https://www.grunge.com/945472/troubling-details-of-albert-dekkers-unexplained-1968-death/ quote: However, rumors about his unusual death nearly overshadowed his entire acting career. Chaliceborn777 (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ill add all of these rn since I found many sources unless ur doing it already. Chaliceborn777 (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

again ik this sounds more like a demand but there are only 4 deaths that happened in the 1950s. I think this should also be noticed a bit but again let me know what u all think. Chaliceborn777 (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to find more - keeping in mind the whole "two reliable sources minimum per entry" as well as the size of the page in mind - you're certainly welcome to. We don't need to collect literally every death described as unusual, though, it's okay if some time frames were apparently less weird than others. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1950s in the UK things were very dull. So people were not permitted to have unusual deaths, but had to make do with very mundane ones. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not think it appropriate, to of contacted a family member, before posting my dad and his death on your website? 86.31.239.83 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To which death does your enquiry relate? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Depledge. 2011. 86.31.239.83 (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry to hear of your bereavement, which was reported relatively recently. Unfortunately, as far as I know, Wikipedia does not have any policy of consulting with anyone before material is incorporated into an article, provided it is taken from a reliable source. There seem to be two such sources in this case. If you find this report distressing, there may be a route by which you could have it removed. But I'm afraid I don't know what that route might be. Other editors may be able to advise. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my condolences for your loss as well. I went digging a bit to see if there are possible solutions for you, but most of what I found was to request an entire article deletion, or to remove contentious poorly-sourced material. WP:BIODEL briefly mentions that Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no clear consensus to keep may be closed as delete, and your father would likely qualify as a non-public figure. You may also want to use the contact information for the Wikimedia Foundation to reach out to the people at the top of the food chain.

With that said, though, I see no reason why this needs to remain on the list. A requested removal from a family member is a somewhat unique situation at this page, so it would be prudent to discuss it, but I personally have nothing against its removal. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 19:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like User:NekoKatsun, I also have nothing against removal. Gildir (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. Most of the editors in discussion above have noted that the article is too long anyway. So any removal should be welcomed. I've also noted that one of the current sources credits the Daily Mail, which is seen as an unreliable source at Wikipedia. So it could be removed on the basis of having only a single source? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed due to insufficient sourcing per Martinevans123's suggestion. Gildir (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 86.31.239.83 (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so I noticed that Ann Koyton was removed from the list. I used two sources but if one of them was unreliable or had the word "sudden/suddenly" then I can understand that. after all I cant tell what's real and what's not on the internet nor can I tell what words mean unusual or strange. Chaliceborn777 (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't tell "what words mean unusual or strange", I'm not sure this is best article for you to be editing. If you "cant tell what's real and what's not on the internet", I'm not sure whether Wikipedia as a whole is really for you. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to ensure that the sources actually describe the deaths as in some way unusual. This recent edit for example has two sources, yet while one describes it as bizarre in passing, the other does not describe this incident as unusual in any way, and more importantly the description that was added to the article does not at all match the description in the sources. - Aoidh (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am certainly not going to revert the recent deletion. But is there any central policy on this? Personally I find citations much easier to read with spaces both sides of the parameter dividers! Not sure if the benefit to article size is that great. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm close to total agreement with you, Martinevans123! My personal preference is for a space before the pipe but not after it (e.g., "|newspaper=The New York Times |date=2024-09-16"), and I often add such spaces when I'm editing articles because they make the citations easier to read in the wikitext. I even formerly added such spaces to this article. However, other editors have expressed concern recently about the article's size, and I'm not sure we should be retaining any unnecessary characters. What do others think? Gildir (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about removing unneeded characters from markup, how about removing the language subtags (for example, en-AU so as to specify Australian English)?

I doubt many people care all that much about stuff like that, and even if they do, they can figure it out through context clues 99 times out of 100. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saving 320 bytes on a 516,559 byte page (0.06%) is not the solution, and should be reverted. If the article is too big, then one possible solution is to split it by date.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are two sources. Yes, both sources use the words "freak accident". But deaths by accidental fall from a roof must be quite common? I suspect that the death has been reported more since she was famous. Does her fame make her death any more unusual than that of, say, a local builder? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC) p.s. Rori1911, I'm sure all your edits, since you joined on 5 July, have been made in good faith, but are you aware of Wikipedia:Single-purpose account? Thanks.[reply]

While I do agree that said death isn't all that unusual, it seems like, unless someone makes a case for the sources used being unreliable, our hands are tied on this one. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A death from a fall is extremely common, 46,653 Americans died in 2022 from some type of fall. As LiUNA points outhere, Journalists may use this term to create an attention-grabbing headline or make the story seem more “newsworthy” and judging by a few of the entries I've seen, journalists indeed seem likely to be overly generous with describing something as a "freak accident" when the circumstances are rather more commonplace than they are suggesting. Looking past the attention grabbing description and looking at the facts themselves, this does not appear to be an unusual death in any way, our hands are not tied just because an anonymous contributor and a campus paper's intern used attention-grabbing verbiage. - Aoidh (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had it drilled in my head time and time again that Wikipedia goes by what sources say, even if editors believe otherwise. Verifiability, not truth and all that. Wouldn't removing this entry because we don't consider it unusual stray into WP:OR? ZionniThePeruser (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It scarcely matters because the sources call the death a freak accident anyway, but I think SOPHIE's death was sufficiently unusual because she was a famous (and Wikipedia-notable) person who was taking photographs of the Moon when she fell. Just my two cents. Gildir (talk) 06:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's fame makes their death, however it happens, "more unusual"? Not just "more notable"?? I suspect lots of people take photographs of the moon. Lots of people climb onto roofs with no safety gear. Lots of people fall off. But most of them aren't famous Scottish music producers, songwriters, and DJs. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZionniThePeruser: No, applying Wikipedia policy (WP:ONUS) does not contradict what is written in WP:VNT, particularly the second paragraph of that essay. This verifiability is sourced to two questionable opinion pieces that use this phrase in passing without making an attempt to explain what makes it a freak accident, and sources that have more established reliability do not describe it as such. Omitting such an entry has nothing to do with WP:OR. - Aoidh (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not great sources, are they. The Guardian, used as the source in her article, doesn't say her death was unusual, just that it was a "sudden accident." Martinevans123 (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo, tricky. On the one hand, as Zionni points out, the sources call it a freak accident (historically a qualifier for inclusion), and WP:VNT. On the other, the Daily Mail isn't even calling it weird, and they're one of the most likely to sensationalize, so if they're not calling it unusual... It was unexpected and it was unlikely (sounds like she was up on a roof terrace, so I assume people were intended to be on that roof), but I don't know if I personally would call it unusual. Granted my personal opinion is worth about as much as a single baked bean, but still.

I could be persuaded either way. I do think "freak accident" is a valid qualifier, looking over the other deaths that have used that phrase; I also think this particular "freak accident" isn't really that freaky on the balance of things, and could be trimmed as editorial oversight. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is tricky. The words "freak accident" might carry more weight in The Daily Telegraph or in The BMJ, than in those two existing sources. They really don't look very 'reliable', do they. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No Rod Hull?, then no Sophie. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, he wasn't photographing the moon, he was just "adjusting the television aerial on the roof of his bungalow at half-time during an Inter Milan vs. Manchester United match" (... which is not at all unusual). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]