Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 188:
Line 188:
:::::Brilliant. But doesn't really address my question. ] (]) 07:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::Brilliant. But doesn't really address my question. ] (]) 07:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::<span style="color:red;;;">to all: an editor who keeps deleting content from the article has twice tried to close off discussion on this thread by archiving the thread. to '''TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small>''' in discussing the changes to the article, primarily made by you and another editor, discussion of ''your'' changes will necessarily appear. it is blatant POV that then YOU would close off the talk thread to further discussion by archiving it. you're cheating.</span> ] (]) 12:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::<span style="color:red;;;">to all: an editor who keeps deleting content from the article has twice tried to close off discussion on this thread by archiving the thread. to '''TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small>''' in discussing the changes to the article, primarily made by you and another editor, discussion of ''your'' changes will necessarily appear. it is blatant POV that then YOU would close off the talk thread to further discussion by archiving it. you're cheating.</span> ] (]) 12:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::closing the article to further discussion by "archive" process is being done by an editor discussed a lot in the thread. that's POV. bigtime. the editor says talk pages are for content and not about editor behavior. well, since the content-removal in the article (the point of this thread) keep being removed mostly by the editor in question and another one also appearing in the thread, of course their usernames and some speculation will appear. the editor in question seems out of POV to be shutting down this thread. i say that to keep open this discussion of the article and its content. ] (]) 12:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::closing the article to further discussion by "archive" process is being done by an editor discussed a lot in the thread. that's POV. bigtime. the editor says talk pages are for content and not about editor behavior. well, since the content-removal in the article (the point of this thread) keep being removed mostly by the editor in question and another one also appearing in the thread, of course their usernames and some speculation will appear. the editor in question seems out of POV to be shutting down this thread. i say this in order to keep open this discussion of the article and its content. ] (]) 12:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
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 " should be read as an admonition against superfluous nominations. It is not a moratorium."
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. 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
Megan Gibson (2011-01-14). "Misplaced Pages's 10th Anniversary: 10 Unforgettable Entries". TIME. 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.
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.
Statistical analysis of deaths
A supporting source was removed in this edit with the summary: "Leonara Rustamova has no reputation for expertise in the statistical analysis of deaths" and another was removed in this edit with the summary: "mixmag.net has no reputation for statistic analysis of deaths". Since when has it been agreed that supporting sources should have "a reputation for statistic analysis of deaths"? I thought the agreed consensus was that sources should simply be WP:RS that describe the death as "unusual" or similar? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
So what would be the acceptable source that has "a reputation for statistical analysis of deaths"? Perhaps we have been here before, but the text at the top of the article just says "This list includes unique or extremely rare circumstances of death recorded throughout history, noted as being unusual by multiple sources." It says nothing about reputations for statistical analysis of deaths. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Read up on what a reliable source is, particularly WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I don't make these things up. So far as I know, there aren't any reliable sources that categorize any individual death as unusual. It's not really the "text at the top of the article" that counts, it's the contents of the last RFC, which specifically excludes the kind of original research that you and Andrew are attempting here. The death must be classified as unusual in reliable sources.—Kww(talk) 22:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall the exclusive use of sources with "a reputation for statistical analysis of deaths" being a pre-condition of the preservation of this article. I'm not quite sure how any new editor would even be aware there had been a single RfD. Would it not save a great deal of reverting time if this was made clearer in the introduction to the article? The Talk Page text at the top of this page says: "... 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." Again, no mention of "a reputation for statistical analysis of deaths". So the directions here are misleading? 'Context matters' says: "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Nothing about statistical analysis. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I take it you missed the part about " Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Misplaced Pages article and is an appropriate source for that content."—Kww(talk) 22:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I think most other editors, and more importantly most readers, would be happy to apply the common meaning of the word "unusual", used by reliable commentators, not a very narrow one based on some notion of statistical probability, applied by some fantastical expert panel of actuaries. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Which is precisely why I haven't taken any action against items where a major newspaper or similar news outlet has labeled a death "unusual". They shouldn't be included, but most people are willing to live with them.—Kww(talk) 14:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Most readers would probably be happy with pictures of naked women on every page as well, but because we are an encyclopedia and not a commercial site seeking the most hits to be popular, we follow policies for encyclopedic content and sourcing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom02:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Definition of the word "unusual"
Collins Dictionary says this: "If something is unusual, it does not happen very often or you do not see it or hear it very often." Is that "quite a stretch" or a very clear definition? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
So this death was first removed with the edit summary "doesn't seem quite unusual to die on the job". I think this, being a personal judgement about unusualness, is unacceptable. And besides, in my mind, it sounds a bit like "airport deaths are quite common" or "lots of people die at work". Surely, it depends on what job you do, and on the exact circumstances of the death? It was deleted again with the edit summary "quite a stretch from a vague "doesn't happen very often" to "unusual death"." But no, this is again a personal judgement. And it is also wholly contradicts the source. The first source, CCN News, says clearly: "A spokeswoman for Boeing said .... "It doesn't happen very often"." As can be seen from the Collins extract above this is the definition of unusual. If this kind of death is not unusual, perhaps we can see one single reported instance of it happening elsewhere? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The source does not directly describe the death as unusual. That's a pretty simple concept. It describes something as not happening very often (most likely this kind of accident). Even if it came out and said "this kind of accident doesn't happen very often", it would be original research to extend it to "this death is unusual", because, as has been explained to you ad nauseum, describing something about the circumstances as unusual does not logically extend to describing the death itself as unusual.—Kww(talk) 21:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I find your argument quite vacuous. But why the "ad nauseum" exactly, Kww? Because someone disagrees with you? How does one separate circumstance from "the death itself"? What kind of "death itself" is this one? One where the guy's heart stopped again? They're quite common, aren't they. Or are you claiming this is boring old "death in the workplace"? I'm sure we could all think lots of well-populated common categories that this death would neatly fit into. How about "death caused by lack of life" - that should cover most of the entries here, shouldn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Ad nauseum because after your view was rejected at the RFC you keep bringing it up. Look at the close again: " clear policy based consensus is to keep this list only to those deaths for whom there are reliable sources ... 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 that say "this death is unusual/strange/bizarre/other synonym", not "these circumstances are unusual/strange/bizarre/other synonym". Whenever you say "the circumstances are unusual, therefore the death is unusual" you are not only violating WP:OR, you are simply paraphrasing "Come on, this is obviously strange".—Kww(talk) 21:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
But you are deciding for yourself precisely what doesn't happen very often and how its rarity might relate to the death. That's the definition of "original research".—Kww(talk) 22:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm deciding nothing. I'm quoting the source. Or are you suggesting that maybe the Boeing spokeswoman was talking about someone paying for her lunch in the staff canteen? Gee, how nice! My reading of her statement is "people don't get sucked into aircraft engines very often". A wild guess, I know, but one that I think other readers, not just me, might actually make too. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Please explain the difference between "an occurence" and "this death". The source is saying "deaths by ingestion into aircraft engines don't happen very often". That makes it unusual. And, once again, how do you separate the death from the circumstances? Perhaps you can just tell, us in your own words, how this person died. Oh and what do you mean by " your view was rejected at the RFC"? And how would that be relevant here? Which RfC was that? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
This RFC. The one quoted at the talk of the top page. The one where the consensus was that multiple reliable sources had to describe the death as unusual. I've explained the difference difference between a source describing the cause as rare and describing the death as unusual to you before, which is why the ad nauseum qualifier applies. "Brake failures are rare" does not lead to "Death by brake failure is unusual". Certainly, there are rare events that lead reasonably lead to describing the resultant death as unusual, being sucked into a jet engine may well be one, but it doesn't matter what you or I think. Since it is not an automatic connection, we need a source to make the connection for us. In this case, you have not been able to provide a source that describes the death as unusual or strange.—Kww(talk) 01:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I assume you mean "The one quoted at the top of the talk page". But I made no contribution to that RfC. So I don't quite see how "my view was rejected". Indeed the RfC does not address the question you raise here, but discusses the place of "editorial judgement". And I remain unconvinced that a rare event may lead to a non-rare death. I believe you are simply splitting hairs, so that you may continue in your quest to "destroy the article by removing items one at a time". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Since when is an RFC required to apply basic policy to each particular article? And since when was participation in an RfC a requirement for an editor to follow the outcome? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom02:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
"Two men are suspected of killing a farmworker by pelting him with oranges in South Africa, the Associated press reports. " GuySoft (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Some accounts of his death claim that he died of a burst bladder because he had "refused to leave the banquet to relieve himself because it would have been a breach of etiquette". 121.44.7.104 (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
a few editors protect this article with their own criteria: no matter how de facto unusual a death is, they WILL DELETE the entry unless the SOURCE specifically says that the death was unusual. you must provide a source which must use the word unusual in reference to the death. hopefully, saying this up front will spare many contributors time and frustration in the future.
Cramyourspam (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The misleading aspect is that these same editors frequently use edit summaries which suggest that some kind of personal qualitative judgement has been made, e.g. "deaths by liver failiure are not unusual", "this kind of death happens every day", etc, etc. Such edit summaries are wholly unjustified and misleading. As you say, the criterion is that a reliable source must use the word unusual, or a synonym of this. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
aye, indeed. for that matter, i wish someone who knew how to bring in neutralADMINS would do so. i know there is a process for that, but i don't know the tag to add to get it on the lists for such a review. Cramyourspam (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
It's troubling that one of the regular editors here is an admin whose stated aim is to "destroy the article by removing items one at a time". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
wow. indeed, in the past, it has seemed that editors favoring (in my opinion) unique strictness (only if RS use the word unusual about the death may it be added) included: TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, Kww, NinjaRobotPirate, Dkriegls, North8000, Neljack, Abductive, pbp. It has seemed that those favoring reasonable flexibility (res ipsa or common sense consensus that a strange death is what a reasonable person might consider "unusual" even if the RS does not specifically use the exact word unusual) have included: Dream Focus, Andy Dingley, Martinevans123, cyclopia, Qwyrxian, Warden, sroc, AJHingston, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Cramyourspam, Herostratus. It would be good to include neutralADMINS who are not on the list of usual suspects, in addition to --the usual suspects. This article is problematic because it seems like entries without strict and exact use of the word unusual get readily deleted by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom or Kww, get undon by the original poster, and then get re-deleted by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom or (able to help each other) Kww, and then 3RR rears its head and the case is closed. That's the m.o. on this article. Cramyourspam (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
That seems a reasonably accurate summary. Although I have long favoured clear objective criteria, even though these may themsleves be problematic. Some editors, however, seem to want it both ways: yes, a source says a death is unusual, but this is overtunred on the grounds that there is a compelling argument, in abstract logic, or from "common understanding", that the source cannot be trusted and/or the claim is invalid. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Have you bothered to take a look at the RFC at the top of the page, or the last AFD? Nothing's happening here but enforcing community consensus on what it takes to go in this article. Yes, if the source doesn't directly describe the death as "unusual" or some reasonable synonym thereof, it gets removed. Yes, that means it's virtually impossible for this article to grow, and tends to make it shrink instead. That's because it's a bad topic for an article, not because there is any form of misbehaviour. The general problem is that very few sources characterize deaths as unusual: at most, they describe something else as unusual and editors commit original research attempting to link the two together. That's generally what happens in the cases that Martinevans123 discusses. If you review the last several discussions we have had, the problem is always that he is using a source that does not directly describe the death as unusual.—Kww(talk) 13:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Your comment is addressed to me? The AfD did not conclude that this was "a bad topic for an article", did it? That's your personal view getting in the way of fair editing. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
To both of you. Yes, "it's a bad topic for an article" represents a personal conclusion. The fact that the two of you are here complaining about the effect a rigorous application of sourcing standards to the topic has on the size of the list would tend to support it.—Kww(talk) 14:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
There aren't any unfair personal agendas that I'm aware of. My only personal agenda is to ensure that sourcing standards are rigorously applied. Yes, that will make the list tend towards zero length, but that isn't unfair, it's simply a natural consequence of the poor topic.—Kww(talk) 14:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
re: Kww's "Have you bothered to take a look at the RFC" --yes. that's where i got my list. the RFC i read seemed to be dominated by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom and Kww --which made me wonder about the RFC's quality. many posters here are not fixated upon patrolling this article long term, unlike the key couple members of the "strict" faction. Cramyourspam (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not a "poor topic". It's a topic Misplaced Pages doesn't how to treat properly. Why should any article "tend towards zero length" unless one or more editors are keen to see it disappear and have clearly said so all along. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
My feeling is that Kww and TRPOD are gaming the system. They literally follow the book when it suits them and they stop following it when it suits them as well. Oh, never blatant violations, the two guys are smart. It's always just on the border within the rules, but in such a fashion that it becomes tendentious editing. Their not-so-concealed aim is, since they couldn't delete this article at AfD, to sabotage it until it disappears naturally. Which is a blatant case of WP:POINT, as far as I'm concerned, but I'm sure they'll now answer "oh noooo, we're just following the rules and the rfc!". Yeah, sure, to the point of making a farce of every attempt at editing here. There is more important stuff than the little game played here, but this is not a nice show. --cyclopia14:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The article was kept on the basis that it was possible to keep it within policy, and the deletion arguments centered around the fact that most contributors to the article had no apparent intention of following policy. The gaming is done by editors that claim that the article can be kept within policy when the article is at AFD and then either passively or actively break those same policies as soon as it is kept. That's the reason it's been at AFD seven times: six promises to improve followed by six failures for those improvements to actually occur. This time, the promised improvement of the article is occurring. That means elimination of policy-violating material and preventing more policy-violating material from being added. It would be nice if people simply wouldn't add policy-violating material in the first place, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.—Kww(talk) 17:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
And It would be nice if editors didn't dream up their own interpretations of what sources mean by "unusual" on a case-by-case basis. Since when has the criterion for including items here become "policy"? The closing remarks at the AfD said this:
"To the point that this list is subjective OR: It isn't, as long as the items in the list are referenced to sources calling the deaths unusual. If there are items in the list where this is not the case, they should be fixed if possible and removed if not."
I can only suggest that you read the words "to sources calling the deaths unusual" over and over and contemplate their meaning. When those sources are provided, I don't see anyone removing the material.—Kww(talk) 22:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
to all: an editor who keeps deleting content from the article has twice tried to close off discussion on this thread by archiving the thread. to TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom in discussing the changes to the article, primarily made by you and another editor, discussion of your changes will necessarily appear. it is blatant POV that then YOU would close off the talk thread to further discussion by archiving it. you're cheating. Cramyourspam (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
closing the article to further discussion by "archive" process is being done by an editor discussed a lot in the thread. that's POV. bigtime. the editor says talk pages are for content and not about editor behavior. well, since the content-removal in the article (the point of this thread) keep being removed mostly by the editor in question and another one also appearing in the thread, of course their usernames and some speculation will appear. the editor in question seems out of POV to be shutting down this thread. i say this in order to keep open this discussion of the article and its content. Cramyourspam (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
