Jump to content

Talk:List of unsolved deaths/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

'No Date Given' Contradiction

The entry on the Bodom murders is located under the "No Date Given" header - the Wikipedia article the link points to, however, gives a very clear date for the murders. Slip, or intentional? Mip | Talk 18:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A similar Wiki Category

Wikipedia also has the similar category called, "Category:Cause of death disputed." A cursory examination (my "original research") revealed that several people in this "unsolved murders and deaths" list are also in the Wiki-Category "Cause of death disputed." Perhaps we should link or connect these two similar areas. ProfessorPaul 03:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Should the redlinks really be in here? If they have no article, is it really a notable murder? Thousands of these things happen a year. Chris 04:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

signature with no comment

Bearian 16:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up

The Zurab Zhvania article makes absolutely no mention of any sort of controversy or foul play in his death and the cause has been easily determined. I'm going to remove it from this list.--Theloniouszen 05:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A number of these deaths fall into a category for conspiracy theorists. There has been no proof about people such as Joseph Stalin and Pope John Paul I, so why make this look like some gossip rag?

I am going to be bold and clean up this article, removing all conspiracy theories and hoaxes. Bearian 16:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Also, I removed all red links as NN murders and deaths. Bearian 17:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Missing cases

User:PaulinSaudi created a page called Unsolved crimes to note the following, which I presume belongs here. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsolved murders are listed at Unsolved Murders [[1]] and so are not included in this list of other notable unsolved criminal cases.
*1975
On December 29, 1975 a powerful bomb exploded in the baggage area killing 11 people and wounding another 75. Despite being given a high priority by the New York Police and FBI, no arrests were ever made.[[2]]
*1995
On 10 October, 1995 [[3]], near Hyder, Arizona, a number of bolts were removed from a rails causing a passenger train to derail killing an Amtrak worker and injuring twelve others. The crime scene yielded a number of clues, including a typewritten note signed "Sons of Gestapo." Despite an intensive investigation (dubbed Operation Railsplitter), no arrests were ever made.[[4]]

List section sorting

I noticed that currently there is no single method used by which the entries are sorted, unsolved serial killer murders seems to be done by alphabet, unsolved deaths chronologically and unsolved murders has no sorting at all. For consistency I propose to list all entries chronologically per section with subsections by year so that each entry can than be placed under its corresponding year. For serial killer cases which span multiple years, the entries are listed under the year the first murder took place. This will make the list look better plus more easy to read and navigate. If no one objects, I'm going to be bold and make these changes myself. Erebus Morgaine (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Done I have also added sources for all unsolved murder cases as well as a short description per case. Erebus Morgaine (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I deleted Jessica Keen's entry since her entry and page acknowledged the killing was solved. Byuusetsu (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Notable?

The introduction to this article states that it lists notable deaths, yet several entries appear to be fairly usual. Unless anyone objects, I am going to weed out the more pedestrian entries. Thoughts? --JeffJ (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Overlap

This page overlaps with List of unsolved murders in the United Kingdom and indeed most if not all of the events refer to the US. Should it perhaps be renamed List of unsolved murders in the United States? Groomtech (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That depends. If the articles are pared down to notable deaths, then they might all be merged into a global article. But if each article is going to be an unfiltered repository for every unsolved murder, then we should probably create separate articles for each U.S. state. --JeffJ (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Toddy

Given the controversy, shouldn't Thelma Todd's death be included? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Caylee Anthony

I feel that the entry regarding Caylee Anthony's unsolved death is worded incorrectly---it seems biased, and although most of the public is biased against the persons involved, it should not reflect that on Wikipedia. "Even though her mother, Casey Anthony" sounds suspiciously like an accusation. 67.142.175.24 (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've attemped a NPOV rewording. ThatSaved (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Duplicated externally

I've just found a copy of this list at http://reference.findtarget.com/search/List%20of%20unsolved%20deaths/

I haven't checked every entry, but it appears to be identical, right down to the typos. I don't know if this is a problem or not. I've found other Wiki pages seemingly duplicated externally before. But this one got my curiosity because of the duplicated typos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjl2 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really surprising, as many sites crib their info verbatim from Wikipedia and don't even bother to proofread their copy-pastes. Also makes it difficult to determine which of these entries are notable, since a Google search will turn up dozens of mirror copies of this page and other sites that trim this article's info down to a list of names or other more manageable subsets. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is this an article?

I feel like this article is really odd for Wikipedia. It's an arbitrary list in that there are literally hundreds of thousands or even millions of unsolved murders that aren't going to be included and the parameters for what gets one included is hopelessly nonexistent. Seriously, why is this an article? I thought random, arbitrary and pointless lists were frowned upon for Wikipedia.Jdlund (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's an arbitrary list, as arbitrary as I feel almost all lists are. But this list specifically states it is about notable cases only. That means there will not be millions of unsolved murders to be included and that there indeed are parameters for what gets included. So I feel it's not random, not pointless and by far not as arbitrary as you seem to think. I do hope that no non-notable cases will be added. Mark in wiki (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Except that items of dubious notability have already been added. One such item has as its description in the article history: "added my mother to the list". Is anyone reviewing these for notability? Just as Jdlund feared, this is becoming a dumping ground. Heck, a later section of the list seems to serve an identical purpose to the main section! Whatever its specifically stated purpose is, it isn't being used that way, and any joker with a keyboard is going to add his fancruft to the growing pile. Weed it out, and lock it. That's the only way to keep any of these "list" articles under control. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Copy editing?

As a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, I would appreciate comments on what is needed as copy editing of this list. Perhaps it is only Wikilinks, in which case the {{Dead end}} tag is more appropriate. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There are a few awkward expressions ("The mysteriously-deceased") and colloquialisms ("The assassination is still a very big question mark"). A quick copy edit could deal with suchlike. --Stfg (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hunter Bryce

Should she be included on the list? I have no idea, but it seems a bone of contention. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 21:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC).

Suggested addition

I would suggest adding the murder of Dian Fossey <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Fossey>

and possibly Thomas Ince...

and Carl Switzer (Alfalfa)...

69.69.213.93 (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Elisa Lam should definitely be in the suspicious deaths category. The video released of her last seen in the Cecil Hotel is just creepy. 

 http://theghostdiaries.com/new-bizarre-twists-in-the-macabre-case-of-elisa-lam/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.252.78 (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


There's nothing mysterious about Paul Wellstone's death. Someone needs to remove this conspiracy-theory garbage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.158.121 (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Natalie Halloway

Her disappearance was probably the most publicized in the last decade, I think she should be mentioned in this article.93.196.238.146 (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

She's already covered at List of people who disappeared mysteriously, since as likely as it is that she's dead, her body has not been found. Daniel Case (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

John P. Wheeler III

John P. Wheeler III should be added to this list. He was notable prior to his death, his death has officially been ruled a homocide, there are no strong leads and his death is surrounded by mysterious circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.67.122 (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's on now. Daniel Case (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of unsolved deaths

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of unsolved deaths's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "King":

  • From Guy Paul Morin: King, Jack (August 1988). "The Ordeal of Guy Paul Morin: Canada Copes With Systemic Injustice". Champion Magazine. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Archived from the original on 16 August 2010. Retrieved 16 August 2010.
  • From Tupac Shakur: King, Jamilah (15 November 2012). "Art and Activism in Charm City: Five Baltimore Collectives That Are Facing Race". Colorlines. Retrieved 11 April 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Keith Ratliff

He should be added. Google him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.134.205 (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Checked it out and we have this as a section at FPSRussia. Will do. Daniel Case (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Date format

This article needs uniform date format - either U.S. or U.K. There is currently a myriad of both (September 12, 1943/4 July 1954). Can consensus be reached for one or the other?--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

What we really need to do is move all the UK unsolved murders to that list and set up a separate US (and perhaps AUS as well) list—I'm probably more responsible than anyone else for mixing up these date formats, with the idea in mind that we were eventually going to have to do that split anyway.
Frankly, we should also split this several ways outside of geography: unsolved murders, unsolved serial killings, unsolved multiple-victim or mass-casualty events, and unsolved deaths. I get the idea that years ago, when these lists were new, someone got the bright idea to hold them all in one article as there were probably (at the time) too few to justify separate lists (or someone saved an article at AfD that way, for all I know). Now that problem has been so solved that the solution itself has become the problem. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Why was "Boy in the Box" removed from the list?

Used to be here before. Boy in the Box (Philadelphia) 89.27.84.10 (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Moved to List of unidentified murder victims in Pennsylvania. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

"Unsolved"

"Unsolved" needs to be defined better for this article and Category:Unsolved deaths. For example, how Jeffrey R. MacDonald's family died is "solved" as is the death of William Colby. We don't say the assassination of John F. Kennedy is "unsolved" simply because somebody refuses to come to terms with the official findings. - Location (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"Solved" means both the proximate and underlying cause of death (accident, homicide, suicide or undetermined). Usually the former is pretty settled (with exceptions like the Lead Masks Case and the Dyatlov Pass Incident, although I think the articles actually make good cases for neither of them being some sort of X-File); it's the latter that leads to debate. We know Natalie Wood drowned; we don't know whether it was an accident or not (and that's the new official finding after the recent reinvestigation). We know Karen Silkwood died of injuries sustained in a single-car accident; the question of whether another car was involved and ran her off the road, there is some debate. We know Jonathan Luna died of the stab wounds he suffered; the FBI and the local coroner differ on whether it was suicide or homicide.

As for murders, perhaps we should distinguish between genuinely unsolved murders (no serious suspects ever), partially solved murders (not all the perpetrators tried or convicted) and disputed ones (Leigh Leigh fits into both these last two: perhaps the young man who confessed to it and served time had some culpability, but the evidence suggests there were others involved and that he may not have been the one to do the dirty deed as his confession is somewhat implausible). Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

A major problem with this list is it has included people whose proximate and underlying cause of death are known. Some people not accepting their relative could have killed themselves or another person, unsubstantiated rumors, or conspiracy theories to not make a death unsolved. Edward321 (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
You mean "people whose proximate and underlying cause of death have been officially determined", which is not to say they are known (that, of course, calls for a "list of disputed deaths", which I am amenable to splitting off at some point in the near future). Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Material in Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources, and this article is giving equal weight to the reliability of the official determination of someone's death and the fringe views of someone's death. It's one thing to label a death "disputed" because there is some significant disagreement between the coroner or local police or the FBI, but it's entirely a different matter to label one such based on the opinions of defense attorneys, book authors, and investigative journalists. Sourced by the latter, List of disputed deaths would merely become a dumping ground for fringe theorists. Let us attempt to resolve the first two examples. Are the deaths of Colby and the MacDonald family "unsolved" or "disputed" by those with fringe views? Yes. Are the deaths of Colby and the MacDonald family "unsolved" or "disputed" by officials sources? Absolutely not. - Location (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
They are disputed by reliable sources, yes. Errol Morris made a film and wrote a book based on his re-examination of the MacDonald case. He's not the only one, either. As Vanity Fair put it in 1998: "Debate still rages over whether handsome young Green Beret captain Jeffrey MacDonald slaughtered his pregnant wife and two young daughters in one of the most hideous murders of the 1970s ..." There's another book, too. I think there's enough reliably-sourced second-guessing of the prosecution in that case to consider it legitimately disputed. (whereas one person disputing something in a self-published Amazon single, yeah I'd agree that doesn't make the cut). Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, since a fair amount of the ones you removed frankly should have been removed, I'm not going to do any reverting. It's been time for a long time to split this list up anyway; the pruning can only help in preparation for that. Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Setting aside for the moment individual listed cases, I am concerned that this article/list has been used for the promotion of fringe theories. Even if we spin off some of these into a separate list we need to be very careful about WP:PROFRINGE. Fringe theories are not generally accorded equal weight on Wikipedia. Even introducing them requires some level of notability and creating a separate list or article about disputed deaths is going to be very difficult to create without heavy reliance of Fringe sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking of just not doing that now, anyway, and adding a pagenotice to the edit window on the "unsolved" lists stating that entries should only be included as "unsolved" if two investigating authorities have reached different conclusions (i.e., the Bob Woolmer entry already here) or an earlier conclusion has been amended by a subsequent investigation by the same agency or another, or someone's conviction has been overturned (Although the question there is, what about cases where an appeal succeeds purely on procedural grounds without the facts really coming into dispute?) Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that is a good idea. I'm not sure how law enforcement agencies mark cases as "closed", but it is another item to consider in building this list. For example, I doubt that LAPD considers the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman "unsolved". - Location (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
From what I've heard, you are correct.
Of course, even if you just go by official determinations, some cases (like Jonathan Luna, as mentioned above, are still more "disputed" than "unsolved". There are two possible solutions there, and only those two. Whereas for cases like Mitrice Richardson, Caylee Anthony and Andrew Sadek, the forensic evidence was not, or couldn't be, complete enough to establish a cause of death on its own, and those cases will require more witnesses to get closer to being solved, so for now they are truly unsolved. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Kilgallen

Officially, Kilgallen's death is "solved": https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19651116&id=3idfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CE8NAAAAIBAJ&pg=5852,1580478&hl=en. - Location (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Really? According to that source, circumstances of death were indecisive; the ME did not rule on whether it was accidental, suicide, or anything else. That's hardly a solution; we know what she died of; the ME report does not say "case solved". --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
There is no credible evidence of anything other than death by accident. Suggestions to the contrary almost always come from FRINGE sources. We are not in the business of promoting Fringe Theories using speculation or what ifs. We deal in facts. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
There is no credible evidence of . . . what? Of what is there no credible evidence? Of the medical examiner who did her autopsy saying "circumstances undetermined" ? Or him using the word "indecisive" ? The article that you yourself provided here quotes him as saying Kilgallen's death was "indecisive." You deal in facts? There's your fact. He said publicly those words: "indecisive" and also "circumstances undetermined." He didn't say it was an accident. His name was and is James Luke. He's a licensed medical doctor.
You keep saying that that book by Lee Israel is a fringe source on everything about Kilgallen, meaning the only source on statements made by the medical examiner who did her autopsy. And every online article about her, including Midwest Today, supposedly got all its facts and innuendoes from the Israel book. You're utterly mistaken. Writers got what they got from James Luke, M.D. and from newspaper reporters who interviewed him in 1965. Writers also interviewed another New York medical examiner whose signature appears on the death certificate, and he told interviewers he never handled the Kilgallen case or saw her remains. Dr. Luke handled it. If these details don't mean someone's death was / is unsolved, then what do they mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.58 (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Got a reliable source that supports your claims? Edward321 (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
"Circumstances undetermined" does not mean "unsolved". Luke said Kilgallen died from consuming a fatal combination of alcohol and barbiturates. Overdoses like this are not uncommon, and it is not required for medical examiners to determine intent, or lack thereof, on the part of the deceased. - Location (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I have a reliable source. What's wrong with the following? It's available in hard copy as it was in 2007 when it was new. Magazine subscribers paid money to receive the hard copy via snail mail back then. Midwest Today article on Dorothy Kilgallen includes a statement from the medical examiner who signed her death certificate -- not the same medical examiner who was interviewed by newspaper reporters in the aftermath of her 1965 death.
You're positive that nowhere in the United States in 1965, meaning not in New York City, were medical examiners required to determine intent or lack thereof on the part of somebody who swallowed too much medication? Your claim is contradicted by a source that would qualify as a legitimate Wikipedia source. I'm not going to add it to this article or to the Dorothy Kilgallen article, but it is relevant that the book's author, Michael Baden, worked at the New York City medical examiner's office starting in 1960. He witnessed Kilgallen's autopsy in 1965 but did not sign the death certificate or communicate with newspaper reporters about her in particular. Here is evidence of his book. Michael Baden's book
The book says that indeed medical examiners visited scenes of deaths that could have been suicides, if they were told about that possibility by police who got there first. Moreover, if the deceased did not have a personal physician who could sign a death certificate, then by law a medical examiner had to show up. If that medical examiner suspected a drug overdose, then yes, he or she had to rule out suicide. Doctors looked for suicide notes and tried to question the last people to communicate with the deceased, possibly in a telephone call if the body was near a telephone. Autopsies were supposed to try to determine whether several doses of a drug caused death over a period of hours, which is common among addicts, or whether the deceased had ingested everything at once, which could indicate suicide.
One week after Kilgallen's autopsy, Dr. James Luke said publicly in essence that he didn't know how or why so many barbiturates had ended up in her system, but they did, and the overdose "in turn caused her heart to stop." Find these words in a newspaper source that must be considered just as legitimate as the one that "Location" quoted a couple months ago. newspaper article quoting Dr. James Luke using words "caused her heart to stop"
From the standpoint of Wikipedia editors, it is interesting that recently they overhauled the entire article about the death of Marilyn Monroe. They wrote new text saying that any of the hundreds of books about Monroe that quote certain alleged "witnesses" are fringe sources: witnesses such as Robert Slatzer and Jeanne Carmen. Fair enough. One claimed to have been married to Monroe in 1952, and the public never knew, and the other claimed to have visited a nude beach along with her and Robert Kennedy circa 1961. Neither Slatzer nor Carmen could prove these extreme stories years later. Many writers have challenged every word they have said about Monroe. So they and others make many sources on Monroe seem like fringe sources. Fair enough. Meanwhile, the 2007 Midwest Today article on Kilgallen -- reminder of major source on Kilgallen that might not be fringe -- cites many sources, not one of whom has been debunked or even challenged.
What about Lee Israel, you say? Yes, she was convicted of white collar crimes more than ten years after the publication of her Kilgallen book. But she wasn't actually a source for Midwest Today. Read the article carefully to confirm that. What the Midwest Today writer and editor did was to track down and question the people who had been Israel's sources. They also questioned people whom Israel never had interviewed, such as Marc Sinclaire, discoverer of Kilgallen's dead body.
But Wikipedia editors remain as zealous about labeling sources on Kilgallen "fringe" as they do about sources on Monroe. That's weird and possibly sexist. The two women's careers were very different from each other. Where are the con artists in the Kilgallen saga? Who was or is the huckster who appeared on Hard Copy and dozens of talk shows claiming they had witnessed something important at the end of Kilgallen's life? OK, so Kilgallen rarely if ever attracted television advertisers in the 1990s. (Monroe was the cash cow.) Alright then, did a known con artist appear on one single television broadcast lying about Kilgallen? I don't believe you can find such a person. There was not and probably is not a financial motive.
Slatzer and Carmen had long careers playing around with Monroe's memory. A lot of video exists indicating they both appeared on Hard Copy, Larry King Live and many other TV shows for years and years. Here is a 1992 Slatzer appearance. They seem to have ruined the credibility of a lot of other people with stories to tell, stories that are remotely connected with show business, meaning What's My Line or any other piece of entertainment that overlapped Monroe's movie career. On several episodes of What's My Line, you hear references to Monroe -- the New York judge who married her and Arthur Miller, etc. Over a period of many years, Kilgallen commented in her column on Monroe, and maybe that's haunting her memory. But when you study accounts of Kilgallen's life, career and death, who are the counterparts of Robert Slatzer and Jeanne Carmen? I don't believe there are any. Who has said Kilgallen visited a nude beach? I don't believe anyone has made such an extreme statement. How do you determine that a source on her is fringe? Wikipedia editors insist that the Midwest Today article should be considered fringe, maybe because . . . Midwest Today writer Sara Jordan should be held responsible for Lee Israel's crimes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.50 (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding: You're positive that nowhere in the United States in 1965, meaning not in New York City, were medical examiners required to determine intent or lack thereof on the part of somebody who swallowed too much medication? In other words, were there any jurisdictions with laws that forced medical examiners to make a specific ruling on something for which they did have enough information to make a specific ruling? Yeah, I'm certain that the existence of any jurisdiction like that would have been in the extreme minority.
The Oxford Dictionary of English defines "unsolved" as "not solved"; and their definition of "solve" means "Find an answer to, explanation for, or means of effectively dealing with (a problem or mystery)".[5] You may not agree with them, but the relevant authorities appear to have found an answer that effectively deals with Kilgallen's death. She overdosed. - Location (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Kaspar Hauser

Does anyone think that adding Kaspar Hauser to this list would be a good idea? I think he counts as notable, and the circumstances of his life and death certainly make for a good entry. If he's already been included on a similar list/page I would love to know. Jaxzan Proditor (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes; but I'd like the article to be clearer on whether there ever was an official finding as to the cause of his death (OK, we know it was a stab wound, but self-inflicted or not?). Daniel Case (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of unsolved deaths. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Split into Separate Articles

This list is incredibly long and difficult to navigate and will only get worse as new cases are added. I propose dividing it into three or four new articles. Vital Forces 2015 (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your observation. I have actually thought this myself. Maybe separate by existing chapter headers?--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
It also becomes difficult to keep each entry "updated" when the article is as long as this. Some of the info. in a few entries could be described as being obsolete.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
That could work. Another way would be to split pre-1960s deaths and then 1960 to present. Vital Forces 2015 (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The length doesn't bother me, however, I have a large monitor. Deaths that have been solved by authorities, but are contested by conspiracy theorists sometimes make there way here (e.g. Karen Silkwood). Removing them probably wouldn't make a big dent, though. -Location (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I have thought this myself. The biggest separation needed is between the unsolved killings (where there is no question the person died at someone else's hands) and the unsolved deaths where two formal investigations may have reached different conclusions. The former list should be List of unsolved killings, not murders, as BLP and OR issues come into play when you use "murder" before anyone has been charged or convicted of that crime.

We could also stand to separate the unsolved serial killings in the middle. And I would also consider strongly a separate list for unsolved mass killings and terrorist attacks, of which there are quite a few because I added them all some time ago. (I have also had the idea to have List of unsolved killings believed linked to organized crime, but maybe we'll need more consensus on that one).

I support the idea also of lists by time period, but also by country since we have one for the UK, and there's easily enough American, Australian, Canadian and South African entries on the homicide section of the list to support separation. Daniel Case (talk) 07:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I will follow the suggestion of splitting into three articles based on the current titles: List of unsolved murders, List of unsolved serial killer murders and keep the rest on this article. Unless someone has a better suggestion Vital Forces 2015 (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Vital Forces 2015: But please call the first one List of unsolved killings. "Murders" are cases where a trier of fact has considered evidence of intent and convicted someone of deliberately killing someone else; all other cases are "homicides" or "killings". Daniel Case (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I think this could be asking for trouble, but won't know until we see the finished product. I foresee relevant material will frequently be placed in the wrong article, and that there will be frequent debates on which article is most appropriate for a particular item. It might be better to open an Rfc or place {{Split}} on the page. -Location (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@Location: We could easily include something at the top of the page explaining that "unsolved deaths" are for cases where the manner or cause of death is "undetermined" or "open verdict", or where two different official investigations have reached different conclusions. Cases where it might have been a homicide under those criteria.

Whereas "killings" is for cases where there's no doubt, at least officially, that someone died at the hands of another, we just don't know which another. I don't see this as a very hard distinction to understand.

If "relevant material will frequently be placed in the wrong article", which happens anyway, there's a very simple solution: Move it to the right article. It's an open-content online encyclopedia, not stone tablets. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Vital Forces 2015:I believe it should at least be possible to create List of unsolved serial killer murders as it is typically clearer when a murder is part of a serial killing spree. (Though I am not sure what should be done with copycat killings. I'm also not sure if this article already exists in the form of List of serial killers in the United States#Unidentified Serial Killers. It may also be worth while to create a List of disputed killings for killings in which the killer is disputed. An additional article could be List of disputed murder confessions for people who confessed to killing someone but it is disputed that they were telling the truth (see: Albert DeSalvo).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Botlord (talk • contribs)
@Botlord: See this for a good reason why maybe we shouldn't have a List of disputed killings. Instead, we have Category:Death conspiracy theories. Daniel Case (talk) 07:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@Botlord: I agree, I was referring to the first type of death, sorry if that was not clear.Botlord (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of unsolved deaths. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of unsolved deaths. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of unsolved deaths. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

inclusion of Dorothy Kilgallen

Clear and obvious long-standing consensus to exclude Kilgallen from this article, and no new information to challenge that. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia editor "Edward 321" reverted an edit that had placed Dorothy Kilgallen in this article. Edward's logic is that in September 2017, the district attorney's office dropped its investigation of her death, therefore her case "is still solved." Wrong! Original status (November 1965) was "circumstances undetermined." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.50 (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Kilgallen's death was ruled accidental.[[6] It is not an unsolved death, in spite of conspiracy theories trying to make her death a murder and trying to tie it to the JFK assassination.Edward321 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Not true. Her death wasn't ruled accidental. Her death certificate, like all New York City death certificates in that era, gave the medical examiner an array of boxes, one of which he had to check: natural causes, suicide, homicide, accident and "undetermined pending further investigation." Dr. Dominick DiMaio checked "undetermined pending further investigation." He also used a typewriter to spell out "circumstances undetermined" on a line that was separate from the line on which he typed "acute ethanol and barbiturate intoxication." Then Dr. DiMaio typed that he was signing the doocument "for James Luke," who was another medical examiner.
I'm not supporting a JFK conspiracy theory. I'm providing facts. Here are legitimate sources that back them up.
summary of a statement about Kilgallen's death made by the medical examiner's office
United Press International report of statements by New York City "assistant medical examiner" James Luke on Kilgallen's death -- Final paragraph mentions "circumstances undetermined." It is a United Press International report as it appeared in Milwaukee, Wisconsin exactly a week after she died.
Were you implying that previous edits of this article mentioned a connection between Kilgallen's death and the JFK assassination? If you were, you are incorrect. The edit that you reverted mentioned only that her death was mysterious. It didn't say JFK's death was.TroyBradenton (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
More than a week passed without a reply here. I contributed another edit, this time with a legitimate source backing up the new text with statements from the New York County, New York district attorney's office in 2017.TroyBradenton (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I am removing this entry per WP:PROFRINGE and the very extensive discussions that have occurred across multiple talk pages including WP:FTN and her article. There have been near endless attempts to promote various fringe theories about her death by conspiracy theorists. All of these discussions have resulted in a strong consensus that there is insufficient reliable secondary source coverage to mention these theories. Nonetheless efforts continue to be made to promote or insinuate these fringe theories from time to time. However per WP:RS there is nothing mysterious about her death. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Oops. I missed the already existing discussion. Thanks for the merge Akld guy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The restoration by Troy Bradenton, which you removed, was conservatively worded and made no reference to conspiracy theories. Nor did it attempt to link to any events that are themselves the subjects of conspiracy theories. "Cirumstances undetermined" is an unsolved death by definition. The assumption that you seem to be making is that her death was not unsolved because she must have committed suicide, no other person apparently being involved. The death certificate, while not ruling out suicide, says that the circumstances of her death are unexplained. Therefore it fits the criterion for inclusion in the article. Akld guy (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The cause of death is not in doubt. The only possible question is the manner, i.e. whether it was an accident or suicide. Almost all of the reliable sources point to an accident. But seriously if this minor question is enough to justify inclusion on the list then we have a very very low bar for inclusion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Sadly true. Maybe it should just focus on murders.Slatersteven (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
(e/c) No, the question is whether it was an accident or suicide or murder. No evidence for any of them, but they couldn't be ruled out. The only option was the "we don't know" entry of "Circumstances undetermined". If they didn't know, and if they still don't know, it's an unsolved death. Akld guy (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but that doesn't fly. This is Wikipedia and you can't imply or even suggest the possibility of murder w/o evidence from reliable sources. And per REDFLAG extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And bluntly, there is none. At least none from reliable secondary sources. This is an encyclopedia. We don't get to make stuff up on the basis of "well no one said it wasn't." That's a non-starter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The conspiracy-mongers make a big deal out of the phrase "circumstances undetermined". In reality, it's a catch-all phrase that doesn't rule out anything: accident, suicide, murder, heart attack, drug overdose, abduction by aliens, etc. It's tantalizing, but vague. To list Kilgallen's death as an unsolved death, we'd need multiple reliable secondary sources that provide comment/analysis that explicitly states Kilgallen's death is "unsolved". - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: Really? Then how come none of the existing entries in the article explicitly have sources stating the death is "unsolved"? For those who are wondering what's going on here, there has apparently been a hot debate on this matter at Dorothy Kilgallen's article. This was told to me by Ad Orientem, who contacted me by email. I normally take no notice of emails, which I view as a form of harassment. If you've got something to add to the discussion, say it on the Talk page and don't attempt to sway an editor in private. So it seems that I, who do not subscribe to the conspiracy theory on DK's death, have unwittingly stumbled into a continuation of a previous debate elsewhere and have now been labelled a conspiracy theorist by LL. Akld guy (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Akld guy. I certainly did not mean to harass you by sending you an email. I was simply trying to appraise you of the background to this. If you view email as a form of harassment I suggest you disable that feature of your account. Yes, this has been a long term issue, discussed ad nauseum both at WP:FTN and on DK's talk page. Yes there is a strong consensus against introduction of claims regarding her death that could be a COATRACK for promoting FRINGE THEORIES. With respect to other entries on this list, if they don't meet our guidelines then that is hardly an argument for continuing the practice. To be frank, I have long had concerns about the criteria for inclusion on this list which I believe is problematic. But that is another topic. The bottom line remains that we do not engage in speculation. We only repeat what independent reliable secondary sources have told us and I am not aware of any that have suggested murder was a real possibility here. The overwhelming majority of RS sources come down very firmly on the side of her death being an accident. A few do mention suicide, but most only in the context of saying it is highly improbable. Nor am I aware of any substantial body of RS sources suggesting anything particularly mysterious about her death. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
My email link is for friendly contact and chat with editors, not for debate about article content. Akld guy (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@ LL. Akld guy. What I'm saying is if the majority of reliable sources describe that Kilgallen's death was ruled as as accidental, we'd need multiple reliable sources that explicitly contradict that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Not one source describes her death as accidental. Sources either quote the medical examiner's 1965 statement "circumstances undetermined" (Her death certificate displays those words as a result of the medical examiner typing them) or they don't make any assertions about her death. Wikipedia editors have expressed agreement that the book about Kilgallen by Mark Shaw, distributed by Simon & Schuster, is not a reliable secondary source.TroyBradenton (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
New edit makes no mention of the JFK assassination, Lee Oswald, Jack Ruby, alien abduction or the word "conspiracy." Please read it in its entirety before deleting it. It has a direct quote from a statement made by a New York County, New York district attorney in 2017. It includes a reliable secondary source. How many of the 100-plus other unsolved deaths in this Wikipedia article are backed up by any reliable secondary source at all?
The Wikipedia article that is solely about Dorothy Kilgallen has provoked debates about Oswald and conspiracies, but "List of Unsolved Deaths" is a separate Wikipedia article. Please don't blame the editors who have worked on one Wikipedia article for decisions made by editors of another Wikipedia article. To repeat, please read the new short paragraph in its entirety before deleting it. Please mention here what in particular is wrong with it. If you say it should not promote a conspiracy theory, you are fantasizing. It does no such thing. Who, if anyone, ever said that if Kilgallen had a dangerous secret, it automatically had to have a connection to JFK, Oswald or alien abduction? We need to focus on the medical examiner's words that were quoted by reliable secondary sources: "circumstances undetermined."TroyBradenton (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
1Unless you can find reliable secondary sources that label her death as unsolved then this is WP:SYNTH and it doesn't belong here. As for the other entries see WP:OTHERSTUFF. But for the record this list is a wiki-train wreck with no discernible standards for inclusion that conform to our guidelines. It needs a massive clean up. Please do not re-add this entry w/o consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
The source given is the NY Post? Where does it say "circumstances undetermined" is the overall conclusion of her death? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

"the majority of reliable sources describe that Kilgallen's death was ruled as as accidental" By whom? Dominick DiMaio does not seem to have written that. Who is the primary source of the ruling? (I am not personally interested in the case, just wondering who are we using as a source.)Dimadick (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

PA Daily Post, NY Post, San Diego Union-Tribune, and others describe it as accidental. There seems to be a push by folks who have written conspiracy books to 'keep hope alive' by questioning the original ME and Manhattan District Attorney's Office examinations. In response to this, some editors appear to be advocating we use WP:OR to cherry pick phrases from primary sources that might suggest a mystery. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
A push by folks who have written conspiracy books to 'keep hope alive'? Do those folks include faculty of the law school at the University of Georgia? "Circumstances undetermined" is part of a headline with Kilgallen's name at the University of Georgia law school.
The New York Post source, which might not be reliable, was cited by LuckyLouie. Let's quote it correctly. New York Post
Here's what it says: "The city’s then-medical examiner ruled it [Kilgallen's death] accidental, caused by a combination of sleeping pills and liquor." That is not true. I already have cited the words that the medical examiner used in 1965. More importantly, if you check the Talk page of the Dorothy Kilgallen article, you find that many Wikipedia editors don't consider the New York Post a reliable secondary source anyway. Does a publication from the University of Georgia law school qualify as a reliable secondary source? Its headline about Kilgallen, for an article dated March 15, 2017, includes the words "circumstances undetermined." "circumstances undetermined" part of a headline with Kilgallen's name TroyBradenton (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Since you are new to the encyclopedia, I'll refer you to our policies and guidelines WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE, which discusses how and why we give weight to sources. Also you should read WP:FRINGE, which discusses how fringe theories are given less, if any weight in our articles. Regarding the material by Donald E. Wilkes Jr. (who appears to be pushing a number of conspiracy theories) posted on a university's digital repository: the nature of the source (not an academic journal, just space on a college server) and the blatant promotion of Mark Shaw's book along with various fringe JFK assassination claims, disqualify it as a reliable source, according to our policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Is the source called the Daily Mail in London, U.K. not considered a reliable source, either? Daily Mail piece dated December 4, 2016 mentions New York City medical examiner's verdict of "circumstances undetermined."TroyBradenton (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
The community found the Daily Mail to be a generally unreliable source in February of last year following a very intense discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Claremont Serial Killings

Bradley Robert Ewardes has been arrested for the murders of Jane Rimmer, Ciara Glennon and Sarah Spiers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.76.242 (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The case isn't considered solved until someone is found guilty of the charges. If a court finds him to be guilty we can removed the entry. Greyjoy talk 05:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Separating by country

I have scanned a previous discussion here in the talk archive, but am wondering if there would be opposition to relocating the U.S. cases in this list to a separate article, as there is already a List of unsolved murders in the United Kingdom article; given that a great deal of the cases here are based in the United States, it might be sensible. Any ideas? I frankly just think this article is too long as it stands and has reached the point of needing to be broken up and redistributed. --Drown Soda (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

+1 to creating a US unsolved-murders list; we might even be able to squeeze out ones for Australia and Canada as well. Daniel Case (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Demarcation

I think 'List of unsolved deaths' is the wrong title. There should be a demarcation between 'Missing persons', 'Unexplained deaths' and 'Unsolved crimes'. Valetude (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Momia Juanita

How is this an "unsolved death"? The Inca regularly practiced human sacrifice, and this is an example. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

For those interested, see Mummy Juanita. Akld guy (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Page size

This article has 429,595 bytes of markup - it is far too big. What is the best way to split it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you raised this issue. The article consists of the following sections:
  • 1. Unsolved murders
  • 2. Unsolved serial killer murders
    • Suspected serial killer murders
  • 3. Other unsolved deaths
  • 4. Date of death disputed
The two biggest sections by far are 1 and 3. My suggestion is to make Section 3 (which is misnamed and is really the crux of this article) the content of the article with Section 4 appended at the bottom. Then to create a spinoff for 1 and another spinoff for 2 and its subsection.
I might add that all the listings would benefit by being in table format, as was successfully done at List of people who disappeared, which was spun off into multiple articles that were put into table format. But let's handle the splits first before tabling, which will require separate calls for consensus. Akld guy (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@Akld guy: That would be a start, and if there are no cogent objections I suggest you do as you suggest in a few days. That said, your (1) is still around 300Kb, and would need to be subdivided further. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Other unsolved deaths are mostly unsolved murders though. Surely the best outcome would be to split these by time period. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: I'm not convinced you're correct about them being unsolved murders. I think you're wrong. There have been no other comments for more than a week, so in a day or two I'll move sections into their own articles as stated above. It seems likely that we'll have to split by time period as well, but let's see how this first split works first. Akld guy (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Akld guy All the unsolved deaths are potential murders though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
That's a huge assumption to make if there are no indications of foul play. Akld guy (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I have split the article per my suggestion above, creating List of unsolved murders and List of unsolved serial killer murders in the process. The remaining content is the unsolved deaths section, which appropriately matches the title of the article. Akld guy (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Jörg Haider

What about Jörg Haider? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.12.233.109 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Seth Rich

His murder remains unsolved at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.63.60 (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Enrico Mattei

He was most probably killed, perhaps by the CIA. An extremely important case, from a historical point of view. Seiopotessi (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Splitting out deaths "before 1900"?

While 11000 BCE is technically before 1900, it seems a bit disingenuous.

Suggested categories: Prehistorical, 2000 BCE - 0 CE, 0 CE - 1800 CE, 1800s.

Either of the middle categories could be further split, depending on the desired length of sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophibug (talk • contribs) 19:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the above suggestion; while we're at it, these people should be ordered by the time of death. BlueBanana (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the meme sent us here. The problem seems to be that List of unsolved deaths (before 1900) was merged here without the former format. (CC) Tbhotch™ 02:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat

why is missing?

Because he died of illness, and some people claiming that he was poisoned doesn't mean that he was, nor that he belongs on this list. And sign your posts next time.StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Lin Family

Robert Xie has recently been found guilty of all five murders, and has been sentenced to life in gaol.

Kilgallen

Content has been removed from that section because it was WP:SENSATIONAL, WP:OR, unsourced, or attributed to an established conspiracy theorist. Regarding the latter, see the extensive earlier discussions here, here, here, here, here, and here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Article should be re-evaluated: Do mummified and ancient remains really belong on this list? Or people who disappeared mysteriously?

I really don't feel that the remains of ancient humans and mummies belongs on a list like this. Of course we don't necessarily know how they died, but that's kind of loose with the idea of what these pages are about. Shouldn't this list be more for people whose deaths had a noted record of debate for how they died? Someone who likely died of natural causes in 10,000BCE doesn't belong on this list, just because we discovered their remains 10,000 years later, and don't officially know how they died. It just doesn't fit at all. Nor for people who probably died in pre-historic battle or something.

And as for people who disappeared mysteriously (which there was never a body found), they are already part of these respective lists. Which are more appropriate for them, as we do not know their ultimate fate. So even if enough time has passed that they are obviously dead by now, those lists are more appropriate for them.

Unless there's some serious beef with what I'm saying, I propose cleaning up this article. It should have a more focused scope on people in which different OFFICIAL investigations came to different conclusions; or were otherwise notably questioned (usually in their contemporary times).StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@StrangeApparition2011: Note that most of if not all these deaths were pre-mature as they died young, which I would say counts as unsolved deaths. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
In the spirit of necroposting (very apt for this page,) I would argue that they are not "unsolved" so much as they are "forgotten." They almost certainly didn't die of mysterious circumstances -- the people who buried them very likely knew how they died. Dying young was not uncommon in the ancient world. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 10:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
I completely agree with the above poster. I think it really doesn't fit this page, it makes no sense to include it. Wikipedia has a serious problem with people adding very trivial additions to lists.StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_unsolved_deaths/Archive_1&oldid=1228793801"