Talk:Toilet-related injury

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

Contents

[edit] Re Urban Legends

Bad plumbing actually can cause a toilet to explode, but it's very rare because of building codes Too Old 18:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


I am personally aware of an individual, overweight and under the influence, sitting down forcibly on a plastic toilet seat. The result was that one side of the seat shatterred, driving a section into the inner thigh resulting in him bleeding excessively. It was life threatening. The incident happened in a "hootch" in VietNam, Tan San Nhut AB. 69.107.75.165 21:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

What about the death in Scary Movie ? --141.30.212.78 17:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Is the death in Scary Movie the one where a wife (or someone) pours gasoline into the toilet, and then the husband later sits on it unaware of that fact? Then he lights a match for his cigarette and throws it in the toilet, causing the toilet to explode? Or is that another movie? As I remember, there was a motorcycle in the scene but I can't remember the name of the movie =( Robin Chen 04:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unrelated references to article on injuries

This article is about injurys related to toilet usage. How is "Famous toilet-related deaths" relevant to this? It says:

What does having a heart attack while on the toilet have to do with a toilet injury? If someone dies of a heart attack while on a chair, is that a chair-related injury? Similarly what does this and the others listed in "Possible occurences" have to do with a toilet-related injury?:

There is a separate article, List of people who died in the bathroom that covers such references as to place of death. - Ted Wilkes 17:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

They are both related to the toilet as they happened on the toilet. George II didn't die of a heart attack, as that is totally separate to an aortic dissection. The strain of using the toilet could have been a cause. Don Simpson was found dead on the toilet, and that is thus toilet-related too. Please don't start a vendetta just because you are annoyed about the Elvis reference. violet/riga (t) 20:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


To User:Violetriga - First, don't make false accusations or attempt to belittle my sincere contributions by claiming "vendettas" or I'm "annoyed." It is unwarranted and immature. And, you have avoided the facts of the matter: the article is about toilet injuries. Dying while on the toilet (as you allege happened to George II & Presley) is not a toilet injury. And, for the record, the George II reference appears to be based upon the book by Clifford Brewer, which provided no proof, was never subjected to a peer review, and was published by a tiny British firm in paperback only who "publish books on dialect and slang - and priced to match." This is not encyclopedic and contradicts Wikipedia:Reliable Sources policy. Cute, interesting or sensational are not encyclopedic. As a matter of interest, most major writings, state George II died of a stroke. - Ted Wilkes 23:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

There are many references that state that he died on the toilet. You also seem to confuse "toilet injury" with a toilet-related injury, which is clearly a different thing. As for the vendetta comment, it is obvious that you have a problem with onefortyone and this is just an offshoot of that. violet/riga (t) 23:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


User:Violetriga: Would it not be better to be adult enough to apologize when you insult someone instead of adding further accusations? The only problem I have with Onefortyone is his deliberate fabrications to serve his agenda as the Arbitration Commitee enunciated. And, I repeat, dying on the toilet is not a toilet ot toilet-related injury. And, those supposed "many references that state that he died on the toilet" are in fact 99.9% from Wikipedia mirrors or a quote from the same unacceptable Brewer book. When I say "mayor" writings, that means reliable sources acceptable to Wikipedia. - Ted Wilkes 23:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't patronise me to imply that I only looked at mirrors. As for my accusation, I'm sorry but I stand by it. You cannot deny that a death on the toilet is toilet-related - do please note that this article includes "toilet-related deaths". violet/riga (t) 23:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


You continue to talk in circles. Please deal with ther facts. This article is titled: Toilet related injury. Presley and others were not injured while (allegedly) on the toilet. Wikipedia doesn't allow Original research by anyone or personal opinions. Please quote your Wikipedia:Reliable sources for George II's death - after you deal with the issue as clearly stated above by me. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 23:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

A large proportion of this article is about death too (note toilet-related death redirects here) and they clearly died on the toilet, at least according to some sources. I will add references for the George II entry as and when I have the time and inclination to do so. violet/riga (t) 23:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a redirect to this article doesn't alter the fact that a large part of the content, as I clearly stated above, is not appropriate to this article about toilet-related injuries. Also, I find it incredulous that you would be so callous about leaving unsubstantiated gossip in Wikipedia until "you are inclined" to support your claims. That, is irresponsible and is precisely what drove away dedicated and sincere contributors and, if you read the mailing list what another valuable contributor talked about that caused the mess at the Bill Gates and Jane Fonda articles when they "gave up" against people editing in that manner . - Ted Wilkes 23:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with most of that. violet/riga (t) 23:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
A quick search for books that state about his death on the toilet...
Perhaps not all massively reputable, but non-Wikipedia-based examples nonetheless. violet/riga (t) 00:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


And again we agree, but in part. "Not reputable" is only a part of it. The exact contents of the writings referred to are not easily accessible for verification, and as such cannot be used at Wikipedia. In fact, there are no records as to the details of King George II's death and that is why many reliable sources such as Encarta and Britannica simply state he died in 1760. Credibility is a deadly serious issue for Wikipedia because without it, all those who have and do make sincere contributions and donate much time and effort will have done so in vain. And, posting speculation, gossip and rumour guarantees rampant abuse resulting in Wikipedia along with all those sincere people being completely discredited. - Ted Wilkes 00:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

You haven't heard of Google Print then, on which you can read (the relevant parts of) those books. I am fully aware of credibility, and it's an easy get around - stating that it's a belief and giving relevant citations. Note the plural, as one reference is not enough but numerous ones lend creditability. violet/riga (t) 07:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

We seem to be agreeing more and more, the single largest frustration at Wikipedia that I constantly run into is either claims with no CREDIBLE citations, citations that are worthless, and the most famous "it's a belief" which is no more than an attempt to insert a rumor or gossip tied to an agenda. If you think there has been difficulty with this on the Elvis Presley article, I dread opening up the Treaty of Versailles and the massive other articles with a similar agenda. - Ted Wilkes 17:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


Actually, I will disagree with part of your last statement that says: "Note the plural, as one reference is not enough but numerous ones lend creditability." - I find that many of these (and likely in the 3 instances cited) are in fact quotes either direct or a disguised variation from one party's writing (such as Brewer). And I say that because none of the most reputable of sources don't mention it. For travel guides and other "prmoting", it is no more than harmless hype but not encyclopedic. I actually found a University Professor's website quoting a complete fabrication from Wikipedia which is of course the situation that happened last September (04) at the Washington Post. - Ted Wilkes 19:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toilet-related death of King George II

Here is a direct quote from vol. 2 of the famous Memoires of the Last Ten Years of the Reign of George the Second by Horace Walpole, Earl of Orford:

On the 25th of October he [King George] rose as usual at six, and drank his chocolate; for all his actions were invariably methodic. A quarter after seven he went into a little closet. His German valet de chambre in waiting heard a noise, and running in, found the King dead on the floor." (p. 454) Onefortyone 21:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toilet-related death of Elvis Presley

Here is what reputed Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick says about Elvis Presley's death:

The only thing that appeared to have been missed, aside from the empty syringes, was the book that Elvis had in the bathroom with him when he died, a study of sex and psychic energy that correlated sexual positions with astrological signs. Warlick found a stain on the bathroom carpeting, too, that seemed to indicate where Elvis had thrown up after being stricken, apparently while seated on the toilet. It looked to the medical investigator as if he had "stumbled or crawled several feet before he died." ... nine pathologists from Baptist cond acted the examination in full knowledge that the world was watching but that the results would be released to Elvis' father alone. ... Francisco announced the results of the autopsy, even as the autopsy was still going on. Death, he said, was "due to cardiac arrhythmia due to undetermined heartbeat." ... But there were in fact at that time no results to report. The autopsy proper went on for another couple of hours. Specimens were collected and carefully preserved, the internal organs were examined and the heart found to be enlarged, a significant amount of coronary atherosclerosis was observed, the liver showed considerable damage, and the large intestine was clogged with fecal matter, indicating a painful and longstanding bowel condition. The bowel condition alone would have strongly suggested to the doctors what by now they had every reason to suspect from Elvis' hospital history, the observed liver damage, and abundant anecdotal evidence: that drug use was heavily implicated in this unanticipated death of a middle-aged man with no known history of heart disease who had been "mobile and functional within eight hours of his death." It was certainly possible that he had been taken while "straining at stool," and no one ruled out the possibility of anaphylactic shock brought on by the codeine pills he had gotten from his dentist, to which he was known to have had a mild allergy of long standing. The pathologists, however, were satisfied to wait for the lab results, which they were confident would overrule Dr. Francisco's precipitate, and somewhat meaningless, announcement, as indeed they eventually did. There was little disagreement in fact between the two principal laboratory reports and analyses filed two months later, with each stating a strong belief that the primary cause of death was polypharmacy, and the BioScience Laboratories report, initially filed under the patient name of "Ethel Moore," indicating the detection of fourteen drugs in Elvis' system, ten in significant quantity. Codeine appeared at ten times the therapeutic level, methaqualone (Quaalude) in an arguably toxic amount, three other drugs appeared to be on the borderline of toxicity taken in and of themselves, and "the combined effect of the central nervous system depressants and the codeine" had to be given heavy consideration. See Careless Love:The Unmaking of Elvis Presley (1999), pp. 651-652. Onefortyone 22:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Almost anything could be 'toilet related'

I think the scope of the article should be limited to: "injuries caused by or suffered as a result of use or misuse of a toilet", even though this is not explicit in the article name.

One could easily create an article: "Shoe related injuries", which documents instances of "injuries sustained while wearing or in vicinity of shoes". Quite silly yes, because in such a case one could easily list all assasitantions where the victim wore shoes for example, or even didn't wear shoes to somehow associate not wearing shoes with the injuries. In this case proper examples would include pointe shoe related injuries and injuries caused by stiletto shoes and maybe even incidents related to improper footwear in sports.

I think this article ("Toilet-related injury") should be recommended for deletion, or at least pruned. 211.28.78.115 02:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Series

So we have Toilet-related injury and now Toy-related injury. I was wondering whether to go for Tea-related injury or Toiletry-related injury next! ;) violet/riga (t) 19:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous toilet related deaths

Not a single one of these is toilet related except in that they all took place on the toilet. A toilet-related death is a death in which a fatal injury was sustained as a result of the toilet, not a heart attack that just happened to occur when one was sitting on the toilet. James Callahan 00:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, that's why it is "toilet-related". Secondly, many of them happened directly because they were using the toilet, either they were pushing a little too hard or they were attacked while very vulnerable. violet/riga (t) 05:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)