Talk:Darwin Awards/Archive 2

Show a little respect

Can someone please replace that awful cartoon with a decent picture of the great man? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jive Dadson (talk • contribs). 02:02, 20 November 2006

Keep it. It fits the article. Besides, it darwin is your hero, do you really want him associated with a guy who cut off his own head? stargate70 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.86.101.209 (talk • contribs). 01:13, 21 December 2006

Way to try and flame someone stargate70. Charles Darwin did not cut his own head off, he died from old age/disease.

Elephant Dung

People I know have been going on and on about a man who was taking care of a constipated elephant. He fed the elephant some whole grains, and was looking up the elephant's rear to see how things were "coming along." At the moment he was looking, the elephant chose that moment to empty its intestines on the man. So the man suffocated.

I'm not actually sure if it's actually true and won the Darwin Award, but it's an interesting point. 74.116.6.73 03:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This was just a ridiculous story in World Weekly News, and that is DEFINITELY not considered a valid source by the Darwin Awards. He supposedly gave a constipated elephant a laxative, then got too close and suffocated in the "prodigious aftemath." URBAN LEGEND. Wendy Wendy 07:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

this article does not exist just to push wendy's books and website... if you are going to throw her info in you should really add some other sites as well to the info paragraphs to be partial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.18.85 (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Books

It is improper not to mention the books (hundreds of stories) so I have added them back. Nearly all the Darwin Awards were written by Wendy Northcutt, except the Urban Legends and a few early ones. The title was licensed to the movie. So if you're going to include the movie, which is not yet released and incidentally does beyond-the-pale things like make "darwin awards" out of incidents that harm innocent bystanders, you need also include the books, which came first, and are more comprehensive. Thank you. Wendy Wendy 07:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Too much Movie information. Route to movie section instead.

There's way too much informaiton about hte movie. I am not REMOVING information from the Wiki; I am redirecting interested parties to thte movie section, which is better-maintained. Thank you! Thanks for reading this discussion. 69.181.208.148 01:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not replace another user's entire talk page when you add your comments to the page. Thanks.--Evb-wiki 03:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

"trying to get enough light to look down a gun barrel using a cigarette lighter (USA, 1996)" Whoever wrote this is apparently unfamiliar with how guns work. Plus the sentence is unclear. Using a lighter to illuminate the barrel of an unloaded gun is not at all dangerous. There's nothing in an unloaded gun that is flamable. Do people think that guns work by spraying gasoline around or something? A gun is just a lump of iron and wood, and even setting a gun on fire will not cause anything especially unsafe to happen.

Secondly, getting a lit flame near a loaded gun is not in itself dangerous. Ammunition is sealed in brass cartridges which are for our purposes air and water tight. Exposing these cartridges to open flame will not neccessarily cause anything to happen. Besides, this is all negated by the fact that you CAN'T illuminate the barrel of a loaded gun, because in order to do so you need to apply a source of light to one end of the barrel, and peer through the other. You can't do this in a loaded weapon, because by being loaded, one end of the barrel is plugged by the cartridge.

Looking down the barrel of a loaded weapon is, of course, stupid, but the sentence doesn't mention that it's loaded. Sportsmen look down the barrel of unloaded weapons all the time. It's how you check to see that the barrel is clean. So what is the sentence implying? That it's stupid or suicidal to get a lit flame near a gun? But that isn't true. Is it trying to say that looking down the barrel of a gun is stupid or suicidal? But that's not neccessarily true. This article is stupid. I rest my case, your honor.

Follow the link and you will see that the weapon in question was a 54-caliber muzzle loading rifle. Black powder residue in the barrel; no sealed brass cartridges. This doesn't mean that the incident definitely happened, but obviously your assumptions apply only to modern weapons. MarkBrooks 20:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Darwin picture

The Darwin_ape picture might fit on the evolution page, but it seems very out of place here, considering the darwin awards have barely anything to do with evolution or darwin. Seems like something from jackass, or maybe the darwin awards logo would be better...-- feb^talk 22:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Darwin Awards have everything to do with Darwin and evolution. Greg 04:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The Darwin Awards have practically nothing to do with natural selection, such as certain traits being more survivable, and everything to do with people being stupid. -- feb^talk 10:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Feb, it's nice that you have a theory, but note that the main Darwin Awards website (and the 4 published books) disagrees with you, as do many Darwin Awards fans. Stupidity is NOT a Darwin Awards requirement; smart people win Darwin Awards on a regular basis. Greg 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

From the website, rather obvious to see: The Darwin Awards salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who accidentally remove themselves from it..., also Nominees significantly improve the gene pool by eliminating themselves from the human race in an obviously stupid way.(emphasis mine) This makes it very clear it IS about stupidity. Even in cases where the person might be otherwise intelligent, the action that causes them to win the award is supposed to be obviously stupid. In any case, the picture is inappropriate. Unless you can show that the darwin awards emphasis natural traits being less survivable, as opposed to the point being pure stupidity, then it's obviously out of place. -- feb^talk 16:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[I made a personal attack here and im removing it so not causing offense i'm sorry]] Smith Jones 17:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd advise you read WP:NPA before you make a comment like that again -- feb^talk 10:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry i'll remove it Smith Jones

Feba, I can understand why you feel uneasy about the picture.

Greg, those are arguments in favor of a picture of Darwin (see e.g. the main page of the Darwin Awards site), not in favor of a satirical sketch of him. I tried to replace the sketch with a neutral (as opposed to negative) picture that might be supported by more editors and at least would make you lighten up... Yet you removed it without discussion although it looks like you're the only editor here who wants to keep it. I for one do not see the reason for satirizing Darwin here. To me it looks like a creationist article. And please stop using anti-vandalism tools to revert edits you dispute. See [1]. AvB ÷ talk 16:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I see Feb has linked another picture: I support this for the reasons outlined above. AvB ÷ talk 16:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There's really no argument on how a cartoon parodying a scientist is more appropriate for an article than the subject's official logo -- feb^talk 16:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I would argue with it, because the humor of the satire fits nicely with the article. And note at the very top of this page another person who disagreed with removing the "awful cartoon". I guess none of you have a sense of humor. Boy is that low-rez logo ugly! Greg 20:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This would be entertaining if it wasn't so pathetic. Feb has come up with multiple theories -- that the satirical picture implies creationism (hint: as an astronomer from the Southern US, I hate creationism far more than you do), that the Darwin Awards have nothing to do with Darwin and Evolution (even though the books are filled with science essays discussing the issue), and that only I oppose changing the picture (when there's a 2nd opposer quoted at the top of the page... and you should ask Smith Jones what he thinks)... Well, feb, I'm glad to see that Wikipedia gives you the power to implement those things about which there is "really no argument". Geez. Greg 20:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Greg, this does not sound like a good faith attempt to work with other editors. If you really want that picture in the article, I'm afraid you'll need to work towards a consensus. If you don't, you're stuck. Three editors with good arguments who reject the Darwin Ape pic against two editors, one with somewhat valid arguments and one who turns to incivil behavior on seeing his arguments defeated. Hint: you may want to call an Article RfC to enlarge the pool. See WP:DR AvB ÷ talk 22:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just your average Wikipedia user, I have no idea how to deal with editor fights -- and don't care. feb is making things up, and if you guys actually had read about the Darwin Awards, you'd know that Charles Darwin is related to the Darwin Awards. And that pi doesn't equal 3, even if 3 Wikipedia editors say it does. Greg 23:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA before you comment again. Anyway, I love a good joke far more than the next guy, but it's out of place for wikipedia. Weither the books have articles or not in them, the main focus is on people being incredibly stupid, and making themselves unable to reproduce. Not on darwin, and not in making fun of darwin. Honestly a picture of Tom getting tricked into nailing his own tail to the floor would be more appropriate than that. P.S., if you think i'm out of line, you're free to bring it up to the admins, although that would cause more trouble than it would fix -- feb^talk 02:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Feb, you're adding more good arguments but you really don't have to. As it stands, just about any picture will do except the Darwin Ape one since it's currently being disputed by two editors and defended by one editor who clearly doesn't even want to consider a compromise. Once again, if Greg really wants that picture in the article, his only option is to follow WP:DR. Instead, he's trying to wind people up, using as a weapon his perceived superiority at just about everything from sense of humor to IQ to academic achievements. AvB ÷ talk 08:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I DON'T THINK that is fare to say that charles darawin has nothing to dowith the Darwin awards. his name is on it and acording to copyright law they couldnt use his name unless they had connected to his estate. darwin awards has bee around for years and charles darwins descendents have said NOTHING to say that they do not him associated (sp?) with this organization. I ALSO dont think that we should use a picture of chalres darwin as thw FIRST picture. we should keep the darwin awards logo as shown since it has MORE TO DO with the topic than a picture of charles darwin but if we could find a picture of the lady who owns the awardsr then the thing would be okay. Smith Jones 23:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I very much doubt Darwin's descendants have any control over the name anymore, and even if they do, I doubt they really care one way or another. -- feb^talk 23:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

that maybe true but you shouldcite sources for cllaims like that wikipeida is built on facts not lies. Smith Jones 04:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The default would be to assume there is no connection unless evidence is found that shows one. So the onus is on you to cite a source that makes the connection explicit between Charles Darwin and the Darwin awards. Your idea that copyright laws would allow the Darwin family to control the use of the Darwin name isn't founded in a good understanding of those laws - they protect the expression of ideas, not single words or names, and that protection is time limited. -- Siobhan Hansa 10:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And also, why would I need to cite something for that? This is a talk page, not an article -- feb^talk 19:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

oh okay but why is it deffault to assume no connection? i mean it has his name on it and his family woudl at lest make a statement even if they couldt control the name because the dawrin awards is very famous and notable and uses their last name. why??? Smith Jones 16:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The default is always to assume the absence because we start with a blank sheet of paper and build verifiable information from there. Making a connection without reliable verification is original research. At least, those are the ideals embedded in our 5 pillars. -- Siobhan Hansa 21:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

fine well leave it off Smith Jones 00:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The author of the Darwin Awards says they are related to Charles Darwin. That is a verifiable fact. For example, the first book, "Evolution in Action", opens with a quote from The Origin of the Species, and then on page 1, explains that the Darwin Awards are named after Charles Darwin. That's why an image of Charles Darwin is entirely appropriate on this page. And a quote from the book is more important in this respect than feb's personal opinion.

I've also seen several people in this discussion assign insult to the satirical image. I bet that if you looked for the facts, you'd find that many people agreeing with Darwin would consider that picture to be non-insulting -- men, including Charles Darwin, *are* descended from apes, and this image conveys that notion quite nicely. Without verification of either side, however, we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions. Again, feb's inserting his personal opinions with no verification. Greg 04:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• At least three people have agreed that the logo is better than the ape picture.
• No one is saying that the Darwin Awards have nothing to do with Darwin.
• The ape picture was not a picture or professional drawing/painting of Darwin, but rather a political style cartoon of him.
• The ape picture contributes nothing of value, information, or illustration to the article.

If you can discredit or disprove these, go ahead, but so far, there's no good reason to include the ape picture, it's agreed that it does not belong in the article, and your only arguments have been to say that it's my "personal opinion" in a rather insulting way. -- feb^talk 05:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Feb, if you awn tan example of YOU saying that the Darwin Awards don't have anything to do with Charles Darwin, please look higher in the page. There's no point arguing with a guy who can't remember what he said 5 minutes ago. Greg 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

the darwin awards have barely anything to do with evolution or darwin., now again, please read WP:NPA and WP:CIV before you comment again -- feb^talk 23:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Feb, please stop your un-civil repeat references to WP:NPA and WP:CIV. I have read them. I see little sign that you are obeying the spirit of them, and you seem to mostly mention them to avoid talking about anything concrete. So be it: There's no point arguing with a guy who can't remember what he said 5 minutes ago. Greg 08:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I quoted the exact words I said, which were actually nearly a month ago, and I NEVER said that the Darwin Awards don't have anything to with Darwin himself. Now please, unless you have an actual argument to make, instead of making ad hominem comments, do not comment. -- feb^talk 12:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you seem to view each other's talk page edits as trolling, how about WP:NOFEEDING? I'm now going back to do exactly that. AvB ÷ talk 12:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you are correct: any idiot who tells me to "shut up" should be ignored. (Now he'll complain that "do not comment" is not the same as "shut up"...) The problem is, where do we get back the wonderful image of Charles Darwin, which this troll has eradicated from the lovely article? Greg 04:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Significant problem

"Descriptions below are taken directly from the Darwin awards website."

Sounds like a blantant copyright vilation to me. Would someone please rewrite this section, and soon? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

nmv its been taken care of.. Smith Jones 03:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The legal driving age?

"The nominee must be at least past the legal driving age"

The legal driving age varies depending on where you live. It also isn't clear whether that means driving with a full license or just a permit. --64.119.66.10 03:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... Probably means "legal driving age of his/her home country/the country they were currently in". Somebody should look into it (not me since I'm constantly being buried in homework). Slartibartfast1992 00:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're right. I remember from somewhere that the lady who does all the Darwin Awards stuff said something like, "If they're old enough to pump gas, they're old enough to know not to set it on fire." (and so only those old enough to legally fill up their own car with gas are eligible for a Darwin Award). --70.112.223.245 18:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Darwinaward.gif

Image:Darwinaward.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Image

Image from DarwinAwards.com

Image from DarwinAwards.com

I read the disputation regarding the image. It seems ridiculous (to me) to claim that the Darwin Awards have little to do with evolution, when they are called DARWIN Awards to highlight their connection with evolution. The logo that is currently being used is A-OK with me, but might I suggest this cute image instead which actually illustrates a Darwin Moment?

Wendy Wendy 17:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

1863

I removed this because it is phrased in such a way that it implies that the award was actually given in 1863. I don't know if this is or is not the earliest dated award. I can't see why it should be unless there is some rule that the award has to post date the publication of the Origin of Species:

[Awards" have been given]... as early as 1863

If this is the earliest dated award perhaps it can be readded with an explanation. Paul B (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)