Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
NW_history_buff

New Category Proposal: Graves of Unusual Deaths

51 posts in this topic

This category proposal is a take-off from an older one that has been hashed around for awhile (view it here).

 

I've created a new topic to focus on the goal of locating the graves of those who've had their deaths mentioned from very unusual circumstances. These include but are not limited to:

 

Murder

Suicide

Killed by a _________

Shot by _________

Assassinated

Accident

 

What's interesting to point out is that the large majority of graves of those killed by the above-mentioned circumstances do not have those circumstances etched onto their headstones. BUT... a few do. And for that reason, I personally find them intriguing and want to know more about the circumstances behind their deaths.

 

To make a case for this point, I recently came across a former pioneer cemetery that was converted into a city park. The graves were neglected and vandalized over the years to the point that the city decided to build a large, circular concrete pad and imbedded all the surviving graves into concrete to prevent more damage to them. One of these graves contained an inscription for B. H. Baird (Benjamin Harrison Baird) and reads 'KILLED BY A GRIZZLY BEAR'. Wow. You don't come across a grave like this very often, do you? What was even more exciting was finding an actual article that highlighted this poor man's death in 1864 (you can read it here). In the past few years of Waymarking, I've visited dozens of cemeteries and I have located maybe a handful of graves that mention deaths from unusual circumstances. I honestly believe that the community could support another category related to graves of this type since they are very uncommon and a neat find if one happens to discover one. The fact they are most likely worldwide makes them accessible to the whole community.

 

I should also mention that this category proposal would NOT accept graves mentioning deaths from illness or disease since I've come across a number of these in my travels and don't find them as appealing as the circumstances mentioned above (but you can prove me wrong).

 

Thoughts??

0

Share this post


Link to post

Some pictures of graves I've come across in various cemeteries in my neck of the woods...

59e98b73-f10c-4746-bd86-d001c80e393e.jpg

d4c1f2e7-a2a0-496d-9018-0dcd01c4a8be.jpg

70e62290-9f44-452f-a7a5-220af1610c54.jpg

8431b979-c458-4bb6-a349-6a638bfe3101.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post

I'd support it. The older sections of cemeteries in particular are interesting places to wander through & I've seen two graves noting cause of death that would fit your guidelines. Also saw a memorial in Braidwood cemetery to 4 special constables murdered by bushrangers but not clear whether actually buried there. Reason for death as described is rare enough to make a find memorable & as such, worthy of its own category..

0

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the support, thus far, gents! :D

 

On a related note, I came across a Waymarking group titled 'Not so famous graves'. They had their category proposal denied by the Waymarking community back in 2009. The objective of their category was to (in their words) "... visit unusual graves of people that may or may not be famous...Maybe a grave with an unusual headstone,statue, or monument. An unusual grave would be something out of the ordinary such as a large monument like a pyramid, or like the group picture shown here of the Grim Reaper.".

 

I really like this idea of finding unusual graves in terms of type, style, size, etc. I'm wondering if my proposed category idea could merge with theirs to become the 'oddball' category for graves? Combine the unusual deaths with unusual types of graves and it could be the 'all-inclusive' category for anything UNUSUAL.

 

Thoughts?

0

Share this post


Link to post

My thoughts, I would go with cause of death listed on the markers.

Leave the unusual for another category. It alreay failed peer review, chances are it would drag your new category down too.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds like a fun category, maybe restrict it to three max per cemetery per submitter, but I vote for it regardless in that form.

 

I think adding "unusual graves" wouldn't be a good idea consider it failed before, and adds a level of judgement on what is an "unusual grave" which can only cause more dissension in the game.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds like a fun category, maybe restrict it to three max per cemetery per submitter, but I vote for it regardless in that form.

 

I think adding "unusual graves" wouldn't be a good idea consider it failed before, and adds a level of judgement on what is an "unusual grave" which can only cause more dissension in the game.

 

Why would you restrict it? I ask because Waymarking is not a game to me. It is a way of recording history and I feel each stone or person deserves to be recorded.

0

Share this post


Link to post

My thoughts, I would go with cause of death listed on the markers.

Leave the unusual for another category. It alreay failed peer review, chances are it would drag your new category down too.

[/quote

 

I know that there is a relative of Jesse James that has "killed by a bomb" listed, and Jesse's grave is listed as assassinated. Now a question - would cenataphs be considered? I know of a victim of the Lusitania that is honored over at Edwardsville, Ks. What about victims of Quantrill's Raid over in Lawrence, Ks.?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Why would you restrict it? I ask because Waymarking is not a game to me. It is a way of recording history and I feel each stone or person deserves to be recorded.

 

Just so there isn't dozens of them in one cemetery which would bottleneck and monopolize the search engines, Woodmen of the World for example restricts it to 3 waymarks per waymarker per cemetery. That allows for other categories of waymarks to show up on search engines without them having to ignore your category.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I would have to agree with Manville Possum Hunters in that this potential category should be limited to actual graves and not historical markers/plaques. I also do NOT agree with limiting any unusual graves to a few per cemetery. I'm an officer in the Woodmen of the World category and am personally frustrated by that 'four waymark limit per person per cemetery' rule. I think it limits the potential of the category since some cemeteries would most likely not be visited by a second waymarker for years because of its remote location, etc.

 

I've created a new group titled Graves of Unusual Deaths. Anyone is welcome to join it in my mission to make this category a reality!

Edited by thebeav69
0

Share this post


Link to post

As I wandered a local cemetery this past weekend, I kept this proposal in mind and watched for grave markers that listed a cause of death. In the area I covered, I found 3 that listed drowning as the cause of death.

 

As for what to include, I agree with a couple of others that the subjective "unusual" criteria should be left out. If there are a lot of grave markers that list illness as a cause of death, you could exclude those, but I think pretty much any other cause of death should be accepted.

 

It could also be argued that some of the causes you list aren't really "unusual" anyway, unfortunate as that may be.

0

Share this post


Link to post

My gut feeling is that this category would be for older cemeteries. I would also offer the caveat of not posting any graves of prople who passed within the last five years.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I have one in my area that does not state the cause of death but rather carved in stone is a picture of it. The individual was known to be fond of drink and his wife had warned him that it would lead to his end. One day after he partook of too much drink he was kicked to death by his mule. His wife wanting to point out the errors of his ways had his gravestone carved with him laying on the ground getting kicked by the mule.

0

Share this post


Link to post

My gut feeling is that this category would be for older cemeteries. I would also offer the caveat of not posting any graves of people who passed within the last five years.

 

I agree with the time limit. I have my own rule with Headstones of Centenarians only posting those where the person has been deceased around 15 years or more.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with the five year probationary period of an unusual death before someone can submit a waymark to this potential category.

 

I also think A-Team's reply is losing sight of what the intention of this category is for: to seek out those uncommon graves where a cause of death is mentioned, which is, in itself a rare and unusual find. You just don't see a cause of death mentioned on a grave in the large majority of cemeteries one visits (I've visited dozens) -- the family obviously wanted to make this info available for all to see. What one DOES see more often are illness cause of deaths (such as cholera, typhoid fever, influenza) since I've run across graves with illness deaths more often and would like to omit these from the category UNLESS the illness/disease is rare or unusual (the officers would use their best judgment to determine this).

 

The focus of this potential category is to find that rare 'gem' in a cemetery where an unusual cause of death is listed on a grave. A murder, killing, assassination and accident make the visitor ask the question: "What happened to this person? I need to go home and find out online!" Not being able to find the background info behind an unusual death should not deter a person from submitting a waymark though.

 

Which brings me to BruceS' reply. I'm assuming he saw a grave with the unusual illustration and did some research online to discover the story behind it. I would be open to accepting a grave of this type (no text mention but an illustration instead) ONLY if the submitter can provide a story behind it as proof to back it up. I would even be open to accepting a phrase of a cause of death on a headstone if it's entertaining enough, such as I told you I was sick like BruceS posted in the previous forum on this topic. BOTH of these types of graves would be an unusual find and for that reason justify the 'unusual' title.

Edited by thebeav69
0

Share this post


Link to post

I also think A-Team's reply is losing sight of what the intention of this category is for: to seek out those uncommon graves where a cause of death is mentioned, which is, in itself a rare and unusual find. You just don't see a cause of death mentioned on a grave in the large majority of cemeteries one visits (I've visited dozens) -- the family obviously wanted to make this info available for all to see. What one DOES see more often are illness cause of deaths (such as cholera, typhoid fever, influenza) since I've run across graves with illness deaths more often and would like to omit these from the category UNLESS the illness/disease is rare or unusual (the officers would use their best judgment to determine this).

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand what your intention is for the category. Your grizzly example does a great job of illustrating that. I just think the end result would be the same if you didn't include the term "unusual". I basically said that any cause of death would be accepted with the exception of "common" illnesses, and you seem to say the same. If this is the case, then I really don't see the need for the word "unusual". The ones you desire would still be there, but the category would be more inclusive, which I see as a good thing for new categories. Honestly, I don't think there'd really be that much more noise if it was more inclusive. Most deaths other than illnesses would fall under the criteria you listed in your first post anyway.

 

FWIW, in the part of the cemetery I wandered the other day, the only markers I saw with a cause of death were the 3 drownings. Granted, it's a small sample size, but I do wonder how prolific the illness ones are. Maybe you just have an unusually high concentration of them in your area? I plan to make more trips to the cemetery soon, and I'll still keep my eye out for causes of death.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I also think A-Team's reply is losing sight of what the intention of this category is for: to seek out those uncommon graves where a cause of death is mentioned, which is, in itself a rare and unusual find. You just don't see a cause of death mentioned on a grave in the large majority of cemeteries one visits (I've visited dozens) -- the family obviously wanted to make this info available for all to see. What one DOES see more often are illness cause of deaths (such as cholera, typhoid fever, influenza) since I've run across graves with illness deaths more often and would like to omit these from the category UNLESS the illness/disease is rare or unusual (the officers would use their best judgment to determine this).

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand what your intention is for the category. Your grizzly example does a great job of illustrating that. I just think the end result would be the same if you didn't include the term "unusual". I basically said that any cause of death would be accepted with the exception of "common" illnesses, and you seem to say the same. If this is the case, then I really don't see the need for the word "unusual". The ones you desire would still be there, but the category would be more inclusive, which I see as a good thing for new categories. Honestly, I don't think there'd really be that much more noise if it was more inclusive. Most deaths other than illnesses would fall under the criteria you listed in your first post anyway.

 

FWIW, in the part of the cemetery I wandered the other day, the only markers I saw with a cause of death were the 3 drownings. Granted, it's a small sample size, but I do wonder how prolific the illness ones are. Maybe you just have an unusually high concentration of them in your area? I plan to make more trips to the cemetery soon, and I'll still keep my eye out for causes of death.

 

I find it a little odd that the group leader uses the term "Grim Reaper".

 

I'm fine as an officer with the term "Assistant Caretaker", but I'm having second thoughts if we are on the same level with this category.

Waymarking in cemeterys is not a joke or some kind of game to me, I do it to record history, silmilar to the find a grave site.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I suppose my title was a little too cryptic. Changed it. BTW, Waymarking is a HOBBY and shouldn't be taken TOO seriously, but with that said, we should respect the graves in any cemetery we visit and any category we create on their behalf.

 

I'm just glad I have the time and energy to create categories for Waymarking so that others can tout their personal opinions/objections/two-cents in the forum...

0

Share this post


Link to post

I suppose my title was a little too cryptic. Changed it. BTW, Waymarking is a HOBBY and shouldn't be taken TOO seriously, but with that said, we should respect the graves in any cemetery we visit and any category we create on their behalf.

 

I'm just glad I have the time and energy to create categories for Waymarking so that others can tout their personal opinions/objections/two-cents in the forum...

 

I agree that Waymarking is a hobby, but I have been archiving some of my waymarks in cemeterys in the State of Tennessee. Reason being that it is illegal to play a game of amusement in a cemetery, and geocaches are banned and will not even be published within 0.1 mile of a cemetery. I am simply not sure where Waymarking falls, as some people play this as a game.

 

So with that being said, I don't take this hobby too seriously, but I do try and obey the Law. :anibad:

0

Share this post


Link to post

Yea, we had cemetery caches banned in South Carolina too. A series called "kick the bucket" was made and geocaches placed in cemeteries, including some under bricks, which encouraged geocaches to tear up the area looking for them... Hey, I was guilty of doing it too and looking back, banning those was the right call.

 

Waymarking I have discovered is quite different, you aren't looking for something hidden, and the few of us who play the game realize there is a lot you can learn by visiting a cemetery.

 

As far as 5 years... That might still be a bit close, although I would vote for the category, I would make it at least a generation gap (20 years) before publicly posting grave sites of lost loved ones. I had a nephew murdered in a gruesome way 30 years ago and still is very emotional for my family to discuss and would be mixed emotions if I happened to see it show up on a game site by a 3rd party on a google search.

Edited by gpsblake
0

Share this post


Link to post

Yea, we had cemetery caches banned in South Carolina too. A series called "kick the bucket" was made and geocaches placed in cemeteries, including some under bricks, which encouraged geocaches to tear up the area looking for them... Hey, I was guilty of doing it too and looking back, banning those was the right call.

 

Waymarking I have discovered is quite different, you aren't looking for something hidden, and the few of us who play the game realize there is a lot you can learn by visiting a cemetery.

 

As far as 5 years... That might still be a bit close, although I would vote for the category, I would make it at least a generation gap (20 years) before publicly posting grave sites of lost loved ones. I had a nephew murdered in a gruesome way 30 years ago and still is very emotional for my family to discuss and would be mixed emotions if I happened to see it show up on a game site by a 3rd party on a google search.

 

Sounds like you understand where I am coming from. Five years is a little too soon I think, espically for a murder scene.

 

As for cemetery hides being banned, Groundspeak only "grandfathered" cemetery caches in Tennessee and will not publish any new ones. Still by searching for a geocache in a cemetery in Tennessee you are breaking a written Law, and it is a felony. :blink:

0

Share this post


Link to post

Counts us in. Cemeteries are one of our favorite categories and would add to our "hobby".

0

Share this post


Link to post

I have been sick the past couple of weeks and only had enough energy to submit waymarks but now I'm healthy and will concentrate on fine-tuning the proposed category. You may visit the category page to read what's been created thus far:

 

Graves of Unusual Deaths

 

I am still sticking to my guns in terms of leaving the category title 'as is' because I believe it best represents the goal I have for this category: to keep it focused on graves which have a cause of death listed under 'unusual' circumstances.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't that culture-specific?

 

Maybe I'm not a very good observer (well, for sure I'm not) but in Poland, for example, writing the cause of the death on the grave is very seldom.

 

On the other hand, the places where someone met unexpected and unusual death, for example, strike by the thunderbold, have often memorating table, but it's not the grave.

 

Wouldn't it make sense to extend the category to 'Unusual death markers'? I think it would be more broad and interesting.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't that culture-specific?

 

Maybe I'm not a very good observer (well, for sure I'm not) but in Poland, for example, writing the cause of the death on the grave is very seldom.

 

On the other hand, the places where someone met unexpected and unusual death, for example, strike by the thunderbold, have often memorating table, but it's not the grave.

 

Wouldn't it make sense to extend the category to 'Unusual death markers'? I think it would be more broad and interesting.

 

This is very good point, thank you, I agree. 'Unusual death markers' would be better than just 'graves'.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Category looks acceptable as it is to me. Good luck.

0

Share this post


Link to post

This category is OFFICIALLY in Peer Review for the next few days... All those supporting this category, please vote now!

 

:D

0

Share this post


Link to post

For all those comments in Peer Review regarding changing the title to 'Markers of Unusual Deaths', I still don't see a reason for this request. For one, those individuals may be confusing what the objective of this category of for: Waymarking gravesites which note an unusual cause of death. This category is NOT for Waymarking graves that might be unusual in size, appearance, shape or form. These types of graves were discussed already in the forums and it was decided that another category would be better for these instead of making this proposed category all-inclusive.

 

In addition, it was decided in the forums that any markers noting unusual deaths NEED to be from a gravesite and CANNOT be markers found anyplace else.

Edited by thebeav69
0

Share this post


Link to post

For all those comments in Peer Review regarding changing the title to 'Markers of Unusual Deaths', I still don't see a reason for this request. For one, those individuals may be confusing what the objective of this category of for: Waymarking gravesites which note an unusual cause of death. This category is NOT for Waymarking graves that might be unusual in size, appearance, shape or form. These types of graves were discussed already in the forums and it was decided that another category would be better for these instead of making this proposed category all-inclusive.

 

In addition, it was decided in the forums that any markers noting unusual deaths NEED to be from a gravesite and CANNOT be markers found anyplace else.

 

I agree with you on this. Also the signs/plaques located elsewhere could already be waymarked in other categories such as Signs of History or Citizen Memorials and the graves can not.

0

Share this post


Link to post

For all those comments in Peer Review regarding changing the title to 'Markers of Unusual Deaths', I still don't see a reason for this request. For one, those individuals may be confusing what the objective of this category of for: Waymarking gravesites which note an unusual cause of death. This category is NOT for Waymarking graves that might be unusual in size, appearance, shape or form. These types of graves were discussed already in the forums and it was decided that another category would be better for these instead of making this proposed category all-inclusive.

 

In addition, it was decided in the forums that any markers noting unusual deaths NEED to be from a gravesite and CANNOT be markers found anyplace else.

 

I agree with you on this. Also the signs/plaques located elsewhere could already be waymarked in other categories such as Signs of History or Citizen Memorials and the graves can not.

Exactly. :anibad:

0

Share this post


Link to post

So to waymark places like that: http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMNQGV

I should create a new category?

 

I think it could make more sense to keep one category with the variable, is it a grave or a death marking, but of course, it's your decision :)

0

Share this post


Link to post

So to waymark places like that: http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMNQGV

I should create a new category?

 

I think it could make more sense to keep one category with the variable, is it a grave or a death marking, but of course, it's your decision :)

 

Can you submit this to Citizen Memorials?

0

Share this post


Link to post

So to waymark places like that: http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMNQGV

I should create a new category?

 

I think it could make more sense to keep one category with the variable, is it a grave or a death marking, but of course, it's your decision :)

 

Can you submit this to Citizen Memorials?

 

Actually, I believe this would fit into the Disaster Memorials category since this was a result of a natural disaster.

Edited by thebeav69
0

Share this post


Link to post

So to waymark places like that: http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMNQGV

I should create a new category?

 

I think it could make more sense to keep one category with the variable, is it a grave or a death marking, but of course, it's your decision :)

 

Can you submit this to Citizen Memorials?

 

Actually, I believe this would fit into the Disaster Memorials category since this was a result of a natural disaster.

 

I would go with Citizen Memorials. Lightning strikes are a natural occurance, not a natural disaster.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc. are also 'natural occurances' and are accepted in the Disaster Memorials category. I just have a hunch that the officers of the Citizen Memorials would deny a lightening strike memorial and recommend the other.

0

Share this post


Link to post

But the citizen memorials are for people who have some significant impact on community. And memorials of sudden deaths are for normal, regular people who are known for the way they've died, not lived.

 

If the striking by the thunder was mentioned on the grave, it would match the 'Graves of Unusual Deaths' category. However, I can't remember seeing many of those in my region, mostly it's only mentioned on the grave that the death was 'unexpected'. More commons are such crosses in places where that death occurred.

0

Share this post


Link to post

But the citizen memorials are for people who have some significant impact on community. And memorials of sudden deaths are for normal, regular people who are known for the way they've died, not lived.

 

If the striking by the thunder was mentioned on the grave, it would match the 'Graves of Unusual Deaths' category. However, I can't remember seeing many of those in my region, mostly it's only mentioned on the grave that the death was 'unexpected'. More commons are such crosses in places where that death occurred.

 

Maybe you can create a new category for these type of markers. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post

But the citizen memorials are for people who have some significant impact on community. And memorials of sudden deaths are for normal, regular people who are known for the way they've died, not lived.

 

If the striking by the thunder was mentioned on the grave, it would match the 'Graves of Unusual Deaths' category. However, I can't remember seeing many of those in my region, mostly it's only mentioned on the grave that the death was 'unexpected'. More commons are such crosses in places where that death occurred.

 

Just so we're not beating a dead horse (American euphemism), if this marker is in fact an actual grave, by all means, the Graves of Unusual Deaths category would except your submission. Just because a grave noting an unusual death is not located in a cemetery doesn't exclude it from this new category. But if this marker is actually a memorial to this person and NOT a grave (the person is not buried under the marker), it belongs in either the Citizen Memorials category or the Disaster Memorials category. Let the category officers be the judges of which category to submit this to since they deal with these types of submissions much more regularly than we in the forums do. I hope this answers all questions.

0

Share this post


Link to post

The Citizens memorials category is for ordinary people. I feel this marker in question would fit that category.

 

"Not allowed waymarks

Please do not submit any of the following that would fall into other existing categories. These include but not limited to:

 

Military personnel who died in action.

Police officers who died in the line of duty.

Dedicated benches.

Firefighter memorials.

Occupational memorials.

Disaster memorials.

Dedicated trees.

Buildings or bridges named after people.

Towns or cities named after people.

Sculptures or busts of the person(s). These can fit under Statues of Historic Figures.

Also monuments and memorials to people listed at this link, People (History)."

Edited by Manville Possum Hunters
0

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry for bringing up an old thread, but I just need a little clarification. I've read through this forum and it seems to me that the term "Unusual Deaths" does not really mean that the person died due to an unusual cause, but rather their grave marker is unusual because it lists the cause of death. Is that it?

 

Reason that I ask is that I've seen gobs of waymarks go through review with very mundane causes of death, but they were approved. The only thing in common on most of those was that the cause of death was listed.

 

I appreciate the idea of eliminating one particular class of death causes -- disease. But it seems that there are many other classes of pathology that would be just as mundane as disease, yet they are not excluded.

 

I've read the category description over and over and it seems that it is very open. That's not bad; but it is confusing when one takes the words "Unusual Deaths" from the title into account. I'd just like a bit more clarification, beyond the category description, as to what is that we are Waymarking in this category.

 

My thinking is too restricted because of the term "Unusual Deaths" and I need to have my thinking adjusted for the real expectations here. Thanks!

0

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry for bringing up an old thread, but I just need a little clarification. I've read through this forum and it seems to me that the term "Unusual Deaths" does not really mean that the person died due to an unusual cause, but rather their grave marker is unusual because it lists the cause of death. Is that it?

 

Reason that I ask is that I've seen gobs of waymarks go through review with very mundane causes of death, but they were approved. The only thing in common on most of those was that the cause of death was listed.

 

I appreciate the idea of eliminating one particular class of death causes -- disease. But it seems that there are many other classes of pathology that would be just as mundane as disease, yet they are not excluded.

 

I've read the category description over and over and it seems that it is very open. That's not bad; but it is confusing when one takes the words "Unusual Deaths" from the title into account. I'd just like a bit more clarification, beyond the category description, as to what is that we are Waymarking in this category.

 

My thinking is too restricted because of the term "Unusual Deaths" and I need to have my thinking adjusted for the real expectations here. Thanks!

 

MountainWoods brings up a good point. The original intention of the Graves of Unusual Deaths category was to highlight those graves which had a cause of death mentioned on their grave marker --- AND for that cause of death to be something unusual.

 

As I look at the past six months of approvals in the category, I feel the Waymark approvals are still very unusual in their 'cause of death' mentioned. There have been some good (although sad) submissions:

 

Hunting accident

Killed by a baseball

Drowning

Lost at sea

Murdered

Gun accident

Fall from a train

Hanging

 

The one type of approval that DOES stand out apart from the rest are deaths from war (killed in action). Part of me feels these type of deaths mentioned on a headstone should be included but another part of me feels these types of deaths are more common around the world than I envisioned and therefore fall outside of the category's scope of an 'unusual death.' I will e-mail the other officers and get their thoughts about this last point I've made and report back. This forum is also a good place for others to give their own viewpoints.

 

Thoughts?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, that was one of the causes that confused me.

 

Don't get me wrong. Like most others, I stand in respectful awe of those who made the supreme sacrifice for their country. They deserve all of the plaudits that can be given to them, Waymarking and otherwise.

 

But on the other hand, death from war, as sad as it is, is a very common cause of death. So it seems counter the original intent of the category to include waymarks for those who died in war. (The cause being listed on the headstone notwithstanding.) But I'm willing to go with the majority opinion on this.

 

There were some other, what I'll call, goofy submissions where the only thing unusual was the waymark itself, not the cause of death. Such as one submission where the headstone gave no cause, but the FindAGrave entry said that the cause was unknown. (Now there's another pretty common cause of death!) Maybe I'm too much of a purist, but I wouldn't have approved some of those. They didn't seem to fit the category description at all -- either in the cause being on the marker, or in the cause of death.

 

I've been watching what goes though this category in anticipation of eventually being able to submit my first entry. But I really want it to be something Unusual.

0

Share this post


Link to post

But on the other hand, death from war, as sad as it is, is a very common cause of death.

I think it's all about the percentages. While death from war is certainly more common than death by grizzly, it pales in comparison to death by some form of disease. This Wikipedia article is a good guideline for global causes of death. War is lumped in with other intentional injuries, and the group accounts for less than 3% of deaths. I guess it's just a matter of where we decide to draw the line. What about traffic accidents at 2%? Suicide at 1.5%?

 

Obviously some bad apples have slipped through. Clearly a headstone with no cause of death and a FindAGrave cause of "unknown" isn't fit for this category. How can you tell if the cause of death is unusual if you don't even know what the cause of death was?! Cases like that should be retroactively denied to help prevent bad precedents and make it clear what is and isn't acceptable. BTW, I just looked through all the Waymarks and couldn't find the one you're referring to. Can you post a link to it? I couldn't find any where the cause wasn't provided.

0

Share this post


Link to post

That Wikipedia article is very enlightening. After perusing it, I don't have any issue with approving waymarks where the cause of death is war. Thanks for setting me straight on this!

 

As to the one I referred to, I can't find it. It might have been approved, then declined by a different officer, and then deleted. I can remember some things about it fairly well, such as the fact that the grave marker had no cause of death listed. But I don't remember where it was located or the name of the person, etc.

0

Share this post


Link to post

BTW, I think my understanding of the category has been fixed pretty much, and I didn't mean to stir the muddy waters, at least not much. But I really do think the category is Grave Markers with Death Cause rather than Graves of Unusual Deaths. That's my $.02.

 

Thanks to everyone who contributed to the discussion. Y'all were very civil.

 

Edit: BTW, war as a cause of death is very common in the area I live in -- a border state in the US Civil War; in fact the state with the 3rd highest number of battles. But I admit that very few grave markers actually list the cause of death, whether war or whatever. I'm just used to inferring it when I see a grave marker with CSA or GAR and a death date somewhere in April 1861 to April 1865. My town (called Keetsville back then) was burned to the ground during the Civil War.

Edited by MountainWoods
0

Share this post


Link to post

When the monument states that the deceased died (or was killed) during or because of war, then the grave should now qualify for this category, correct?

Edited by elyob
0

Share this post


Link to post

Currently, the category allows ANY cause of death mentioned on a grave marker to be submitted into the category because these in of themselves are considered pretty uncommon (the exception has been deaths due to diseases that were common killers during the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries). War deaths (killed in action) have always been accepted in the category. The issue thus far has do with the unusual aspect of a cause of death mentioned on a grave marker. Some causes of death mentioned on grave markers are more unusual than others. My original goal of the category was to locate those graves mentioning an unusual death. BUT... the fact of the matter remains that a grave mentioning a cause of death is UNUSUAL in of itself when compared to all other graves in a particular cemetery and for that reason, the category has been more inclusive of submissions than exclusive. I've visited dozens of cemeteries throughout the West Coast of the United States and I can honestly say that MAYBE 5% of all the graves I see mention a cause of death on their grave markers. Of course if one visits a veterans cemetery, the chances of coming across a veteran's grave mentioning a cause of death due to war increase exponentially.

 

I may revisit the 'NO DISEASE' deaths policy in the category if enough people raise the issue and convince me that the category should allow them as well. I just remember seeing a few pictures way back when of cemeteries containing dozens of grave markers noting causes of deaths do to scarlet fever, typhoid fever, influenza, etc. I'll have to do more research on this.

Edited by thebeav69
0

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1