Jump to content

Talk:List of inventors killed by their own invention

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

Fiction

[edit]

Frankenstein is mentioned in the article under myths. The Frankenstein story is not really a myth; it's a work of fiction, not a myth or legend. As irony is a common feature of fiction, especially as regards the hubris of inventors, I don't think it is appropriate to include fictional examples. Evand (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Dynaflow babble 19:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree FizzleDrunk (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Heemeyer?

[edit]

I'm not sure if I'd consider Marvin Heemeyer to be an inventor killed by their own invention, since wasn't actually killed by his invention, but actually committed suicide... Thoughts regarding this? Abandonee (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider it to be so, because like you said he did commit suicide (by gunshot); he just happened to be inside of his "Killdozer" at the time, but that never ultimately killed him per se. B3251 (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Death by suicide was likely factored into the vehicle's design and his entry cites a source for this claim (disclaimer, I rewrote his entry) so it's relevant from a technological angle. Further, the article's opening statement (disclaimer, I wrote that too) says "deaths caused by or related to". His death is related to his vehicle, just like Thomas Andrews technically died of drowning but we can't separate his death from the sinking of the Titanic. The article's scope (in summary) is people responsible for their own death via technological misadventure. If we were to move away from this, consistency would require us to delete half the figures included and write a different article altogether. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed:

"This is a list of people whose deaths were in some manner caused by or related to a product, process, procedure, or other technological innovation that they invented, designed, or substantially helped to create."

To:

"This is a list of people whose deaths were in some manner caused by a product, process, procedure, or other technological innovation that they invented."

I got rid of Heemeyer, and it is time to clean up this mess. If someone commits suicide while wearing the underwear they invented it should not be listed.

Polygnotus (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


In a "List of inventors killed by their own invention" it is silly to include people who a) didn't invent anything b) weren't killed by the thing they are falsely accused of inventing. Marvin Heemeyer was a mentally ill man who killed himself by shooting himself with a handgun. Handguns existed before he was born. Bulldozers existed before he was born. Even the armored bulldozer was invented before he was born (and it is silly to pretend an "armored" version of something is a distinct invention from its unarmored counterpart). Polygnotus (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TelepathicTwelve wants to change what this article is about, and include people who didn't invent anything and were killed by something they did not invent. TelepathicTwelve should get consensus for that change here. Polygnotus (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could start a new article, people who didn't invent anything and were not killed by the thing they did not invent is still a red link. Or perhaps people who designed a machine and died while operating it but whose death was not caused by that machine. Polygnotus (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Firstly, apologies for undoing your edit without checking here first. I accidentally hit the submit button early)
I would appreciate not being accused of changing things without consensus. Scroll up - you will find the previous discussions on these issues and the agreements that were reached. Always open to change, of course, but I have never imposed anything unilaterally.
When choosing how to define the article, and how to interpret the definitions applied, we must zoom out and consider the article as a whole. If we apply your approach consistently, we are forced to remove all the paragliders, the pilots, the racers, and the sailors. None invented the concept of parachutes, planes, cars, or boats; and their deaths were only "related to" (a phrase you have removed) their vehicles failing. Instead, their deaths were "caused by" (your sole metric) high-velocity impacts and drowning.
This is an open question for everyone: What gets at the heart of what the article aspires to present to its readers? Madmen who built contraptions that led to their ironic and tragic ends; or suffocating philosophical quanderies about what makes a "true" inventor? TelepathicTwelve (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, when I talk about the article's aspirations, I am talking about the sum of long-standing figures the article includes and the commonalities that bind them all together. Heemeyer's removal necessitates the removal of most other figures if we are truly going to be consistent - and THAT would be a different article altogether. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added "or designed" back in (people often call a designer an inventor) but I think "substantially helped to create" is a bridge too far. And Heemeyer is another 200 bridges too far.
If I drive a car and I die because of a collision, it may be the blood loss that kills me, but at least there is a causal link between me driving fast, the car hitting an object and me dying of blood loss.
Heemeyer shot himself because he was mentally ill. There is no causal link between his temper tantrum ending and him killing himself; he just decided to kill himself when the dozer got stuck. Polygnotus (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If causal links are king, then the vehicle would have to exhibit a design failure for an inventor to be "killed by their own invention". Otherwise they're just killed by bad driving. Applying your approach consistently would almost delete the "Automotive" section alone.
Heemeyer designed the vehicle to have no exit except for suicide. It's an intrinsic part of the vehicle's design that it was planned as a one-way ticket, for the same reason it would be to design a car that had no ability to brake. If you can't leave it, you're dying in it.
"Substantially helped to create" was just added to cover those who played a noted role in a larger project so that the article is not confined to lone wolves. I didn't think that would be controversial to be honest. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If causal links are king, then the vehicle would have to exhibit a design failure for an inventor to be "killed by their own invention"." This is not true, see for example Euthanasia Coaster.
"Applying your approach consistently would almost delete the "Automotive" section alone." Nope, like I explained already. If we would be consistent the article would be much shorter, but no one is arguing in favour of complete consistency.
"Heemeyer designed the vehicle to have no exit except for suicide. It's an intrinsic part of the vehicle's design that it was planned as a one-way ticket" He did not design the vehicle. He bought it for $16,000. Heemeyer brought food and water for a week. His temper tantrum lasted 2 hours. But he knew it would take a while for authorities to partially dismantle the machine so that they could arrest him. So he wasn't even sure if he was going to kill himself.
Polygnotus (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was talking about an invention in which suicide was not a feature of the design, like motoring. Your Euthanasia Coaster example falls under the Heemeyer-clause of suicide being the intended consequence of the design. The authorities are on record stating that he knew he'd never get out - this source was provided to the entry. Like most designers, Heemeyer didn't dig up his raw materials but bought all the parts he needed to construct a vehicle to unique design specs required to carry out the task he set himself.
It's a quizzical stance that, though our definitions of inventor and cause-and-effect must be strict, consistency may be lax. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is (for a human being) a quizzical stance that consistency is a goal to strive towards, or even exists. Look around you. Polygnotus (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you can assert that you can remove one figure under a certain set of principles but keep other figures in the same contravention of those principles because you don't care about consistency. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 different discussions:
1) Is X an "inventor"?
2) Was X killed by their "invention"?
Calling people who designed a variant of something that exists already an inventor is already a bit weird, but if you fix that problem 99% of the entries on this list should be removed. Heemeyer welded some metal plates on a pre-existing bulldozer.
But what you are proposing is that we also ignore rule 2, and include people who where killed by (or died because of) something other than the thing they built/designed. If we do that, then we should include any designer who later died of cancer because they smoked too much.
So it is not true that Heemeyers removal necessitates removing other entries. Polygnotus (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My version of rule 2) is, "Was X's death caused by or intrinsically related to their invention?". This is a perfectly natural extension to make and is nothing like your examples of dying in underwear you knitted, or after a lifetime of smoking. The invention has to have some immediate relevance to your death, a necessary factor without which you would have lived.
I mostly agree with you on point 1). If it really bothers people, the article could be renamed "List of people killed by their own contraptions" or some such, as this would more accurately capture what the article sets out to do as reflected by its current contents. But it seems like such an extreme action to take and I don't think there's any harm or even inaccuracy in the current title, so long as the article's opening line establishes and is honest about the interpetation it is using.
We can go back and forth all day. Thanks for the discussion, I'll stop for other voices now. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reichelt Video

[edit]

This video is, essentially, a snuff film-- even if the way this guy died is silly and the video is quite old, it's an explicit video of a person falling to his death. I'm all for wikipedia being uncensored, but should this be so high on the page, and so unadorned as to encourage clicking it without knowing what one is about to see? 128.114.255.222 (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure you've never seen a snuff film. The title of the article, the caption of the video, and the pre-roll and mid-roll all warn that this is a video about a fatal accident. There are far worse things on Wikipedia. See also WP:Censored Polygnotus (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It made me so uncomfortable when the video used to be on autoplay. There is plenty of fair warning now, so seconding Polygnotus here. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disabling autoplay in your browser is always a good idea. Cerebral726 rephrased the caption of the video to make it even more clear. Polygnotus (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed title change

[edit]

Proposing changing the article's title to "List of people killed by their own technology".

There is often debate here about what qualifies as an "Invention" or "Inventor". This misses the point of the article, which is really about technology, about people who met their demise after embarking on some kind of technological misadventure. The article's title should accurately reflect the content of the article*, and it is not currently doing that adequately. To see what I mean, I have summarised some sections in the article:

The Automotive section entirely consists of bad drivers who didn't invent the car. Poorly operating your self-constructed vehicle is the epitome of technological misadventure - "Innovation" is nice but not required.

The Aviation section is well-populated with people who didn't invent the parachute. These people stitched rags together and then jumped at high altitude. That they thought they invented human flight or floating is great - this article is about people who were really confident that their technological misadventure would work.

Maritime is filled with people more accurately characterised as engineers or architects rather than inventors. The Titanic and the world's first offshore lighthouse are feats of engineering, not of invention.

In Medical, Bogdanov tried an experimental operation. Midgley Jr died in his elaborate contraption. Neither invented blood tranfusions or systems of ropes and pulleys, but both engaged in technological misadventure.

Regarding Popular legends and related stories: Under my proposed title change, this section would remain open for apocryphal stories and for people who for example popularised or represented a technology rather than played a role in designing or constructing it. It's not YOUR technological misadventure if someone else did the tinkering for you.

When figures like Stockton Rush and Heemeyer face the chopping block because they "invented nothing", stop to consider what makes them any different from anyone else in the article of lesser infamy who engaged in similar acts of technological misadventure and who also "Invented nothing" in the strict understanding of the term.

People might be concerned about the "gizmos and gadgets" approach I'm putting forward. To reiterate, this article is already about tinkerers who tragically tinkered too far, just consider all of the figures that are already here, rather than just the 21st-century ones who we saw on the news. The reader is not expecting us to do the hard work of determining whether a threshold of novelty has been crossed to earn someone the respectable title of "Inventor". Most of the designs are the opposite of respectable, and the article is just too light-hearted to be so serious.

"Technology" is intentionally broad to avoid future debates about what counts as "Technology". Colloquial understandings of such terms are more than appropriate for a pop-history article such as this.

\*The alternative is to do the reverse: Be subservient to the title and strip away the content of the article until it reflects the title. This would involve doing hard work to make the article poorer. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose If editors would remember our goals here, to write an encyclopedia and focus less on constructing justifications to make it worse, or with less clear titles, then we'd have a better article. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the current title remains (and I believe it should so long as people stop hyperfocusing on it) then one of two things need to happen.
    Delete all 90% of the non-inventors in the article rather than just one or two of them on a whim; or, better yet, consider that the article is taking a liberal definition of "Inventor" and that these endless definitional debates are inappropriate and miss the point of the article. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endless debates are the lifeblood of Wikipedia. It is currently using a very nonstandard definition of "inventor". Like I explained before, Heemeyer's exclusion does not mean everyone else also needs to be excluded, and it is unclear to me why you think that is the case. Polygnotus (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you vote to remove a person you really should be considering how or if they fit into the article as a whole - considering the sum of all the figures included, he fits the mould exactly as he should. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, he doesn't. See above. Polygnotus (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Andy Dingley.
    Heemeyer did get killed by his own technology. The handgun and bullet he owned. The bulldozer protected him; it did not kill him. He could've played Candy Crush until the authorities had enough of the dozer dismantled to arrest him. Polygnotus (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the justification for keeping the rest of the non-inventors if we intend to proceed with taking the title in its most literal sense? TelepathicTwelve (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am probably the wrong person to ask that question (I haven't added anyone to the list). Polygnotus (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're also failing to consider again that the title works in conjunction with the article's opening statement. You are entirely focused on the title's "Inventor" when the lead uses the word "People":
This is a list of people whose deaths were in some manner caused by or directly related to a product, process, procedure, or other technological innovation that they invented or designed. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:INDENT. Heemeyer did not design the handgun or the bullet that killed him. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article allows for immediately relevant contributing factors to the cause of death. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetically, you could add him to a hypothetical list of people whose death was caused by mental illness. But there is no causal link between the dozer and his death. His death was caused by bloodloss which was caused by a bullet which was caused by him firing a handgun towards himself which was caused by mental illness. Building the "killdozer" (cringe) was a symptom, not a cause of his mental illness. Polygnotus (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No link between the method of rampage and the tragic outcome? Just a freak coincidence I suppose. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No causal link. Polygnotus (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said causal links are not required, the article allows for immediately relevant contributing factors to the cause of death. Please read again the opening lead. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section you wrote? Consensus is against you. It is up to you to get consensus for the contents inclusion per WP:ONUS. Polygnotus (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That I slightly tweaked some months ago after attaining prior consensus, yes. Nobody save for you has ever advocated for the "What is on the death certificate?" approach. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I untweaked it. Now you can go get consensus here on the talkpage for the inclusion of Heemeyer. Polygnotus (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the onus of consensus for changing the lead is on you. The current version is the result of a prior consensus and you've received no assent as of yet for direct causality only.
On Heemeyer, please respect the "Popular legends and related stories" for what it is: people who thematically fit the article but are either apocryphal or don't strictly fall into its definitions. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abandonee and B3251 and myself are against inclusion of Heemeyer. If you want to include him you need to get consensus on this talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this consensus that the lead can be changed in this way? Polygnotus (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They argued against his inclusion on the grounds that he wasn't an inventor killed by his invention. Grand - however, there is already the subcategory "Related stories" for such people, hence my moving Heemeyer there and out of the main body as others wished.
The lead's consensus is found under the "Brainstorm a better title" section on Talk. Where is your consensus for wanting to remove the clause "related to"? That has major ramifications and warrants discussion. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So Valjean made a proposal and then the lead was changed but the title was not? Don't you see how this will forever cause conflict? People will show up, compare the title with the lead and try to fix it. Heemeyer can be included after you get consensus for his inclusion. Valjean proposed: "List of people killed by their own product". Why was the title not changed? If you claim this is sufficient consensus, why not change the title of the article? Polygnotus (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I relocated Heemeyer to the "Popular legends and related stories" subcategory, perhaps you mistakenly thought I reinstated him to Automative against consensus? In good faith - were you aware that the article has a "Related stories" subcategory for such people?
The consensus for changing the lead and keeping the title received the assent of Valjean themselves and another - it was explicitly stated and agreed upon, read all the way through.
Titles are entry-points that broadly gesture towards what the lead narrows down. It's perfectly normal for writers, in their opening thesis, to define their title, their terms, and their scope. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say we change the article title to "List of people killed by their own product" which is better than "List of people killed by their own technology" then who do we need to exclude? Marie Curie discovered stuff, she did not invent. Other than her and Heemeyer the rest of em can stay, right? Why did you spend all this time arguing about barely relevant stuff instead of simply changing the title? Stop focusing on Heemeyer and change the title, please. Polygnotus (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking me why I'm not advocating for changing the title in my "Proposed title change" topic!! So far the votes are "Opposed" and "Meh" so I might hold off for a while!! TelepathicTwelve (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is changing the title to "List of people killed by their own product" and removing Heemeyer and Marie Curie an acceptable middleground for you? Please say yes and then we do that and if anyone disagrees we bury them in the dunes.Polygnotus (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have previously argued against the word "Product" in Talk. It's far too commercial - the article has to maintain its technological slant. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is perfect, but is this an acceptable middle ground for you? You can always get consensus to change stuff later. Polygnotus (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nay, I say. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
116 edits of which 72 here. Sigh. Polygnotus (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irrevelant, unnecessary, unpleasant. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Polygnotus (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also against Heemeyer's inclusion: his armoured bulldozer bulldozed and it was armoured. That did not kill him. He did not invent 'suicidal rampage'.
I would though include Curie (she extracted and concentrated radionuclides in a scientifically novel manner, and I am unconvinced by the claim that she was perfectly healthy afterwards, but was killed by X rays). I would also include Thomas Andrews, architect of the Titanic: the purpose of the Titanic was not to sink, it malfunctioned. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Curie did invent techniques for isolating radioactive isotopes, so she can probably stay. There is a causal link between making an imperfect boat, it sinking, and drowning. Polygnotus (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you seeing that as reason to include or exclude Titanic? I see it as irrelevant, we just care that it killed the creator and that wasn't their intention: whether by bad design or by competent mischance shouldn't influence our inclusion. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Include. Whether by bad luck or ill design, the "invention" (loosely defined) needs to be the thing that directly or indirectly causes their death. There is a causal link between building a decent motorcycle, testdriving it, and getting killed by a drunk driver. My point is that in Heemeyers case no such causal link existed, he had plenty of food and water so he could just wait until the police had dismantled enough of the dozer to arrest him and then spend the rest of his life in jail. Polygnotus (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keen to draw a distinction between "The main body of the article" and the "Popular legends and related stories" subcategory. Your points address the main body only. I have moved Heemeyer to the latter category, which is for figures tangientally related to the title. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heemeyer is not a legend. Your editing over this is way into tendentious editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't need to be a legend because it's "Legends and related stories". You can be either.
A man who died inside a vehicle he constructed without an exit is a related story to an article about inventors whose inventions killed them. We'd be getting into silly territory to start debating how "related" a "related story" has to be for inclusion into this intentionally broad subcategory.
Heemeyer's relegation to the non-inventors section fully satisfies the consensus here that he was not an inventor. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The events that led to Marvin Heemeyer's death is in no way related to this article; his death was not caused by anything he invented either factually or apocryphally nor was it caused by anything he purportedly invented (as is the case with Guillotin and Heselden). I very much disagree that Marvin Heemeyer should be listed in this article in any capacity as he meets no criteria that other entries currently present in the article already meet. - Aoidh (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh, Abandonee, B3251 and myself are against the inclusion of Heemeyer. People have tried to explain it, and if you don't get it you should still accept the fact that the consensus is not on your side. Stop wasting our time please. Polygnotus (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, but I don't think TelepathicTwelve is interested in what any of us think. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've thought wrongly. Nobody was considering the Related Stories category. It has now been considered. Thank you. I have not devalued any voice here; the same cannot be said about another user. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I swear I used to be able to count to five. Polygnotus (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Parsons

[edit]

Jack Parsons of JPL (inventor or rocketry and rocket fuels) seems an obvious addition but on a quick read have not spotted him. I'm assuming he was on this page at some point and was removed - but maybe not. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parsons was not killed by his own invention though. He worked in a hazardous field, with high energy materials. He invented some similar materials (although propellants rather than explosives), but not the ones that killed him. He died from an accident that might have been anticipated, might be judged as tragic, but it was not ironic, which is the core of this article. Max Valier belongs here: he was killed by an application that he developed. Jerry Hurst doesn't belong here in much the same way as Parsons doesn't, even though he too died (more slowly) from the results of his exposure to some materials. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Otto Lilienthal

[edit]

What about Otto Lilienthal (1848-1896)? Pioneer of aviation. Broke his neck when his glider stalled and fell, died the next day. 2A02:908:170:5860:39EB:5746:A37B:C8EF (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Midgley Jr.

[edit]

Inventor of such things as leaded gasoline (to which he suffered lead poisoning during live tests he conducted to “prove” its safety. He also developed some of the first chlorofluorocarbons. But, germane to this page, on November 2, 1944, at the age of 55, he was found dead at his home in Worthington, Ohio. He had been killed by his own device after he became entangled in it and died of strangulation. Now, the coroner ruled his death a suicide, but I’m wondering if this incident would still fit in this page. 108.170.149.73 (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_inventors_killed_by_their_own_invention&oldid=1269032978"