Talk:Suicide/Archive 7

book -- in new translation (may be relevant for improving history section)

Farewell to the World: A History of Suicide by Marzio Barbagli, translated by Lucinda Byatt, 2015, Polity Press Jodi.a.schneider (talk)

Elimination of Two Culturally-Biased Statements.

I found these statements in the introductory section:

"During the samurai era in Japan, a form of suicide known as seppuku (harakiri) was respected as a means of making up for failure or as a form of protest. Sati, a practice outlawed by the British Raj, expected the Indian widow to kill herself on her husband's funeral fire, either willingly or under pressure from her family and society."

In every Western, English-speaking society, when a soldier throws himself on a grenade to save his comrades, or a government security agent leaps in front of a gunman to save the country's executive, even though each man performed an act that he knew would and that did kill him, we do not consider either man to have committed suicide, because each man's motive was to ensure that a greater good was not destroyed, so we honor his motive and commemorate his death. If seppuku is a morally obligatory form of moral repair or a praiseworthy form of moral opposition, if sati is a morally or socially obligatory expression of wifely loyalty, then neither act can count as suicide—and certainly if somebody forces a woman to perform an act that they know and she knows will kill her, she cannot be said to have performed the same sort of act as Virginia Woolf or Sylvia Plath willingly committed.

I have eliminated the statements. Anyone who reverts that edit should cite evidence from the Japanese and the Indians themselves concerning their terms for an act of intentional self-killing that persons commit only when they are in what according to their customs and values is practical or emotional or spiritual extremity or when in their medical traditions their doctors would describe the person who commits the act as not enjoying what they in their tradition consider to be sanity. Anyone who reverts the edit should also know that, since the Indians approved of sati, the fact that the British Raj outlawed it is irrelevant, and that the proper term is "funeral pyre," not "funeral fire."Wordwright (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is flawed and I do not agree with your deletion of content. Killing yourself for a justified reason is still suicide. For example, if someone justifiably feels by killing themselves for the greater good of relieving their family of the burden of their illness or financial difficulties, that person still died by suicide if they initiated their own death. Jihadists conducting what in Islam is perceived as martyrdom operations, for the 'greater good' of muslims and to 'fight in the way Allah,' are still called suicide bombers or suicide operations by most experts because they technically killed themselves. Suicide is defined as the act of killing yourself - morality, greater good, selfless or selfishness is irrelevant in this definition. Read a couple of dictionaries and how they define it if you disbelieve me. Anyway, we go with what reliable sources say, not what editors personally think. Changing fire to pyre I think I am okay with.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which ref says killing oneself for a justified reason is not suicide? Suicide is occasionally done to make a statement and is still suicide. One is not trying to die when they jump on a grenade to save others. When one does suppuku one is trying to die. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gross Anti-'Right-to-Die' bias.

The grammar of the entire article strips a whole layer of meaning usually used in english to separate when individuals have agency or when an act is forced upon them. Suicide specifically means voluntary and intentional death, therefore the article shouldn't be written as though individuals have no involvement. Even if the POV exists that individuals may be possessed by an aberrant force within their brain separate from their sense of self which compels suicide, the article should dryly state that point of view exists and do so with due weight. The article should not be written excluding any other possibility, [off-topic:] which, if I may be so bold as to say, is absurd to imply no one can in sober state of mind still desire to die---Existence can be terrible, an individual can adopt and value views which drive them to be hated or treated as aberrant or as poison, I know what that feels like personally and I know what it looks like to witness occur in others, there is no "cure" because that is no illness and if there must be a sickness then it is with the society that simultaneously rejects someone fundamentally as they are yet also will not allow that person freedom to be left alone.[/endrant]

edit: also poster of RfC 2600:1702:1740:2CA0:A89E:867B:D7AE:6C9 (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What specific changes would you wish to see made? DonIago (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Formulation

I suggest a change of the formulation of "In extenuating situations where continuing to live would be intolerable, some people use suicide as a means of escape" to "In extenuating situations where continuing to live would be intolerable, some people use suicide and pay the highest price, death!" as more ethical than an implicit notion ("to escape") to stopping people to die as people rather than a twisted person, a monster. 82.164.42.11 (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"pay the highest price, death!" is hardly encyclopedic language. DonIago (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh... is "escape to death" supposed to be any more encyclopedic language? Why would you insist on having "escape" in there for, either way? 82.164.42.11 (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall having insisted on anything, myself, but I'll assume you were asking rhetorically. :p What would you suggest as more encyclopedic language? DonIago (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

to add

bonzo? ※ Sobreira ◣◥ (parlez) 20:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does briefly mention self-immolation Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better ref needed for this

"In 2018 it was reported that some psychiatrists have had dramatic success in suicide prevention by the use of ketamine. Dr. Sanjay Gupta of CNN and others are reporting that "..recent scientific studies have shown ( ketamine to have )significant promise with treatment-resistant depression and suicidal ideation".[1]"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This references a Columbia University study which was also reported in the American Journal of psychiatry. Would these refs work? Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a primary source. Strange why they compared it to midazolam (which may cause depression) rather than placebo. Not a sufficient source. We would want a review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: I've noticed most psychiatric drug studies compare to already approved drugs rather than placebo, perhaps because placebo tends to get uncomfortably successful results especially double-blind. As far as I can tell, double-blind psychiatric drug test practically never happen.

Many studies get labelled double-blind placebo trials, but most only involve combination drug trials with drug+placebo against drug1+drug2.

75.39.102.200 (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc. I see what you mean. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teens and Cyberbullying

Suicide rates are staggeringly getting higher every year nationally, not just in the United States. One of the highest suicide rates are among teens. One factor is the social media craze as 94 percent of teenagers from 13-17 in age, have some sort of platform for like Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram on their smart phones, tablets, or computers. With that, brings cyberbullying as on average 26 percent of middle and high school students have been victims of harassment, threatened or embarrassed by peers. With feeling depressed and know way out, some teens will commit suicide. ^[1]Although we are only talking about teenagers suicide happens in all ages ranging from youth to the elderly. With the help of better and more mental health hospitals and schools working together with parents we need to work to lower those numbers of suicides.

^ "Suicide rising across the US". Centers For Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved 27 September 2018.

Kelley.dewolfe (talk | Contrib) 01:35, 29 September 2018

@Kelley.dewolfe: You forgot to sign your post with ~~~~, so I manually signed for you. Also, citations require a title while certain typo'es will break dates showing error. Fixed all that for ya : D

Anyways, as a netizen I don't disagree about the cyberbullying effect. Nor do the statistics seem unbelieve-able. The source seems like a P.S.A. not a rigorous disclosure. Statistics tend to have caveats about them, so a source for a statistic should in addition to having general reliability (like the C.D.C. does}, the source should also explain how the statistics were found which that P.S.A. does not. More than likely the C.D.C. put out a corresponding study that if someone could find they could cite. This whole paragraph just gives general advice since you seem new.

I don't feel sure I can read your intention with the section you wrote here. I can't know if you want this paragraph/section somewhere or if you just came here to WP:ADVOCATE to fellow Wikipedia authors? If the former, then the section title would seem fine so long as you lower case "cyber", but the content seems worded also like a P.S.A. violating wikipedia's neutrality. At no point should wikipedia express "shoulds, musts, with help 'es, or please do'es". The first statistic without context has no relevance to suicide as a topic and just encourages an uncited association between cyberbully and the internet platforms the cited demographic expresses theirselves from. The second statistic misleads with an unfairly large number nuanced by that you mean "of harassment"... that number seems at first impression to tell us how many teens get cyberbullied, but actually doesn't.

Personally, I don't understand why we only should talk about "teens" and cyberbullying, not just cyberbullying in general. While youth makes more vulnerable, I view this as an issue about netizens not getting bubbled in enough, or in deeply enough ethical ways. Not by silly AI algorithms secretly tweaking search results. I digress. The topic specified to teens only seems to have a weak association with suicide, where bullying in general could get talked about as well as addiction or depression. Without more detailed sources strengthening the connection between Suicide and Cyberbullying, then I fear a section like this would broaden the article's scope beyond what any group of editors could maintain.

If you just came here to WP:ADVOCATE, then just follow that link ; }

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:74FE:D254:C062:3186 (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lede image

Initial Proposal

I have changed the lede image to one that illustrates research and prevention efforts. I'm not sure that this is the best image to have as the lede, but I think that it's a better choice than what we had there before. I'm open to suggestions for alternatives. --Pine^✉ 05:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

I have restored the prior image. A picture of US Army general giving a power point presentation is not as good IMO as the prior image. Suicide is not primarily a US nor an army issue.

The prior image is a fairly famous artistic depiction of suicide. It also does not romanticize the topic so not sure what you felt was the issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: I think that research and/or prevention should be highlighted in the lede, instead of an artistic representation of a single incident. I disagree with using the artistic image as the lede (although it would be appropriate for a section on "suicide depictions in art") and I am in favor of replacing it. I'm open to suggestion about what image would be better for the replacement. --Pine^✉

@Pine: suicide prevention presents POV and should only receive due-weight in the lede, not "highlight"-ing.

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:6472:2168:F2D4:EBD5 (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the Answer

It's a fair point that one wouldn't want to give undue weight to that aspect, but I think that we should consider the article as a whole, and the lede as a whole, when considering what would be undue weight. Unlike with species of animals where we might want to find a holotype or typical adult of the species to depict in the lede image, there is not an obvious choice about what the best lede image would be for this article. However, I do think that the art image should be replaced. --Pine^✉ 04:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POV accusation

@Pine I pretty sure your only have a problem with the lede image, because the lede has a neutral lede image. I'm pretty sure you only want to deliberately make a non-neutral lede image, to push the suicide prevention POV.

same IP person 75.39.102.200 (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions about what makes suitable lede image

A US army official giving a power point is not a good depiction of either research or prevention. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: What would you suggest as a replacement for the current image? --Pine^✉ 04:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: shouldn't wikipedia not care about whether a topic gets romanticized in that topic's lede image?

I agree with your conclusion, but not your pathway to that conclusion.

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:6472:2168:F2D4:EBD5 (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with keeping the current lead image. I don't see that it's romanticizing suicide at all. In any case, it's a better lead image than the army one because it better illustrates the topic. In fact, it does illustrate the topic, while the army one does not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redone Proposal

I am proposing the Alt 2 image for consideration. --Pine^✉ 04:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

The current (Manet) image is a good, illustrative image IMO, certainly better than the other two images proposed. -sche (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Showing a picture of a method without evidence is not the best. And a picture one does not need to explain is better IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree with you on those points, Doc James. I found a good quality image of a suicide prevention fence which would meet the first criterion (evidence in favor) but probably not the second (requiring no explanation). How about this image, on which someone seems to have spent considerable time? I haven't checked the data but if it's accurate then I think that it could be a good lede image for the article. --Pine^✉ 05:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend moving this discussion to Talk:Suicide prevention, because the mob rule of wikipedia would need to decide to WP:IAR WP:NPOV to allow a suicide prevention themed lede image in this article.

I'm not saying that can't happen, but I personally believe that shouldn't happen.

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:D019:9F33:3E90:585A (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Next Redone Proposal

This is a continuation of a previous discussion that was becoming difficult to follow. How about Alt 4, on which someone seems to have spent considerable time? I haven't checked the data but if it's accurate then I think that it could be a good lede image for the article. --Pine^✉ 07:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the registered users who commented in the previous discussion: @Flyer22 Reborn: and @Doc James:. --Pine^✉ 07:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

The image in question fits very well under "epidemiology". As this is a global condition a lot less good for the lead IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Neutrality Challenged

Overall consensus is that the article does not have a major issue with neutrality Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC) OP made many unchallenged points. OP still expresses egregious dissent with the majority view. One might say we don't have a complete consensus. OP 00:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article is written like a textbook on how to eradicate Suicide from a society, which is at the least offensive and at the most frightening to any who believe in a fundamental inalienable right to die. Having read WP:Offensive, WP:IAR would apply for the sake of allowing others to form their own moral opinions, even if neutrality wasn't already a rule. Due-weight doesn't apply here, because no where in WP:NPOV have wikipedians collectively decided wikipedia's editorial voice should associate moral imperatives belonging to the predominant point-of-view with rigorously cited consensus and MOS:Alleged facts by how they are told--often by clumping facts useful one particular goal or another next to each other especially in the lede--even if that point-of-view as well as its moral imperatives are enforced by law in many reputable countries. Wikipedians wouldn't hypothetically allow Chinese officials write a communism article that clumps facts useful to writing communist law in the lede, why should suicide be any different?

The medical infobox also carries significant bias (like if an invented "eugenics" infobox plagued articles about ethnicities), though there isn't really a suitable substitute. I would say whatever infobox eventually appears on Fetishism would do, however in the meanwhile perhaps no infobox or Template:Infobox performing art instead?

If you disagree, please leave the banner up for at least a week or so to invited discussion from non-wikipedians. ~~I'm IP-editing~~ so I won't get notifications about this article and I don't want to get too emotionally invested. 04:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes we generally give greater weight to the major points of view per WP:FRINGE. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has its own article on euthanasia. It would be beneficial to minimize this practise in any society. In any case, neutral, well-written and sourced contributions are welcome to this article or any other...--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think right to die, when health professionals have determined the prognosis is hopeless and level of suffering is severe, meets the criteria of being FRINGE. I think it is a major POV, even if it is not the dominant POV.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC comment. I came here because I saw the RfC notice. I did a quick read of the page. I do not think that the page pushes the POV of suicide prevention. However, I do think that the right to die concept is a significant one, that should get more coverage here than it currently does. It would be WP:DUE in my opinion to have a section about it as well as a mention of it in the lead section. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/vote: Agree with tryptofish, that we should have coverage of the right to die. This article should quite rightly push a strong POV of suicide prevention because that is the dominant view in what reliable sources say, however there are certain severely distressing treatment resistant disorders and diseases, both mental and physical, that raise issues of whether suicide/right to die is justified in exceptional circumstances. For example, someone diagnosed with early stage dementia might seek assisted suicide or kill themselves themself. I am sure there are lots of reliable sources covering right to die issues in relation to suicide.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We present the major POVs We have a section on rational suicide which links to right to die already. It is not a major POV but as a minor POV is present. A RfC does not necessitate a tag. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That section doesn’t really say much, it should be expanded with a mention in the lede. Not sure if right to die is a minority POV, I suggest it is a major POV - it is certainly part of the mainstream debate and a sizable minority POV at minimum, even if it is not the dominant view.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the page, I don't think it pushes a POV of prevention, but much like the users above I think the prose should spend at least a sentence if not a section explaining and linking to the (general) 'right to die' viewpoint that people have a right to choose suicide. Currently, the only links I spotted to that important and relevant concept are in a sentence discussing the Hindu view (which is inadequate because the right to die is not Hindu-specific) and the box of peripheral links at the very bottom of the article. I do sympathize with the OP's point that the infobox is a bit weird, e.g. speaking of "usual [age of] onset" just sounds weird (would we put such an infobox in the article on Murder and speak of its "usual onset"?); perhaps there should be a separate, less stridently-introduced discussion about replacing or removing the infobox. -sche (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article is good as is since it is a general fyi article about suicide, not a political/politicized or morality page Like Kieronoldham has mentioned, political stuff like right to die, euthanasia, etc already have their own pages. This article's scope is general information about suicide, not a political proclamation about whether or not people should or can commit suicide. It clearly shows social, demographical, legislative, and historical information about suicide. I would suggest "see also" and "main page" tags for readers to be able to go to the politicized suicide pages on wikipedia. But mentioning political aspects of suicide shoould not be prominet in the article or lead. Perhaps a small mention would be enough. Prevention of suicide is certainly a major aspect of general information on suicide. Actually most discourse on suicide does naturally touch on prevention in some way because of the immediate damage that it does to family and friends and of course the individual. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suicide is used politically sometimes, and it is sometimes used to end one's life in the event of terminal illness. Per WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources..." Terroristic suicide is a significant phenomenon (though I think it's safe to say here that we all disagree with it). Right to die is a significant phenomenon as well, having resulted in nationwide debate in the US and other countries. I think the RfC original commenter is a little over the top, but the topics definitely do need more coverage. I don't think anyone is going to let it turn into a "political proclamation about whether or not people should... commit suicide" as you say. I do agree with keeping the suicide prevention bits; they are important in the discussion of suicide as an epidemiological phenomenon, which is the main viewpoint the topic is (and should be) discussed from. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 13:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some mention of the political/legal aspects are already in the article and may be expanded a bit further, but this page is about suicide in general. In no way should the political aspects dominate the article's scope or lead since suicide is not a political or legal thing in itself. Suicide is a social, individual, mental, historical phenomenon. No one commits suicide based on legal or political grounds (i.e. whether the right to die even exists or whatever), they commit suicide over family, mental health, friends, individual economics, etc. Terrorist suicide falls well within the scope of the article. The focus of the article overall is about what influences suicide, not what politicians and judges allow by law. Having said that "right to die", "euthanasia", rational suicide, all fall within the scope of the article since they discuss reasons for suicide. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suicide prevention constitutes a legal/political aspect that in no way should dominate the article's scope. OP 06:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
To clarify and exhibit my point, as OP, here is the full first paragraph minus the first sentence:
"Depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, personality disorders, and substance abuse — including alcoholism and the use of benzodiazepines — are risk factors.[2][4][7] Some suicides are impulsive acts due to stress such as from financial difficulties, troubles with relationships, or bullying.[2][8] Those who have previously attempted suicide are at a higher risk for future attempts.[2] Suicide prevention efforts include limiting access to methods of suicide — such as firearms, drugs, and poisons; treating mental disorders and substance misuse; proper media reporting of suicide; and improving economic conditions.[2] Even though crisis hotlines are common, there is little evidence for their effectiveness.[9]"

That is not talking about Suicide in the abstract. That is a caricature and one imposing belief Suicide is somehow not a choice. "Risk" implies involuntariness. The first quoted sentence convolutes describing dysphoria by instead listing dysphoric character archetypes.

"Dysphoria often motivates suicide." would carry as much meaning without inundating the reader with archetypes assigned to those experiencing dysphoria by the current mental health establishment.

I'll try to avoid saying any else on the matter.

08:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Most sources seem to treat suicide as a public health issue, similar to heart disease or lung cancer, and the article does well to generally discuss it in that context. However, I think this article could be improved by adding more material from other perspectives, or just reorganizing a bit. For example, I'm not sure why "Rational Suicide" is discussed in a subsection under "Risk Factors". That seems a little strange, maybe that should get a heading of its own and be expanded with more material on euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the right to die. Perhaps a sentence or two could be added to the lead mentioning this as well. Suicide-as-public-health-issue appears to be the dominant perspective among reliable sources, but it's not the only one. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't completely agree with our initial anonymous commenter, I think that others in this RfC have made good points about the lack of coverage of the right to die movement and rational motivations to end one's life. As of now, we only have a short subsection under the Risk factors section called "Rational suicide" that doesn't even mention terminal illness. The phrase "right to die" is not actually used once in the article, even though it's the most common way to refer to rational suicide. The right to die movement and the practice of rational suicide, especially in instances of terminal illness, are key topics in suicide. Right now, it gets two sentences in a paragraph under legislation, only mentioning the legal issues involved. The lead only really covers suicide from an epidemiological and mental health perspective (not a cultural, political, or right to die perspective). We definitely do need some work done here. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 13:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like others above I find it strange that the concept of right to die is only mentioned briefly in a subsection under risk factors. That makes no sense. It needs to be its own section and expanded on to include terminal illnesses. Also a mention in the lead is due. Not sure how it can be described as a fringe view either. AIRcorn (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay I see it was its own section but recently made a subsection without any edit summary here. AIRcorn (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It has been a subsection of "risk factors" for a long time. The article follows WP:MEDMOS with respect to layout. Rational suicide is one risk factor / cause for suicide. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Suicide treated as an issue presents POV. Suicide prevention as an ideology (whether correct or incorrect) presents a moral issue not a medical issue. Why doesn't the article use Template:Suicide sidebar? OP 2600:1702:1740:2CA0:389E:3C9A:B3D7:6713 (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - That POV that "suicide is not an issue" is fringe. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was it fringe to the edo period Japanese or the ancient Aztecs?

What do modern historians of those periods say about the views of people then?

How have those views changed through history?

Are you sure, Doctor, that you aren't just speaking on behalf of the loudest minority at the moment?

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:6472:2168:F2D4:EBD5 (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what was Shakespeare's take on suicide and was that also fringe?

What about Edgar Allen Poe?

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:6472:2168:F2D4:EBD5 (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There may be some room for "right to die" material in the article, but I agree with Doc James that we shouldn't give undue weight to that topic in this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC isn't about topics.

It's about morals.

How no article should give any weight to any moral, except when attributing it. OP 2600:1702:1740:2CA0:A89E:867B:D7AE:6C9 (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about morals. Also, I know what you stated in the edit history, but your account is already tied to this discussion. And it is important that you at least keep your IP signature, like with your "12:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)" time stamp. A time stamp by itself is not enough (outside of the initial RfC post). If it weren't important that editors, including IPs, sign their username, none of us would bother with it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About the IP signature, I can understand on principle, yet, while the edit history shows that and an IPv6 changes frequently enough that keeping track isn't really practical, simply signing as OP or "Anonymous [whatever]" would not only help with tracking the conversation but also impose just a little bit the conscious reality how that user doesn't want their identity exposed [kinda like writing "please don't cheat" on an exam, has more affect than you might at first imagine]. Signing without IP contrib/talk links, wouldn't inhibit normal naughty behavior checking, if mediawiki incorporated some sort of "git-blame"-esque feature, just saying. Thinking about that, I cognitize what you mean, since some one only has to do a phrase-find search in the version history to find a section creator. "Git-blame" would do marvels for wikipedia in my opinion in many more ways.
I agree, and suicide prevention is a moral.

Morals don't belong on wikipedia without attribution.

Moral expression doesn't belong in any information syntax on wikipedia.

(i.e. if "facts" clump together in a certain way, supporting a certain interpretation missing other POV'es, wikipedia editors should separate those facts enough to fit other notable POV'es.)

The article currently gives no weight to POV about romantic suicide.

Considering ~~Doctor James~~ (Flyer22 Reborn) mentioned "romanticizing suicide" before I did, I suspect that at least unconsciously some editors here know that romantic suicide is notable POV. And, I don't believe Doctor James has fully cognitized how what they said about having a lede image which doesn't romanticize suicide is POV pushing.

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:6472:2168:F2D4:EBD5 (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like many above, I agree that the article is generally fine. I also agree that we could reasonably have a section with more coverage on 'right to die' and related info. Alsee (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Added further details on "right to die" and "assisted suicide". These concepts, while related, are often dealt with separately but agree should be mentioned here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with challenging IP. The article makes its non-neutral POV clear right at the start, by using "Infobox medical condition". We don't use that infobox in Christianity, though it would make more sense there than here. Maproom (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom, I don't understand your argument. Suicidal thoughts and suicide fall under health issues. Christianity does not, except for something like Christianity and violence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming bacteria falls under "health issues" presumes the bacteria's existence causes immoral harm, likewise under the same logic claiming a "thought" falls under "health issues" presumes the thought's existence causes immoral harm. @Flyer22 Reborn, do you notice how one statement could have more POV than the other?

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:6472:2168:F2D4:EBD5 (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bacteria does fall under health issues. See that article's "Pathogens" section. It's why that article is tagged (on its talk page) as being within WP:Med's scope. Of course...not all bacteria is bad, but some of it is. I do not understand your immoral harm argument regarding bacteria. Suicidal thoughts are a health issue for reasons that many health professionals note. Suicidal thoughts can significantly impact one's health, and the vast majority of people with suicidal thoughts do not want to die. For some, if they do not get treatment for those thoughts, they just might take their life. And although my personal life does not matter in this discussion, I state that not only because of my knowledge of the suicide literature, but also because I have have suffered (yes, suffered) from suicidal thoughts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So the key point was distinguishing almost factual almost absolute morality such as "killing intelligent life is immoral" or "killing pathogens is moral", from very POV relative morality such as "certain thoughts are immoral" or "suicide is immoral".

Presuming a moral stance on murder or pestilence, isn't so POV as presuming a moral stance on immoral thoughts or suicide.

By presuming suicide is "an issue" as fact, wikipedia supports the stance considering "suicide is immoral" as fact.

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:58EB:2A32:D88B:DDEF (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't agree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Flyer22 Reborn. A decision to kill yourself may be entirely rational: you believe that every day will bring more suffering (for you) than joy (for you and your friends and family). It may be the result of social conditioning: the society in which you live expects suicide for someone in the circumstances in which you find yourself, e.g. sati. Or it may be the result of a disease which has derailed your thought processes. The use of the infobox ignores the first two possibilities, and implies that all suicides are caused by disease.

Ok, maybe the Christianity comparison was a stretch. My idea was that if someone believes in the literal truth of the virgin birth, resurrection, Trinity, etc., then their thought processes are deranged (though admittedly in a generally harmless way). I wouldn't actually want "Infobox medical condition" in the Christianity article, that would be PoV; but P of a more reasonable V than using it here. Maproom (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the obvious argument in favor of a medical infobox here and against a medical infobox for Christianity is that most reliable sources describe suicide as a medical problem while very few reliable sources describe Christianity as a medical problem. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red Rock Canyon, exactly (although I'm not aware of any valid medical sources that treat religious beliefs in and of themselves as a mental disorder). Maproom, I can't get on board with your rationale regarding the infobox. I also think you are defining disease broadly (see the Terminology section for the Disease article). In any case, health authorities usually do not attribute suicide to a disease, unless defining "disease" to mean "mental illness" (such as major depressive disorder). There are often health issues before suicide is committed; those are more often mental than physical. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are often health issues before suicide is committed, because health issues can make someone's life not worth living. I don't accept that that justifies the use of

Sometimes there are health issues before suicide is committed, because those health issues are what made someone's life not worth living. I don't accept that that justifies the use of a medical infobox. The use of the infobox implies that people only kill themselves because they are mentally ill. That is unwarranted (and insulting). I'm happy to drop the "Christianity" comparison, and I apologise to the Christians I have insulted. Maproom (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like Nietzsche, I support religion as a source for morality, creativity, and neurodiversity.
That said, I find your comparison worthy for illustrating how the word "health" inherently expresses POV, because calling religion a "health issue" I believe should remind many about that once popular atheist meme.

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:58EB:2A32:D88B:DDEF (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom, again, agree to disagree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22 Reborn: Would you oppose leaving the pov-check banner up for a few days, to see if that invites more input?

From my POV, many reader who have felt suicidal might hesitate to give input on this topic, if not explicitly invited to.

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:58EB:2A32:D88B:DDEF (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has so far established that the POV tag is not needed. Editors suggested more "right to die" material be added, but most are clear that the article is adhering to the literature on suicide. I do not support the tag being added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the POV tag should not be added, in my view. I also feel it is correct to label suicide as a medical condition, even though some forms of suicide do not require a medical intervention (suicide bomber is a military/police and legal issue and because psychiatrists and doctors cannot detain/prevent someone without a treatable mental illness from deciding to end their life e.g., someone suffering from chronic treatment resistant physical pain). I believe it is correct to label suicide as a medical condition in the infobox because preventing most cases of suicide is a medical matter because preventing suicide and searching for ways to better treat and prevent the causes of suicide to reduce the rate of suicide is indeed a major focus of medical care. The fact that a small percent of suicides do not fall under the medical banner is irrelevant to the infobox defining this as a medical condition as the article body can touch on complex matters such as suicide bombers. The right to die issue is still a medical matter because the patient will require input from the doctor about the prognosis of there physical or neurological or psychiatric disorder, e.g., if prognosis of relief of severe suffering is poor or hopeless versus good and whether they will deteriorate further. I also agree with the general POV of this article except that some more weight should be given to the right to die issue and feel it deserves a couple of lines in the lead section.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you might have seen, Doc added more with this edit. You want more than that in the article? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Literaturegeek: You are just repeating over and over that you consider suicide an issue, just specifying differently nuanced situations, but I'll express this one situation that's not nuanced at all. Someone merely has to find a form of abuse which isn't illegal, to make someone's existence intolerable. All they must do to do that, is discover a form of abuse, no one's ever studied before. Please understand you can't judge for people whether they get to live... or die. Some aspects about life don't deserve such nuanced, like consent. How simple: you shouldn't force someone to live just like you shouldn't force them to love you.

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:450:E55F:7906:6074 (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22 Reborn: I already said once: requiring consensus to invite more perspectives defines a Catch-22.

No one except Doctor James has suggested this discussion doesn't need any more perspectives.

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:450:E55F:7906:6074 (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Besides what Flyer22 Reborn has already written above, I fully support Doc James on this and agree with every comment he has made in this thread. In my considered opinion, 2600:1702:1740:2CA0... is here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)--Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer, yes, I am happy with Doc James's content addition, I don't think at present there is anything more to add. What does need to be added is a sentence or two summarising that section in the lead. IP editor: people, usually, but not always, can substantially improve from trauma, affects of abuse, with support of friends and family or health professionals. Same goes for mental illness - many can be treated and relief obtained. Many people who survive a suicide attempt very often, at a later date, regret trying to kill themselves and go on to lead happy productive lives. So, yes definitely suicide should be sought to be medically prevented, sometimes even against the will of the suicidal individual - because at times of crisis people can make poor judgements regarding suicide. There are of course a small number of people who do not fall neatly into this positive picture. I guess what I am trying to say is we need to simply represent significant academic viewpoints, such as right to die and rational suicide, per WP:DUEWEIGHT as this is not a black and white issue. Guy Macon, I wouldn't worry, the IP editors view on this subject is FRINGE at best and attracts no support from other commenters and I don't imagine any sources are available to source such an extreme and strange viewpoint.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Literature Geek, We could debate the nuances about how mechanisms meant to help people can get abused to conduct abuse by proxy, but we shouldn't hold such a debate on wikipedia. I'd gladly discuss this by email or over https://riot.im/. I made points above about due-weight which were not responded to. Please avoid cherrypicking.

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:F99B:B7E5:77EC:4A9E (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon. Can you explain how an article about Suicide which treats suicide as an issue doesn't try to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? Because you have just accused me of what I accused others about by making this RfC for making this RfC. Does trying to stop editors from "righting great wrongs" count as "righting a great wrong"? My argument you directly responded to which has no formatting nor any emphasis, because that comment has little relevance to what I believe this RfC should discuss, responded directly to an editors bias to try and get them to stop. By trying to tell an editor I disagree with their "great wrong" suddenly I'm trying to "right a great wrong". Guy Macon, please respond to my well formatted and much more concise points above, if you want to contribute to this RfC in a meaningful way.

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:F99B:B7E5:77EC:4A9E (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, IP editor, is that you are not providing reliable sources to support your claim that suicide is not or should not be seen to be a medical topic.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

https://apjjf.org/-Jenny-Chan/3408/article.html

To be, or not to be

https://www.ekoreajournal.net/issue/view_pop.htm?Idx=2918

http://revistas.unam.mx/index.php/ecn/article/viewFile/9302/8680

https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/10414473

"attitudes toward suicide circa 1600 were perceived by Shakespeare and incorporated into his plays" . . . "Overall, the action of taking one's life is presented in a neutral or even favorable light, and the audience is left with a mingling of pity and admiration for the victim, not reproach."

https://archive.org/details/AlbertCamusTheMythOfSisyphus

https://prudentia.lbr.auckland.ac.nz/index.php/prudentia/article/download/99/88

https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=769753342985994;res=IELHSS

https://www.brown.edu/academics/philosophy/sites/brown.edu.academics.philosophy/files/uploads/DutyToDie.pdf

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Things_Japanese/Harakiri

https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/handle/11343/35861

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Apology_(Plato)

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:F99B:B7E5:77EC:4A9E (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EVERYONE, keep in mind that mob rule, pushes away valid contributions. 2600:1702:1740:2CA0:F99B:B7E5:77EC:4A9E (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, 1600 Shakespeare and you think that we should redefine medical opinion based on a hundreds years old play script!? I am not sure you are WP:COMPETENT to be editing Wikipedia. I am not seeing support for your case in the other references. It is possible one or two of your sources could be used to briefly summarise historical attitudes towards suicide as an interesting factoid for our readers but in no ways do those sources have any relevance to the overall general POV of this article and whether it should be redefined as not a medical topic as you wish to happen.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The topic defines a historical, anthropological, and cultural phenomenon.

Stop acting irrational.

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:9945:4A56:2463:A59E (talk) 08:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've read the article and I kind of agree with the IP. I don't think there's much that needs to be done, but IMO we should probably change the infobox and some of the headings. We're framing the whole subject as a mental health issue, when that's only a subset of the wider sociological topic. For example I doubt that even modern psychiatry takes steps to prevent soldiers from sacrificing themselves for their comrades on the battlefield, let alone e.g. preventing people from joining the military (war veterans have higher suicide rates). Hence I think it's somewhat inappropriate to put altruistic suicides under "risk factors". I recognise and agree that we have a moral duty here besides providing accurate information, but frankly I'd have to add a {{cn}} to the idea that making this a mental health article helps. Daß Wölf 02:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC) (arrived via WP:RFC/A)[reply]

I want to state clearly, I also agree with a moral imperative besides simply accurate information. I believe in creating a civilization where as few people want to die as possible. Merely preventing instances of suicide doesn't accomplish that, and in fact actually accomplishes the opposite because unknown abusers get enabled by successful suicide prevention. By encouraging wilfully defiant suicide as a society, we make a statement to all the unknown abusers out there that we won't accept their behavior and we will go to whatever extreme to rob them of any satisfaction torturing others.

Before we stoop to coercive or forceful measures to keep someone alive, we must make their life worth living as a prerequisite.

Disclaimer: That POV has no relevance to my claims about the article.

same IP person 75.39.102.200 (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that our society still has a much stronger focus on prevention of the act rather than actual quality of life. I disagree that we should cause deaths just to prove this point. Daß Wölf 20:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to prove a point but to prevent further victimization and to deprive unknown abusers of victims.

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:E999:AB0B:FB6E:FCC2 (talk) 06:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting killed in war; is not generally suicide. But when people are pressured to get them self killed such as in a kamikaze that sort of fits under a cause / risk factor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I meant acts like falling on a grenade to save other nearby soldiers on your side. Oftentimes someone in the group is bound to do it, and it does prevent further deaths, but it still is a willful act of killing oneself and thus IMO falls under the scope of this page. Daß Wölf 20:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Replace the current infobox with Template:Social phenomenon.

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:D019:9F33:3E90:585A (talk) 06:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I know the closer believes consensus got made, however I just feel a little curious wishing everyone involved would restate where they stand in summary. I find gauging the discussion difficult since at many points no one replied where one might otherwise expect a reply. I can't tell whether the lack of reply occurred out of disregard for the opinion stated or out of self-reflection on a convincing statement. I would advise away from simply relying on original straw poll statement to determine consensus since of course wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Decisions get made based on willingness and merit.

I can't judge the discussion, could everyone involved make a short 5 words on less summary of where you stand?

OP 2603:301F:2301:CE00:BCDB:D59A:442F:BD2E (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disputing categorization as medical

@Dimadick: Allowing only medical sources for Suicide would compare effectively to allowing only medical sources for Dance. While different substances have a statistical correlation with suicide rates, correlation does not mean causation. Considering some might have a genetic predisposition to dance as a form of communication (since modern linguistic theory considers grammar genetic), surely statistical correlations between certain dances and suicide exist.

I have awareness about how studies compare how suicidal people feel before and after exposure to studied substances, however that just as likely modifies the activation of certain grammars in the brain as can get all-accounted by placebo or dysphoria from other effects of exposure to said substance. I doubt any substance which leaves the exposed with a sober enough mind to believe they experience existence as well as their own movements, deprives anyone of the agency to choose whether to be or not to be.

Treating suicide as a medical article, either forces the no privilege to die POV or increases the scope of medical to include any behavior with correlations to certain types of grammar. 2600:1700:8680:E900:9484:F630:50CA:23FE (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that you need to publish yourself a high quality source in an academic journal that determines suicide is not, in general, a medical condition and then the majority of other experts and expert bodies in subsequent high quality sources would have to agree with you. You have about twenty years of work ahead of you. This is because Wikipedia works on the basis of what high quality sources say. In the meantime you should leave this issue alone and move on.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one: that would constitute OR, so you should mean find rather than publish. Two: all of these sources cite or describe suicide as social issue, a form of protest, a choice, a means to make a statement or escape dysphoria, or atleast a choice one can decide to make by their own will not made by circumstances controlling them, removing their agency. (see Hamlet).

2600:1700:8680:E900:F0B9:62DB:3DE0:ED35 (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:MEDRS note has been on this page for years. Each time you've removed it you've been reverted by a different editor. In the recent RFC, there was consensus that suicide should be treated primarily as a medical issue. There is consensus to keep the note on this talk page. Stop being disruptive. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Category:Causes of death, and death is a pretty important medical event ... so of course this is a medical article. Graham87 02:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Term "risk factor" objectifies people.

Closing off-topic rant. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The term treats an individual's decision as a physical or economic phenomenon, rather than a social or cultural one.

One may term a circumstance which might motivate a decision by an outsider affecting one's organization as a "factor", particularly terming circumstances motivating a decision with a negative affect as a "risk factor". Thusly "risk factor" in an economic context, implies speaking to an ingroup affected by the decisions of an outgroup. Since wikipedia as a public text without implied antagonist has no outgroup and has everyone able to read internet webpages as an audience, wikipedia labeling circumstances as "risk factors" in an economic context violates the logic between those two principles addressed in the preceding two sentences respectively. Therefore, a reader would likely default to the most applicable inviolate interpretation, which turns out as circumstance contributing to a physical phenomenon happening which would result in death (i.e. a hurricane).

That way, the term "risk factor" to describe circumstance contributing to a suicide equates the existence of suicidal people to the existence of natural disasters or---simply---equates suicidal people to natural disasters.

So, for the sake of NPOV and WP:Gratuitous, I claim wikipedians should not allow the term "risk factors" applied in such way on wikipedia.

2600:1700:8680:E900:F0B9:62DB:3DE0:ED35 (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you ever going to give this a rest? No one agrees with you. The RFC settled this issue, accept the consensus. Calling "risk factor" objectifying is like saying "unemployment rate" objectifies people. It's just a way of measuring a social phenomenon. More and more I'm getting the impression that you aren't here to improve the encyclopedia, you're here on some grand crusade to change the way suicide is discussed in society. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not demeaning or pejorative. Eliminating the phrase will not change the facts. It will simply distort and dumb down the discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about your facts, but the predominantly believed facts stipulate suicide happens because of motivations not "risk factors". 2600:1700:8680:E900:F0B9:62DB:3DE0:ED35 (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, whether anyone agrees with me or not matters not, but rather the merit and willingness to follow through attribute-able to the points made and makers of the points. Again, whether anyone agrees with me or not, doesn't change whether or not they can or will respond to the points raised. Having a majority doesn't beget correctness. Claiming "risk factors" exist for suicide, implies individuals are not agents to their own decision.

I don't believe no one agrees with me, rather I only believe that the majority of people with the most interest in editing a wikipedia article have dedicated their lives to disagreeing with the opinion I express and would have significantly different employment if they hadn't. I can't say with certainty, however seems like most editors who participated in the RfC have a medical bias in what articles they choose to edit.

I digress. How does asking me to stop editting confront the issue I pose?

This section addresses a different, much more specific issue.

"Risk factor" doesn't associate with "unemployment rate", rather "suicide rate" associates with "unemployment rate". I would not say talking about statistics in general objectifies people, but detaching the term motivation from decision does. If we say "risk factors for willful unemployment" that objectifies people the same way, by implying "no one decided to decide" to remain unemployed. Grammar like that treats a decision as an outcome, rather than a desire, much like the outcome of a hurricane or an election or a harvest; not like the outcome of a decision though because the decision gets treated as the outcome. Suicide, the article, ceases to treat death as an outcome of suicide, the decision, instead treating the suicidal person as a person without a will which matters.

The feminist movement talked about objectification, as treating feminine voices on femininity as voices without opinions which matter. (Of course, masculine voices on masculinity got similar treatment while receiving more shame for vocalizing their discontent.) In other words, if someone felt stereotyped or depicted annoyingly simple, that person too often got treated as a person whose will did not matter. Now you might continue to push your idea about "risk factors" relating to statistics (due to genetic grammar), but the article doesn't talk about "risk factors" that way, otherwise we would find more "risk factors for a greater suicide rate". The article talks about risk factors relating to the individual as-if to say "this might cause this person to do what they didn't decide to decide to do", much like "sexual conquests don't decide to decide to have sex, instead they decide because of what we made them decide" likewise with marital or otherwise monoamorous "conquests".

How can anyone call those treatments different?

2600:1700:8680:E900:F0B9:62DB:3DE0:ED35 (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide among medical patients

Suicide among medical patients needs help from other editors. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should the content of Template:Suicide sidebar and Template:Suicide navbox be the same?

See the discussion at: Template talk:Suicide sidebar § Should the content of Template:Suicide sidebar and Template:Suicide navbox be the same?

See also the related deletion discussion at: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 13 § Template:Suicide by country. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linking

We generally do not link like this Matthew 19:18

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A18&version=NRSV

Thus I have restored the prior version. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- who is "we"? - this is a common way of linking in Wikipedia articles Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible Template:Bibleverse- Epinoia (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both {{Bibleref2}} and {{Bibleverse}} advise against linking in the text, preferring to use a footnote. I've therefore followed this advice. Furthermore, it is preferable to use Wikisource rather than an external website, so I've used KJV. Finally, whilst shortening the book to "Matthew" is clear to those familiar with the Bible, we should not assume this of our readership, so I have expanded it back to "the Gospel of Matthew". I hope that satisfies both of you. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has just dawned on me that we’re supporting the wrong point (and therefore citing the wrong verse!) The point we’re supposed to be supporting is (article text)

made applicable under the New Covenant by Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew

So it’s verse 17 that is relevant: “And he said to him, “... If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

(We’ve got sidetracked supporting the point appearing immediately before it in the article:

the argument is based on the commandment "Thou shalt not kill"

This earlier point does not need a citation provided to support it. (It would obviously be possible to provide a citation - and it’s a requirement of WP that it’s possible to do that. But the point is hardly likely to be challenged and so - WP again - doesn’t need any citation provided in the article. Compare the broader argument(s)

that life is a gift given by God .., and that suicide is against the "natural order" and thus interferes with God's .. plan

- for which the citation is both needed and provided.)

So I suppose I ought to amend accordingly.

SquisherDa (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On other aspects:

linkage via footnote (User:Doc James): good by me!

[Gospel of] Matthew (User:Martin of Sheffield): yes, of course, the fuller form is right!

KJV (User:Martin of Sheffield): uh .. a translation four centuries old? into a language as fast-changing as English has been? and when linguistic sciences, within the last century, have done so much for the quality of translation? (But is there a WP:Something re KJV?)

Seriously? You can't understand "He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness"? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the consensual priority, re references, favors quality of reference over convenience of access, WikiSolidarity etc.

Anyone agree / disagree re choice of translation?

SquisherDa (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- in articles about the Bible the NRSV is usually referenced due to its readability and neutrality of translation - the most common way to reference scripture is by the Bibleref template to Bible Gateway - for example, this section on Paul the Apostle has several Bibleref links, Paul the Apostle#Names - if you scroll through the article you will see that this style of Bible reference is used throughout - it is the most common form of Bible reference on Wikipedia - Epinoia (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing the current "Suicide Image" of the Manet painting of the dead man on the bed with a gun

I'd like to suggest that the "hopeless" Manet painting of a blood soaked, unknown dead man with a hole in his chest and a gun in his hand lying on a bed be replaced with something less violent.

I suggest it be replaced with the identifiable hero, Alan Turing, in this image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Suicide_in_art#/media/File:Alan_Turing._2_Cornwall_LGBT_History_Project_2016._Sculpted_by_Malcolm_Lidbury.JPG

The Turing image has no overt violence, no sign of a weapon and it implies that we have become a better world than the one Turing lived in.

Am I overthinking the impact of the current image? Petebertine (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current image is fine. Suicide is generally fairly horrible and we should not try to hide the fact. We should also not try to associate it with "heros" as that might promote suicides. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

agree w/ Doc James comments above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the last sentence of the first paragraph and replacing it with an accurate statement supported by overwhelming scholarly research

Hello,

My 10 year old son is in therapy for suicidal ideation and last weekend made a serious Suicidal Gesture. I'm contributing to this page in the hope of improving all of our understanding of how to prevent suicide.

I suggest that the first paragraph be amended to introduce the positive impact of social media forums to prevent suicide... instagram for example (I'm referencing Pete Davidson's call for help on Instagram and the immediate help he received)

But, most importantly, the last sentence of the first paragraph should be changed. There is overwhelming evidence that Telephone Hotlines, Texting Hotlines, and Online Chat help immediately prevent suicide.

Here is a 2017 article in support of my claim: https://www.healthyplace.com/suicide/how-does-a-suicide-prevention-hotline-prevent-suicide

Here a 2012 report about the efficacy of New Jeresy's suicide hotlines: https://www.state.nj.us/humanservices/news/reports/NJ%20HOTLINE%20SURVEY%20REPORT%2011%2028%2012.pdf

This discuses how Hotlines have grown and improved over the last 10+ years: https://www.sprc.org/news/national-suicide-prevention-lifeline-first-ten-years

And finally, this study shows conclusively that calling a hotline can prevent a person from immediately killing themselves: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/sltb.12339

The referenced article in the last sentence in the 1st paragraph does not actually support the sentences claim, and the link provided doesn't lead to an actual article or paper... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17824349

Please let me fix this situation by removing the current last sentence and adding a sentence that says, " Calling a suicide help line can prevent a person from immediately committing suicide" citing this study: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/sltb.12339

THIS IS AN EXACT QUOTE FROM THE STUDY: "Although research has focused on suicidal individuals treated in hospitals and emergency departments, crisis hotlines are known for providing immediate access to care for individuals in suicidal crisis, including many who face barriers to engaging in formal behavioral health care."

Petebertine (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could qualify your material by starting, "Although some doubt the effectiveness of crisis hotlines" and include the Sakinofsky citation already in the article, then add your material supporting crisis hotlines - this would preserve neutrality, preserve the existing citation, and include important alternate refernces - ps: hope your son is ok - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll try editing it now along these lines: Although some question the effectiveness of crisis hotlines,^[1] and others call for resources to be better allocated; ^[2] calling a crisis hotline can prevent a suicidal caller from 'immediately' taking their life, and crisis hotlines that make follow up calls and provide access to mental health resources reduce the chance that a caller attempt suicide in the future.^[3]

And thank you for the kind words, my son is getting wonderful professional support now. Petebertine (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. Needs better wording. Use of "some" is vague; see WP:Weasel wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"some" is only vague if unsupported by citations - if you check WP:WEASEL the section is called "Unsupported attributions" - it is quite normal on Wikipedia for an article to say, "Some scholars believe this and other scholars believe that" as long as both positions are supported by citations - Epinoia (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am very familiar with all of what WP:Words to watch states. I commonly weigh in on that guideline's talk page. "Some" can be vague regardless of if it's sourced, which is why WP:Weasel states, "Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source." It's also why Template:Who states, "If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only 'Some people...'—then Wikipedia must remain vague." In this particular case, the wording didn't even state "some scholars." And which of the sources state "some people" or "some scholars"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is extremely common to use some/other in cases of contentious scholarship as long as there are citations for both positions. Here is an example from the article on Paul the Apostle:

"The other six are believed by some scholars to have come from followers writing in his name, using material from Paul's surviving letters and letters written by him that no longer survive.[8][9][17] Other scholars argue that the idea of a pseudonymous author for the disputed epistles raises many problems.[18]"

so using the some/other construction is common usage and not always weasel words. - Epinoia (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced or not, such wording is commonly tagged with Template:Who. I should know; I see it all the time, which is why I avoid "some people," "many people" and similar when possible. There are editors who still want clarification as to who those people are, even if the source is talking about people in general and/or no one worth mentioning by name, or they are simply applying WP:Weasel words strictly and/or wrongly. It's why Template:Who states, "If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague." I've had to point editors to Template:Who times before so that they can understand that words like "some" and "many" are not banned, and that giving names can create misleading WP:In-text attribution. See, for example, Talk:Campus sexual assault/Archive 4#"The majority of rape and other sexual assault victims do not report their attacks to law enforcement.". Using "some people," "many people" and similar is a case-by-case matter, and they are better if used in the lead as a summary. If the source actually uses the wording "other scholars," for example, you are safer than stating "other scholars" just because the source mentions some scholars or stating "some scholars" because you've stringed together a few sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Petebertine’s contribution has raised several important points. I’m seeing real risk that in discussing some of the more detailed / complicated issues, we’ll lose sight of some that are rather uncomplicated and central.

Notably, that the *existing* article includes a blunt statement

Even though crisis hotlines are common, there is little evidence for their effectiveness

and cites a source which doesn’t say anything about it!

The source cited is the Sakinofsky article; I have access only to the abstract; and it seems to me clear from the abstract that the article has nothing substantial on hotlines and is not a valid source for anything that we might want to say about them.

Let’s be sure that whatever we do, we do something about that!

- SquisherDa (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

____

References

I've done a bit of research and can find absolutely zero supporting documentation that claims that Call In Centers are ineffective. I've changed that last sentence on the Suicide Page to quote from sentence #1 of paragraph #4 of this article: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sltb.12128

I'd prefer to make that a clearer and even more declarative sentence, such as, "The American Association of Suicidology attests to the effectiveness of Call in Centers" Petebertine (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 2016 systematic review says "Other approaches that need further investigation include gatekeeper training, education of physicians, and internet and helpline support."

We do not use primary sources per WP:MEDRS

There is lots that can be done to decrease suicide like decrease access to guns.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us the citation details of the 2016 review you mention? (Apologies if I’ve missed something, and you already have; if so, can you repeat?!)

- SquisherDa (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 2007 review says "Other suicide prevention strategies that have been considered are crisis centres and hotlines, method control, and media education. Public awareness campaigns can increase knowledge, self-identification of depression, and help seeking.133 There is minimal research on these strategies. Even though crisis centres and hotlines are used by suicidal youth, information about their impact on suicidal behaviour is lacking." by the way

Doc James

(talk · contribs · email) 03:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referencing an article from 2018 in The Official Journal of the American Association of Suicidology that clearly says that crisis centers and hotlines prevent suicides. You are referencing a decade old article written by a single author in Canada that says information about their impact is lacking. It is an article that no one has access to so as to verify context. Interestingly enough, you are also referencing a Lancet article that no one can access without paying for it.

Are you telling me that I can't use The article from the American Association of Suicidology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebertine (talk • contribs) 04:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us the citation details of the 2018 Association article you mention? (Apologies if I’ve missed something, and you already have; if so, can you repeat?!)

I doubt that Doc James is simply saying you can’t use it. The point I think he has in mind is that the main text of an article would normally be more direct:

Call in Centers are known to be effective

with a *reference* to what the Association of Suicidology has said - *if* whatever they’ve said is a source we can rely on . . *and* it’s the accepted view among relevant experts / authorities / etc.

If it’s *not* the established view - that is, if other opinions are recognized as reasonable - we’d need to present both / all views. (That’s likely in this case, I guess.)

If the Association’s publication(s) *can’t* be regarded as “reliable” for any reason, there’s a need to dig deeper / widen the enquiry - to confirm that their view is accepted as reasonable, well-informed etc (likely; I’d think) *and* to identify and cite reliable sources that state it.

The pay-wall thing, by the way (re Doc James’s Lancet article): consensus as I understand it is that the quality of references is primary. For Further Reading etc, pay-walls are really not what you’re hoping to find; and for references, if a source behind a pay-wall can be replaced by another that is equally relevant and equally authoritative, that is definitely what to do. But if the only reliable source that actually states the point is behind a pay-wall (or is otherwise hard-to-get-at), it’s still the one to cite and it has to be cited.

( Personal note: I think of your son, and what he and you are going through, each time I visit this discussion: my / our heartfelt best wishes! )

- SquisherDa (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SquisherDa :)

I appreciate the feedback from Doc James and his obvious desire to see such an important topic properly researched and presented. Obviously I want to encourage the presentation of that information to give hope and encourage people to seek help...

...toward that end I present these 3 quotes:

"Continuity of care for suicidal individuals engaged with a variety of health and mental health care systems has become a national priority, and crisis hotlines are increasingly playing a part in the risk management and continuum of care for these individuals"*

2018, American Association of Suicidology

"Two main data sources provided the information for the current study: a self-report counselor questionnaire on the follow-up activities completed on each clinical follow-up call and a telephone interview with follow-up clients, providing data on their perceptions of the follow-up intervention’s effectivenes"**

- 2018, American Journal of Suicidology

"The majority of interviewed follow-up clients reported that the intervention stopped them from killing themselves (79.6%) and kept them safe (90.6%)."***

- - 2018, American Journal of Suicidology

Those 3 direct quotes come out of the first paragraph of this article: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/sltb.12339

These are the authors of the article: Madelyn S. Gould PhD, MPH; Alison M. Lake MA, LP; Hanga Galfalvy PhD; Marjorie Kleinman MS; Jimmie Lou Munfakh BA; James Wright LCPC; Richard McKeon PhD, MPH

Due to her qualifications, I have emailed Dr. Madelyn Gould for a comment about the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page and how best to use the article in it. E-mail address: [[2]] Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Columbia University, , New York, NY, USA New York State Psychiatric Institute, , New York, NY, USA Address correspondence to M. S. Gould, Division of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, NYSPI, 1051 Riverside Drive, Unit 72, New York, NY 10032

Doc James is right, all guns should have trigger locks and be in safes... and proven medication like lithium should be free of charge and prescribed by psychiatrists that cost nothing to attend.

Until then knowledge is free (unless it's behind a paywall) and so are hotlines that provide information and an intermediary step between a suicidal person and the immediate medical help that person needs.

So, "Although research has focused on suicidal individuals treated in hospitals and emergency departments, crisis hotlines are known for providing immediate access to care for individuals in suicidal crisis, including many who face barriers to engaging in formal behavioral health care."****

- - - This is a direct quote from the article in the Official Journal of the American Association of Suicidology that I have referenced. I referenced the article in the 2 edits that I published and quoted the first sentence of the 4th paragraph of the Abstract:

[3]

^[1]

I'll attempt an new edit softening the negativity of the sentence while acknowledging that continued research is vital.

This is my edit incase it gets redacted. It references: https://www.sprc.org/news/national-suicide-prevention-lifeline-first-ten-years

and

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/sltb.12339

Crisis hotlines are common and in the past their effectiveness has been questioned.[9][10] Due to this scrutiny suicide prevention has evolved as a discipline and national suicide risk assessment standards have been developed, randomized controlled trials are being used to demonstrate programs effectiveness,[11] and the importance of follow up calls to suicidal callers is now seen to be so effective that a recent study showed that 79% of suicidal callers who received a clinical follow up call claimed that the follow up intervention call stopped them from killing themselves.[12]

Personally I think that it is unnecessary to mention that Crisis Hotlines have been questioned in the past while referencing articles and data from 10 years ago.

I would like to say:

"Crisis Hotlines and suicide prevention is effective with national suicide risk assessment standards that have been developed using randomized controlled trials that recommend follow up intervention calls. Today, 79% of callers who receive follow up calls claim that the follow up call stopped them from killing themselves."

Any objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebertine (talk • contribs) 19:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Dr. Madelyn S. Gould and her team at Columbia University is referenced by John Draper, PhD, Director, National Suicide Prevention Lifeline Member, SPRC Steering Committee, the author of the other article I referenced. Is this see as inappropriate?

Petebertine (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We DO NOT use primary sources to refute secondary ones. Please read WP:MEDRS.

You are more than welcome to try a WP:RfC though. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

as Doc James has indicated Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) is very clear on using secondary sources--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My next edit makes the sentence true to the source article because the secondary source reference is being taken out of context. The source does not say that there is "Little Evidence" it says that there is "Insufficient Evidence"

It is too ambiguous AND I cannot read the entire article to gain context because it is behind a pay wall.

Ideally the sentence should read: "There is ongoing debate about how to prevent suicide"... it is incredibly irresponsible to dissuade people from calling a help line given the enormous amount of Primary Source material supporting the effectiveness of help lines.

I will continue to search for a source that meets Wikipedia requirements Petebertine (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit I made reflects my unsuccessful attempt to locate suitable source material to support the effectiveness of call centers. I have received a reply from Dr. Gould at Columbia University, one of the authors of the primary source I was using as a reference and I have requested that she send me secondary sources to support the effectiveness of call centers.

The Tonic article that I added as a citation at the end of the sentence does a great job of discussing the issue with Hotlines AND it references Dr. Gould's primary source material that I have been using.

All in all this has been a great education and a form of catharsis for my pain, and I thank everyone for their patience, friendly guidance and support. Doc James you have inspired me to focus on improving the presentation of Suicide information in a way that best helps those in crisis AND guides professionals to the latest resources. Petebertine (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vice is not a suitable source (as it is popular press)

It is better to paraphrase generally than to quote. How about "unclear"?

Nowhere does our article say people should not call these lines. Yes agree suicide is horrible, which is one of the reasons I have put a fair bit of work into this article. Best

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually convinced now that there is clear evidence that Hotlines are ineffective, especially after looking at research from Denmark, so please return it to your original wording... I'm now very interested in what IS effective in preventing suicide. Maybe something more be said about firearms as they are the #1 means of suicide in the US? Are trigger locks effective? Petebertine (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I paid The Lancet for the article "Suicide prevention strategies revisited: 10-year systematic review" https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanpsy/PIIS2215-0366(16)30030-X.pdf

Behind the paywall this is what they found regarding Hotlines:

"Studies of telephone and internet services usually have relatively low levels of evidence. These studies have mainly focused on outcome measures such as acceptability of services by users, identification of people at risk and referral to help services, and compliance with referrals. Other studies have identified specific effective characteristics in these interventions and service providers, as well as service-use barriers. Some report reduction in suicidal ideation following interventions such as a brief mobile treatment intervention in Sri Lanka, unguided online self-help, and a telephone aftercare intervention. Intervention is more efficient than wait-listing."

Let's go back to saying that there is little evidence Petebertine (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes, to your statement above, however on another matter of references...in the future do stay away from references such as 'Vice', as it is incompatible with MEDRS, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading of the literature this is the easiest / the most effective in the short term "Effective suicide prevention efforts include limiting access to methods of suicide — such as firearms, drugs, and poisons"

One can easily personally limit firearms in the home. In Switzerland, from what I understand they generally keep their guns in locked storage units a fair distance from their home.

Suicide is often a split second poor decision. Barriers on bridges also have some support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gould, Madelyn S.; Lake, Alison M.; Galfalvy, Hanga; Kleinman, Marjorie; Munfakh, Jimmie Lou; Wright, James; McKeon, Richard (2018). "Follow-up with Callers to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: Evaluation of Callers' Perceptions of Care". Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior. 48 (1): 75–86. doi:10.1111/sltb.12339. ISSN 1943-278X.

Risk factor: Inability to pay taxes

This story in the New York Times is anecdotal, but I wonder if we could find better reliable third-party sources about the people who commit suicide when they realize they cannot afford to pay taxes. Are there studies we could cite to know how many people commit suicide each year for this reason?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: Missing information under animal suicides section

Great white sharks have been documented starving themselves in captivity until death. This information is conclusive evidence of animal suicide and should be included on the page.

Sources: Hale, Tom (November 1, 2016). "Great White Shark Dies After Just THREE Days In Captivity". IFL Science!. Retrieved 2017-04-12. Fong, Joss (2016-07-08). "Why there aren't any great white sharks in captivity". Vox. Retrieved 2017-06-20. Essapian, F. (1962). Notes on the Behavior of Sharks in Captivity. Copeia, 1962(2), 457-459. doi:10.2307/1440936 Nellionidas (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not conclusive evidence. One could easily conclude that humans just don't know how to properly meet the physical needs of these sharks in captivity. The suggestion that the sharks have formed an intent to kill themselves is unfounded. Deli nk (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weird stats

The lead's third paragraph begins, "Approximately 0.5-1.4% of people die by suicide, roughly 12 per 100,000 individuals per year." My first thought was that 12/100,000 is about 2 orders of magnitude lower than 0.5-1.4%. After a lot of staring and thinking, I came to the conclusion that it means "per 100,000 living individuals in the world, roughly 12 commit suicide each year". If this is the case, is there any way to reword this to make it a bit clearer that the two stats in each clause are referring to different things? — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 00:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the source it's clear that one is a total mortality rate while the other is annual incidence. I've edited that line to read, "Approximately 0.5-1.4% of people die by suicide. The annual rate is roughly 12 individuals per 100,000." Hopefully that's more clear. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is more clear; thank you. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 01:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: why the revert? "which is roughly 12 people per 100,000 a year" sounds even more like it's referring to the previous clause, but 12/100,000 is of course not 0.5-1.4%. By saying "per 100,000" it's not clear that the meaning is "per 100,000 living people", rather than "per 100,000 deaths". — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 23:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bilorv Apologies I missed this. Both sentence refer to deaths so makes sense to deal with them together.

How about "Approximately 0.5-1.4% of all deaths are by suicide, which is roughly 12 per 100,000 people a year."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay split into two sentences. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 22:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote on mental health resources

Consistent with this discussion, I am in favor of adding a hatnote to this page with a link to the WMF-maintaned meta:Mental health resources, which highlights information "Based on the location of your browser as detected by the Wikimedia Foundation's GeoLookup". The hatnote would say something like, "If you, or someone that you know, is suicidal, please contact your local emergency services. The Wikimedia Foundation maintains a list of resources in many countries throughout the world". --Pine^✉ 06:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging JSutherland (WMF) to request WMF input. --Pine^✉ 06:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This does address the issue of localization. Evidence for these hotlines however is poor. As we have had previous RfC about this, would need another before adopting it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would personally agree that an RfC seems a good idea. Of course, we're unlikely to stand in the way if the community wishes to make the Meta-Wiki page more visible. :) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also am in favour per Pine. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link to subpage that contains links to previous discussions on the topic. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No offence, but I would not suggest anybody else even look at all those previous discussions. I just wasted time doing that and they are much too adversarial, outdated and wearisome. This should fall under our just do it, now policy. Full speed ahead with the Hatnote on mental health resources, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there was evidence of benefit I would be more inclined to support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: can you provide refs to relevant studies? Thanks, --Pine^✉ 04:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There not many reviews on the topic at this point... Will do some searching to see if anything has changed since last I looked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the linked-to discussion is now at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_231#Suicide. Apokrif (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: @Pine: You might note I'm about to show an oddly contrasting view on this.

I believe a hatnote linking a maintained list of suicide hotlines does belong on wikipedia, as merely indicating the resource shouldn't imply any morals about whether or how to use that resource. So I agree, but..

Wikipedia should not support any closed communication system with a closed protocol by using addresses issued in accordance with that protocol encouraging their usage in a way making that resource appear as an extension to wikipedia.

Wikipedia's negligence here could contribute to grave harm to a select minority, so please exert caution. Because the telephone system has been very well-demonstrated to grant almost no practical anonymity from cyber-equipped institutions, monitoring governments, or cyber-activist vigilantes, suicidal individuals, who have considerable vulnerability to face abuse from so-called "prevention efforts" in political climates currently storming in many different countries, might face abuse by a government, institution, or malicious individual exploiting the telephone system (and suicide hotlines' reliance on that system) as a honeypot to catch vulnerable individuals.

Yet, I don't know any suicide hotlines which rely only on openly audit-able information security systems. (i.e. open source systems)

That said, I would

veto, mentioning "prevention" or other moralizing terms like "help", "medical", or "health" in the hatnote OR metadata, as well as;
veto, any self-referencing language in the article indicating the hatnote, especially any advising to follow the link in the hatnote.
veto, (obviously) any action requests.

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:6472:2168:F2D4:EBD5 (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about maintaining the privacy of sensitive health information, but I think that the resources that WMF mentions are offered for the purpose of offering assistance of people who voluntarily seek it. There may be more private options available, but I don't think that it should be WMF's job to audit the privacy practices of every resource which they reference. In the absence of better options (my guess is that WMF would be eager to hear of better options if you know of any) I think that offering the options which WMF considers to be reasonable is better than offering nothing. I agree that WMF wouldn't want to promote an option as being secure or reliable if WMF has not reviewed it carefully, but that's different from listing available resources that WMF knows and thinks are worth mentioning as possible choices for people who may want to ask for help. I imagine that WMF Legal assessed the risks carefully before making that list public. --Pine^✉ 04:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, we'll probably fundamentally disagree on whether calling a suicide hotline necessitates a health issue, because we'll disagree on whether we'll believe suicide a health issue inherently. I don't believe we need to agree on that. I'll also posit that while you'll talk about mental health, I will talk about existential health. That's an unimportant neologism, for this discussion. I don't believe we'll need to agree on the terms we personally chose either.

Sensitive information won't make someone vulnerable, rather the metadata about where that person calls from and who they call will make them vulnerable. That's not a security concern enforced by any law any where, as far as I know. A clever attacker doesn't need to know the details about why someone feels suicidal so much as the simple indication that target does feel suicidal or vulnerable. Collecting metadata like that does not require any very prohibitively costly equipment, only a skill set and common equipment[4][5].

So the WMF, doesn't do much except organize volunteers and hire staff for tasks no immediate volunteers can accomplish or learn to accomplish, not unlike the Linux foundation. Mediawiki and by extension every WMF supported wiki, forms an open source project[6] which relies on volunteers with many diverse specialties and experience levels to contribute in different ways, not unlike Linux.

The point to an open source project, often means radical transparency from which novices can learn new skills by study logs as well as asking questions. Generally, anyone with interest can do a security audit on mediawiki and fix exploits, because mediawiki has free as in freedom source code with an open source developer community to accept patches.

Most suicide hotlines don't have that, so, if wikipedia lists in suicide hotlines not as a typical almanac article but instead as a supplementary resource extending from wikipedia and someone gets hurt due to poor not-openly-auditable infosec, I would call that negligence on the part of wikipedia. Wikipedia shouldn't audit the security practices, however should only "officially" endorse organizations with at least equally open-and-auditable infosec as wikipedia (i.e. the https implementation).

same IP person 75.39.102.200 (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the ideal of protecting someone's privacy if that person is in need of medical services and wants to contact medical professionals to request those services. I also agree that it would be good to be careful about which services someone endorses. I'm not understanding what your objection is to listing available services in a way that doesn't make promises about privacy protection, so perhaps you could clarify that point. --Pine^✉ 19:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I certainly don't consider a suicide hotline a medical service. I don't believe medical services should take as strong a role in responding to abuse, dysphoria, or potential suicide. I think investigative teams should take the most initiative.

Listing that as an almanac, perhaps as "List of suicide-specific information hotlines".

The text could read:

For immediate information from external sources, see: List of suicide-specific information hotlines.

The same hatnote could appear on other articles, too.

Besides WP:NPOV, my main issue with moralizing language goes as follows: by preventing suicide as a first priority then investigating, we create a situation where in game theory an abusers must only avoid judication to gain a satisfying life causing abuse ;; with society permitting suicide, an abuser must also find ways to restrain their victims or find new victims, thusly making their activities more obvious to an investigating or conscientious society.

That way we discover the unknown or unwitting abusers among us, so we can respond in a deeply ethical hopefully non-criminalizing way.

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:E999:AB0B:FB6E:FCC2 (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Here we have a 2016 review article in Lancet Psychiatry that says hotlines are of unclear benefit.[7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: Unfortunately, I concur with your reading of that review. What do you think about, instead of the earlier proposal, adding a hatnote to the article that says, "If you or someone you know is suicidal, please contact your local emergency services. If you or someone that you know is experiencing depression but is not actively suicidal, please contact a mental health professional or ask for a referral from your primary healthcare provider."? --Pine^✉ 05:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calling 911 is what would bring police and EMS in North America. Best evidence is removing guns and potential toxins like opioids. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are public health measures that evidence supports as described in the article that you liked from Pubmed. I was thinking more about someone who is in crisis or would benefit from non-emergency assistance and might be viewing the Wikipedia article, in which case encouraging that person to call emergency services or ask for a non-emergency referral to a professional would be (I think) the best options. Admittedly, both emergency an non-emergency mental health resources are difficult to obtain for many people around the world including many people in North America, but I think that we should do what we can to encourage people who need help to reach out to professional resources that may be available. --Pine^✉ 19:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pine: you do realize you're POV pushing, correct?

If you want to WP:IAR, then at least respond to my moral concerns first before you continue suggesting what kind of text to put in the mainspace WP:SOAPBOX which you're proposing.

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:D019:9F33:3E90:585A (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you have concerns about the proposal, but please assume good faith even if we disagree. The assumption of good faith is not absolute, but I think that there's plenty of evidence that other people who are currently active on this talk page, including me, have good intentions here and are trying to benefit the readers of this article. --Pine^✉ 19:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I didn't mean to speak so rudely, the issue affects me considerably. I happen to have been in positions in life to know about too much abuse by proxy and abuse by authorities* from the "mental health" establishment, which I believe needs renaming "existential health" (since we should chase after healthy existences, not mythical healthy minds}.

either unwitting, incognizant, or rarely wilfull.

(unhealthy desires, thoughts, etc don't exist given a healthy context.

No one deserves the expectation to conform to their life's context.

They may do so if they choose to do so without duress.}

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:E999:AB0B:FB6E:FCC2 (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's a good point that bad interventions can be a problem. I read secondhand of one that sounded like medical malpractice. Also, Doc James made a point that calling for emergency services might result in a response from police that does more harm than good. However, my guess is that on average, adding information about emergency services would do more good than harm. We can't control the actions of others including emergency services workers who make bad decisions, but I'm hoping that we can be a net positive influence by providing information that would, on average, be beneficial to our readers. --Pine^✉ 06:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pine: I agree, though I believe one can make contributions even exclusively from an information science perspective elsewhere before wikipedia to help. For example, a programmer adapting full-stack VOIP "libre" software like tox [8] or matrix // riot [9] [10] for a suicide hotline context.

Also, someone organizing a directory hotline that employs investigative rigor both in completionism of the directory list and in testimony of each hotline's processes. Though, that might require linguistic developments to proceed first, since little grammar exists to effectively describe the ways separate thinking beings shape each other.

same IP person 2600:1700:8680:E900:F408:6B7B:5A66:7A4E (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pine: @Doc James: I'd be in favor of adding a hat note, similar to what Google does. This seems to me to be a WP:Ignore All Rules sort of situation — I don't invoke that policy lightly or often, but in this (presumably rather unique) case, the importance of harm reduction outweighs the importance of policies like WP:NPOV that might guide us under normal circumstances to leave out such a hat note. This has been brought up a few times now and there seems to be a fairly significant level of support for it, but I'd like to see an RfC or something to establish a clear consensus for or against so that the change can be implemented or the proposal put to rest. Regarding specific wording, I'm not an expert and I haven't looked through all the discussion about that, but I'd say the precise wording is a secondary concern to the question of adding a hat note or not, so let's resolve the latter first. - Sdkb (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sdkb if we are actually serious about decreasing the rate of suicide in the United States through Ignore All Rules, we would put in place a hat note regarding the importance of gun control / gun safety. The evidence that this prevents suicide is much much better than a "suicide hotline".

In my opinion what Google is doing is a PR stunt. It is simple a feel good effort, does not upset the NRA, and accomplishes nothing, but Google can claim they are doing something. This means that they do not really need to actually do anything. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many people have been doing alot of stuff and they should really have some life in them and what i want to say is that probably they have choices but when it comes o things that have no other things you might not want it can have a change of heart and make you live. Not many people know but i know that many of us think that life is like hell but when you commit suicide you dont know if you really enter hell. Many people think that religouse things are a make up and i belive that too. Many of us dont even know if god and jesus christ is real. Many of us should think that when commiting sucide will have some things that might not have some related things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoneandon1y (talk • contribs) 00:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2019

This edit request to Suicide has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"add the affects of suicide on families and friends" Kikiw171 (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Þjarkur (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suicidal listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Suicidal. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Interstellarity (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suicide rates in Muslims

The section simultaneously says that Muslims "appear to have a lower rate of suicide", but also that "there does not appear to be a difference in rates of attempted suicide rates." If the evidence is weak, why bother mentioning it at all?--Megaman en m (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of that line is that evidence suggests that though the rate of attempted suicides is the same, the rate of completed suicides is lower. From the abstract of the cited source: Despite this, and despite the possible under-reporting of suicidal behavior in countries where such behavior is illegal, suicide rates do appear to be lower in Muslims than in those of other religions, even in countries which have populations belonging to several religious groups. Rates of attempted suicide, on the other hand, do not appear to be lower in Muslims as compared to non-Muslims. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the WHO specifically says relationship break-up not relationship problems

The world health organization fact sheet states "relationship break-up" - Why then does the article in the opening paragraph not state what the reliable source states? Patriciamoorehead (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "troubles with relationships" implying a single argument or such like. The WHO fact sheet https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/suicide which is the source cited specifies "relationship break-up" Don't we need to include what the reliable source says? Really interested why my change was overturned? Thank you. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This editor gave this point of view which might act as a response to your question here. I have not yet read those sources so I am not in a position to comment.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You only need to read the World Health Organization source which is used as evidence in the article Literaturegeek. If you didn't read it why even comment. The person did not answer why there is something totally different in the article saying "troubles with relationships" rather than relationship break-up. Totally different. Why? Really interested why? My readings of the rules on Wikipedia show that editors only say what the sources say? Am I wrong? Patriciamoorehead (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. The original version was citing the second source where it said that victims of cyberbullying have poorer relationships with peers. This does not mean that people who attempted suicide have poorer relationships of course. I undid my revert to correctly reflect this.--Megaman en m (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 10:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This source[11] says "Relationship problems or loss, substance misuse; physical health problems; and job, money, legal or housing stress often contributed to risk for suicide. " Have added as a ref as not just breakups Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WHO reference is globaland and says relationship break-up. The CDC reference here seems to be USA specific. Have you got any gloval sources which state that suicide is caused by "relationship problems" are causes of suicide? I cannot find any global references saying "relationship problems" cause suicide DocJames Patriciamoorehead (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WHO reference says "relationship break-up" is a single cause of suicide and is global. My reading of Wikipedia is aiming to use global references? So have you got any global references that say "relationship problems" cause suicide. A relationship problem refers to the relationship prior to break-up. Once the relkationship is broken up it is no longer a relationship. Really interested to hear your perspective and why you overturned this World Health Organization Fact Sheet with a USA specific reference? Patriciamoorehead (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does the WHO reference say that relationship problems do not cause suicidality? It would need to to discredit the source you want to discredit. I know of someone who developed severe depression requiring hospitalisation because of an abusive relationship with a mentally unstable man. Perhaps the best way is to say significant relationship problems and relationship breakups are associated with an increased risk of suicide.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that there are other risks too. The WHO reference specifies break-up. Depression isn't suicide either. Just as relationship break-up is not the same as problems within relationships. I would be fine with including both. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes

The hatnote discussion was resolved via an RfC: Special:PermaLink/917380648#Proposal_to_add_suicidal_disclaimer_at_Suicide. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

These two were just added. We have discussed these a fair bit in the past. As the article states fairly clearly the best immediate action is to limit access to methods of suicide.

Not sure it is needed to add this as a hatnote though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, jumping in a little late here but I would be in favor of restoring the hat note. I see in the discussion from Sept 2018 that you note the Lancet meta study. I am not a doctor so I would definitely defer to your understanding of the study but am confused, in reading the abstract's findings by Other approaches that need further investigation include gatekeeper training, education of physicians, and internet and helpline support. This seems to suggest to that we don't know whether helpline support reduces suicides but we also don't know that it doesn't. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are things we know that work. Why would we put up a hatnote for something without evidence to support it? Things we know that work on an individual basis include removing guns and toxins from the home. Things that work on a population scale include strong gun laws and improved treatment of mental illness. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is in no position to address suicide in those ways. We do know, however, that people who are at near-term risk of attempting suicide read our encyclopedia. On this particular page, given the topic, offering a resource to our readers which may prove helpful and doesn't, and again correct me if I'm wrong, cause harm seems like something we can do in a way that doesn't impact the overall content of our encyclopedic article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was the original person who had put up those hatnotes. I’ve just added that hatnotes because it is self-evident that people who are at the verge of suicide may read this exlopypedia, especially this page. By at least adding a simple hatnote, we can attempt to redirect that suicidal person to another page where they can get help, while not damaging the neutrality of Wikipedia and the page itself. I would respectfully want those hatnotes or a similar hatnote to be restored. Neon 01:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

This is now being discussed at Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_add_suicidal_disclaimer_at_Suicide. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link is here [12] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence on contacting people

Here is a decent review from 2016 in the BMJ which comments on giving people crises numbers "Emergency card compared with usual care We don't know whether emergency-card intervention is more effective at 12 months at reducing the proportion of people who repeat deliberate self-harm... However, it is good practice to give patients emergency contact numbers in case they need to seek advice and help in the event of a crisis."

Here is a review from 2015 on contacted people after an attempt "A non-significant positive effect on repeated self-harm, suicide attempt and suicide and a significant effect on the number of episodes of repeated self-harm or suicide attempts per person (based on only three studies) means that brief contact interventions cannot yet be recommended for widespread clinical implementation."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well not a review, this paper is disturbing from 2007 "There were six calls where an ambulance was sent to a caller during a suicide attempt and it may very well be that the callers lives were saved. However, there were ten instances when a caller appeared to be in the process of a suicide attempt and the helper did nothing, and in at least one case the helper encouraged the caller to complete the attempt." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What has better evidence

"In this latter study, the strongest impact on the suicide rate was related to implementation of the following practices: adherence to depression treatment guidelines, having a clear policy on transfer from adolescent to adult mental health services, availability of dual diagnosis services, availability of home health/crisis response teams, and conducting a multidisciplinary review of patient suicides and going over the findings with surviving family members (Figure 3)"

In Korea "Of the five suicide-prevention strategies outlined in our study, prohibition of the herbicide paraquat and installation of screen doors were proven to be effective, while others need further assessments."

In the USA "Means safety strategies, which emphasize the reduction of practical capability for suicide through the limitation of access to and safe storage of firearms, are effective in preventing suicide and include interventions such as lethal means counseling, firearm legislation, and promoting safe storage practices."

Lancet 2016 "Evidence for restricting access to lethal means in prevention of suicide has strengthened since 2005, especially with regard to control of analgesics (overall decrease of 43% since 2005) and hot-spots for suicide by jumping (reduction of 86% since 2005, 79% to 91%). School-based awareness programmes have been shown to reduce suicide attempts (odds ratio [OR 0·45, 95% CI 0·24-0·85; p=0·014) and suicidal ideation (0·5, 0·27-0·92; p=0·025). The anti-suicidal effects of clozapine and lithium have been substantiated, but might be less specific than previously thought. Effective pharmacological and psychological treatments of depression are important in prevention. Insufficient evidence exists to assess the possible benefits for suicide prevention of screening in primary care, in general public education and media guidelines. Other approaches that need further investigation include gatekeeper training, education of physicians, and internet and helpline support.]"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Самоубийство" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Самоубийство. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word "committed"

The article mentions that modern guidelines suggest the word "committed" should not be used. The article itself uses the word "committed" when describing suicide twice later on (under History and Religious Views). It would be better if the language in these 2 instances was updated to reflect modern guidelines. This article is a semi-protected page, so a registered user would have to make the change. 65.95.160.200 (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed on multiple occasions (Talk:Suicide/Archive_6#Committed_Suicide_vs_Died_by_Suicide, Talk:Suicide/Archive_2#NPOV_effect_of_the_term_.22commit.22_suicide) and I do believe the overall consensus is against a blanket removal of the word. El_C 19:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - this was just discussed (again) at WT:MOS... the result was (again) that “committed suicide” is allowed. Blueboar (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These statistics cannot be correct

No matter how they're added up, that's way way way more than 100%, obviously, but the one I am least convinced of is charcoal burning (40-50%). Is it possible this should be .4-.5 or even 4-5% and someone added a 0 by accident or snuck it in on purpose for some reason? 'The death rate varies by method: firearms 80–90%, drowning 65–80%, hanging 60–85%, car exhaust 40–60%, jumping 35–60%, charcoal burning 40–50%, pesticides 60–75%, and medication overdose 1.5–4.0%.[16]' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.254.152.32 (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think that these are referring to mortality rate on a per method basis. In other words, the mortality rate of people who used method X was Y%. To get the overall mortality rate, instead of adding the death rate percentages, the death rates would need to be averaged. As an illustration, if someone has 2 apples and 2 oranges, and 1 apple and 2 oranges are sliced, then the percentage of all fruits that are sliced is 75% (3 out of 4 fruits) and not 150% (50% of apples plus 100% of oranges). ↠Pine (✉) 07:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2019

This edit request to Suicide has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I added information to the gender section, mental illness section, and the age section. Gabriela Cantu (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you copypaste exactly what you want to add?--Megaman en m (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DBig Xrayᗙ 18:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NEJM review

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1902944?query=pfwNGTo&jwd=000012129905&jspc=EM

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of "1.5%" statistic

The following sentence should probably be revised: "Approximately 1.5% of people die by suicide."

More accurately, it should say that 1.5% of annual deaths are caused by suicide. The referenced source for this sentence clearly states this. I was confused when first reading this thinking "1.5% of people" was referring to percentages of population, which it certainly is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsmith292 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps put some helplines in a banner?

Just in case, ya know, a mentally disturbed teen researching suicide stumbles upon the page, there should be a clear message of hope for all troubled souls :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.127.46.222 (talk • contribs)

Please read the notes at the top of the Talk page (or the thread immediately above this one); this has been discussed before. DonIago (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm contributing to the wrong section with this but literally what use is there in having hotlines listed anyway? They feel patronizing more than anything else, and in the process of finding this article there will have been plenty of numbers listed on Google or Bing or whatever you're using. puggo (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Types

I removed the list of methods Poorya0014 added in this edit [13] for a couple reasons, the main one being that I don't think suicides are generally categorized into "types" based on method. This article doesn't address the subject, and the only source used was a link to the article Suicide methods. My understanding is that there are many different systems of suicide typologies; method is not the only one. Here's a paper that may address the subject, I don't have access to it so I'm not entirely sure that they're reliable or relevant [14], but anyways it would probably be a better source than a Wikipedia article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found that edit a bit dubious myself, though at the time I saw it I couldn't verbalize a reason for opposing it. I agree that it merits discussion though, so thank you for starting this thread. DonIago (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical psychology only in the infobox

I think we should have "psychology" not just clinical psych in the infobox. It makes it seem like suicide and prevention is only the domain of clinical psychology and no other area. It can be solved by just including "psychology". Why the bias Sundayclose in your need to only include one area of psychology? Really interested in your justification to revert me and them aggressively slam me as edit warring on my talk page. Be nice please. So your justification for the revert because I strongly disagree with your need to only include clinical psychology? Patriciamoorehead (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because the vast majority of psychologists have nothing to do with suicide. Infoboxes are supposed to be succinct. Clinical psychology is more relevant than any other area and a more precise subfield. You'll notice that the infobox has "psychiatry" instead of physician and "clinical social worker" instead of social worker, for the same reason. By the way, you got the warning because you restored it without first discussing here per WP:BRD. Sundayclose (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Because the vast majority of psychologists have nothing to do with suicide". That statement is false. What do you base that on. The vast majority of psychologists are clinical, counseling or health. Your argument based on psychiatry is also baseless. Psychiatry, social work and psychology are completely different professions. The vast majority of psychologists do have a lot to do with suicide and suicide prevention. Can you provide some basis and any reliable sources you may have please for your need to be biased and only include clinical psychology and support your false statement that "the vast majority of psychologists have nothing to do with suicide?". Patriciamoorehead (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that physicians and clinical social workers are the same as clinical psychologists; if you think I did quote me saying so. I didn't say that other subfields of psychology have nothing to do with suicide; if you think I did quote me saying so. I said that clinical psychologists are the most involved with this issue, just as clinical social workers are more involved than social workers in general and psychiatrists are more involved than physicians in general. Social, I-O, experimental, quantitative, and many other psychologists rarely are involved in the issue of suicide. I'll ask you the same question: what do you base your statement that other subfields are as involved as clinical? Can you provide some basis and reliable sources that other subfields are as relevant as clinical psychology (and remember, I didn't say not involved, I said not as involved)? "Clinical psychologist" has been in the infobox a very long time, making it the implicit consensus. The burden is on anyone who challenges it to provide the evidence to support a new consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Clinical psychology" includes psychologists who are involved with the treatment of suicidal patients, and those excluded (psychologists in research, teaching, or industry) generally have nothing to do with treating suicide. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is in most countries this is called clinical psychology, of note in the United States, there are separate professions of "Counseling Psychology", "School Psychology" etc. all of whom would likely be involved but don't come under clinical psychology for reasons I don't understand. I think globally clinical psychology makes more sense. Overall its basically minutiae and I don't have a strong position both are p. valid. PainProf (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that research psychologists, psychologists in industry, sport and other areas only make up a small percentage of the psychology profession as statistics show. Clinical and counseling and health psychologists each of which are separate fields within psychology deal with suicide and suicide prevention. And these three groups make up the vast majority of psychologists, well over 80% at least combined. This is bias only including one speciality over another when all three deal with suicide and suicide prevention to a significant degree at least regardless of how long it has been in the infobox. Reliable sources all say that counseling and health psychologists also have a lot to do with suicide and suicide prevention, just as clinical social work is a separate field within social work. Can we include these other two specialities as well as clinical psychology then? Patriciamoorehead (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is supposed to be brief. What's in it is sufficient. Sundayclose (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Patriciamoorehead: You are correct that counseling psychologists, school psychologists, and some health psychologists work with patients, clients, or students to prevent suicide and treat underlying conditions. In addition, primary care physicians, such as family medicine, internal medicine, and OB/GYN doctors often screen for and provide initial intervention to help patients experiencing suicidal thoughts. Medical social workers and family service agency social workers work with suicidal youth. Licensed professional counselors and certified addiction counselors also help patients at risk for suicide. // This discussion raises issues germane to all mental disorder articles that use Template:Infobox medical condition (which should be all such articles). Here is some relevant information from appropriate guidelines:

Help:Infobox#What should an infobox contain? - "Concise. Infobox templates are 'at-a-glance', and used for quickly checking facts."

Help:Infobox#What should an infobox not contain? - "Excessive length. Long bodies of text, or very detailed statistics, belong in the article body."

Template:Infobox medical condition - "Specialty - Main health specialties involved with diagnosis and treatment of the disorder. Example: Psychiatry, clinical psychology."

As an aside, I am heartened that this discussion has arisen because most mental disorder articles contain only one specialty: Psychiatry. I add "clinical psychology" when I come across them. Since specialties are initially pulled from the Wikidata for a disorder, I used to add clinical psychology to the Wikidata for the condition, but it seems I must relearn wikidata syntax everytime I try that method! (My inadequacy, not Wikidata's). Now I just type "clinical psychology" directly into the Infobox, which is really an inferior solution if I understand Wikidata correctly, so this discussion is prompting me to stop being lazy in this regard.

On balance I agree with Sundayclose that for most mental disorders we should list only psychiatry and clinical psychology because they are the main specialties involved, and listing two specialties is concise. At the same time, I am a clinical psychologist, so I'm biased in this regard. I'm open to considering other specialties as long as they are "main health specialities" and we keep the list concise. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical psychology#Comparison with other mental health professions (mostly written in 2007) explains the differences, which appear to be mostly historical (i.e., irrelevant) or about who employs you. They all seem to do approximately the same things in practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Causes

I recently edited the infobox to state the cause as suicide ideation, but it got reverted stating consensus must be formed and some may consider it vandalism. The infobox lists a few methods of suicide; I don't believe these should be listed as direct causes as they're the suicide itself. It's having a death wish in the first place that leads to it. GOLDIEM J (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor reverting this edit I have no comment to make here save that I believe consensus must be formed for such edits. I commend GOLDIEM J for starting this thread. I suspect it may have been discussed before, but I'll leave that to interested editors. Fiddle Faddle 16:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the edit, this seems to be the only thing that actually leads to suicide directly. What's listed now are just the methods used to complete suicide rather than the underlying cause. This list could also never be complete, as there are way too many methods to list.--Megaman en m (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should consider that many infobox fields (maybe most infobox fields) won't be particularly helpful in any given article. We should think about what falls under the realm of common sense and leave those things out to avoid infobox clutter. There is some good data in that infobox - many people don't know about the increased risk among the elderly - but we don't have to tell the average reader that you think about suicide before completing it, or that hanging, jumping, and shooting are potential methods. Larry Hockett (Talk) 17:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suicidal ideation is a symptom of possible suicide, not a cause. It's like fever is to an infection; fever is a symptom, not a cause. Suicidal ideation does not always lead to suicide, and suicide can be attempted with almost no prior suicidal ideation. That's a no-brainer for those of us who have talked to hundreds of people who either suicided or attempted it. Folks, stick with the sources, not your speculations. I am not opposed to leaving the Cause parameter blank because there can be many causes, and often the causes are unknown. Sundayclose (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, this, this and this, I noted that I might bring WP:Med into the matter. This is because what is in the infobox now for "causes" are methods. They aren't what leads one to commit suicide. They facilitate suicide. I'll contact WP:Med for input now. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Larry Hockett and Sundayclose. One could legitimately (with lots of citations to WP:MEDRS sources) argue that the following conditions and situations are causes of suicide: major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, several substance use disorders, several personality disorders, access to firearms (especially for men), little social support, ... and the list goes on. And one could legitimately argue that those are risk factors, not proximal causes. Thus, for an infobox, I agree wholeheartedly that leaving it blank is best. Leave discussion of causes to an article on psychological autopsies or the like where "causes" are relevant to adjudicators' decisions. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 02:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the things currently listed don't make sense. They are methods of suicide rather than causes. I think it is best to leave the box blank because the causes are numerous and ill-defined. Natureium (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the note at WT:MED. I agree with Sundayclose and others that this field is best left blank. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, I removed the material that there was there and left a hidden note; that is seen here. I also agree with leaving the field blank. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Thank you Flyer22 Frozen. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

harsh mean hateful things can hurt as someone who has thought about suicided and a down look on them self like i hated my body i hated myself i had anxeity pleas you are c00l and dont think other wise °–° or else — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.16.255 (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide prevention hatnote

Please, Review "Risk factors" according to CDC the main risk factor is Personal relationship problems(more than 42%) Mental illness is overvalued - no more than 50% persant Source: https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/pdf/vs-0618-suicide-H.pdf ____ Suicide is a big issue in todays world, and I noticed that at the top of this article there doesn't seem to be some sort of message sayings something along the lines of "If you are thinking of committing suicide..." If you look at pretty much any other website or google search you will see a similar message, maybe a link to the Suicide prevention hotline would be a good option. I know that this is an encyclopedia and may not be something that is traditionally placed in an article, but I feel this should be an exception to the rule. This probably falls under the "special cases" in WP:ELHAT Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you reviewed previous discussions, as noted at the top of this page? DonIago (talk) 09:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now, and I see for some reason people are very against it. However, I think a good compromise would be an addition to the current hatnote of List of suicide crisis lines. It could look like: Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The hatnote contains suicide prevention which lists all efforts. In my opinion it is undue weight to just mention crisis lines in the lead as they are less supported by evidence than some other methods. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree because some obvious reasons. First, wiki is an encyclopedia, but not a tribune to teach people what is right and what is wrong. It should contain pure neutral information. This is the basic rule. So it actually violates neutrality of wiki and any encyclopedia, not just Wikipedia. Second, if you accept it as an exception in this article, then there are tens of hundreds of articles with touchy and sensitive subjects that you need to put such preventative template on top of them. But we don't see such a thing. For example, on top of the article Addiction, you should put: For information on getting sober, see Addiction Intervention. Other subjects as an example include: Masturbation, Robbery, rape, etc. And third, it's been proven that this method of prevention is counter defeating for the fact that there is an assumption that whoever reads this article, is thinking about taking their lives and this way, if a suicidal person reads the hatnote, he/she will be bothered by this sort of judgmentality. Dr. Philip Nitscheck correctly argues here that when the person knows they have the power to kill themselves with the easiest way, they tend to carry on more than thinking about death. So this is actually helpful, because death is minimized and the person feels in total control and thus, it could be a way of preventing suicide. There is a discussion going on in suicide method's talk page about it.

Because of these 3 reasons and more reasons, I believe these sorts of preventative hatnotes should be removed from all articles about suicide. Tnx.Poorya0014 (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add one on the talk page. It's out of the way of the main article, and I think that it should at least be put there, as it is where people discuss. Félix An (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Almost"?

End of lede: "[Suicide] is viewed negatively almost everywhere around the world." Where is it not viewed negatively that warrants the use of the word "almost"? Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are many contexts (modern and historical) in which suicide has not been viewed negatively. Some of these are mentioned in the sections titled "History", "Legislation", "Philosophy", and especially "Advocacy". --JBL (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide in Japan? DonIago (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The 7th-, 6th-, 5th-, and 4th-last words on this policy have been cited countless times on articles of political figures in response to talk page comments about Wikipedia's so-called "left-wing bias." Well, guess what? It's WP:NPOV, not WP Politics: NPOV. This policy applies to all of Wikipedia, not just political articles. Last I checked, reliable sources strongly discouraged suicide. I'm not sure if things have changed since then; if they have, please let me know. Wikipedia is not supposed to have a neutral point of view. It is supposed to have the same point of view as reliable sources. If reliable sources suddenly all became pro-capitalism, guess what? Wikipedia would, too. If reliable sources suddenly all became pro-fascism, guess what? Wikipedia would cease to exist because reliable sources would cease to exist. That's how Wikipedia works. For this reason, I support having a link to List of suicide crisis lines at the top of the page. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mrytzkalmyr, I don't see any links between WP:NPOV and having list of suicide crisis hotlines on a hatnote or bar (I prefer bars, we've done that for current events and shit), and I don't see how this article somehow encourages suicide. I support having that article linked at the top or bottom of article, in general. It will help dozens of lives. Gerald WL 11:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen other users cite WP:NPOV as a reason why Wikipedia shouldn't include the link. I wanted to use the same policy to show why it should be included. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue for promotion, medical advice, etc. --Hipal (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)--Hipal (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ctrl+f "medical" one result. And that's in WP:NOTMANUAL. Adding a link to an article does not read like a manual. How does the policy apply? Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about adding the link, it's about where in the article and for what purpose. I expect it should be fine in See Also. --Hipal (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it seems I worded my comment incorrectly. We are agreeing with each other. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By this argument then given the overwhelming number of sources are written by wealthy, white, heteronormative, able men then there can never be bias against minority groups because they don't have the power to control reliable sources? I think that interpretation is wrong. Imagine if Wikipedia was around in Galileo's time it would claim Terra centric view of the universe, yet it would still move. Wikipedia shouldn't have a position on suicide being right or wrong just factually state what it is, why it happens. Stick to the facts and leave the philosophy to others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.63.199 (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on "committed suicide"

There is a RFC on the use of "Committed suicide" language open at VPP, with the intention to add language to MOS:BIO on a consensus-based conclusion. The RFC is here: WP:VPP#RFC: "Committed suicide" language. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy about rates

Something is wrong with these rates:

          "Approximately 1.5% of people die by suicide.[8] In a given year this is roughly 12 per 100,000 people.[6]"

Because if it is 1.5% and there are 100,000 people, than roughly 1,500 people will die by suicide. It is clear that 1.5% of 100,000 is 1,500. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.229.199.232 (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 1.5% refers to the percentage of all deaths that are suicide deaths. While the 12 per 100,000 refers to the annual death rate. These are not measuring the same thing, so they are different. And both these numbers are a little out of date. About 1.6% of all deaths in the USA are suicide deaths. And the current annual death rate by suicide in the USA is about 13.4 per 100,000.Tail Hook TailHook (talk 05:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)TailHook[reply]

I want to kill myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.58.208 (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are suffering from depression, you could seek help from a psychiatrist. Wikipedia does not provide help in suicide attempts. Dimadick (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion at Suicidal ideation

It has been proposed that Suicidal ideation be renamed and moved to Suicidal thoughts. There is a move discussion in progress at Talk:Suicidal ideation. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of Death: under investigation

This edit request to Suicide has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

42.106.193.170 (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a warning for potential harm/injury caused by article content

Resolved

– Per clear consensus (Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Content warnings, Wikipedia:Content labeling proposal) such a warning does not comply with WP policy. —FORMALDUDE^(talk) 05:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Some1: I think further community discussion would find that WP:NODISCLAIMERS aims to prevent censorship and notices of spoilers, and does not apply to including a warning of potential harm or death that could be caused by viewing content on Wikipedia. Is there anything else you can support your revert with? —FORMALDUDE^(talk) 23:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing this article does not cause harm or death. Natureium (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Natureium: Any person feeling suicidal can experience a suicide crisis when viewing graphic and vivid content on the subject. The CDC estimates in America alone 4% of people are suicidal, that's approximately 13,128,000 people. These are facts. —FORMALDUDE^(talk) 23:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. An estimated 9.3 million adults (3.9% of the adult U.S. population) reported having suicidal thoughts in the past year. This means that at any point in the past year, a person had suicidal thoughts. They might not even have been actively suicidal at any point. And that's throughout the course of an entire year. On what are you basing the idea that a person having suicidal thoughts will kill themselves if they see a wikipedia article on suicide? Natureium (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In overly simplistic terms, suicidal thoughts and behaviors start when vulnerable individuals encounter stressful events, become overwhelmed, and conclude that suicide is the only reasonable way (given their very likely biased way of thinking) to stop the pain they are experiencing. Determining what makes events stressful is difficult because of the highly individual nature of human coping abilities and perspectives. What may seem relatively trivial to one person may seem devastating or insurmountable to another. This is to say there are numerous ways viewing this article could cause potential harm to at least 9.3 million adults, not to mention those with undiagnosed symptoms as well as adolescents, who are particularly vulnerable to online content as has been shown by several studies. Additionally, pages about suicide are essentially a how-to guide for those contemplating their options. —FORMALDUDE^(talk) 00:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:No disclaimers makes it pretty clear that articles should not contain disclaimers, including WP:Content disclaimers (content that may contain triggers). Also see: Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Content warnings. Some1 (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The template is being listed for discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 17#Template:Suicidal content. Some1 (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a link to the article about crisis hotlines should be fine

This article is about the cause of death. For information on prevention, see Suicide prevention. For a list of suicide crisis lines, see List of suicide crisis lines. For other uses, see Suicide (disambiguation).

I think that there is nothing wrong or un-NPOV with this wording of the hatnote. Something like this would be a little unfitting:

This article is about the cause of death. For information on prevention, see Suicide prevention. For other uses, see Suicide (disambiguation). If you are thinking of suicide, please call x number...

This little change will go a long way for those thinking of suicide. Félix An (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Félix An: We already went over this, multiple times. I understand that you are approaching this in good faith, but the previous consensus was that we would not include it. See here and especially here. In the latter, we discussed including the suicide hotline and explicitly rejected it. Please do not re-add it in the absence of consensus. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 21:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we shouldn't even have the "for information on prevention" link. We don't have such a link on other pages about subjects that most people would consider worth preventing. --Khajidha (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I initially agreed with that, and you can see that here. Still, given that the proposal was leaning to add the hatnote with "here's a list of numbers if you're thinking about suicide", this was the only acceptable compromise. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 06:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even the current hatnote violates WP:RELATED. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Khajidha: -- same with you. Don't change the hatnote without new consensus, please! -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 02:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the previous consensus violates WP:RELATED (and probably several other things, such as WP:NOT), I don't see how it has been allowed to stay. --Khajidha (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Khajidha: -- well, you're going to have to bring that up somewhere; I'm not sure where. I agree with you, it shouldn't have been part of the hatnote (you can see my comments in discussion thread about this -- I reluctantly proposed this because it was better than the alternatives that seemed likely to pass otherwise, such as "if you're thinking about suicide, contact this number...."). I wasn't happy with the outcome either, but it was the only solution that didn't completely rub me the wrong way. This was a case of WP:IAR for sure. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 02:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the "for information on prevention"

Okay, formatting RfCs confuses me and seems overly bureaucratic, but we seriously need to remove the totally inappropriate hatnote. --Khajidha (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Khajidha: It really should be decided by RfC because it was added by one, so we need an equally strong consensus to remove it. But I agree, it's a thinly-disguised WP:DISCLAIMer implemented as a WP:RELATED hatnote via WP:LOCALCON, and we have project-wide consensus against all three. It's also, to my knowledge, the only one of our 5 million articles that does anything of the sort. If you need help drafting an RfC, help is available. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, if it is against MULTIPLE project-wide consenses, why do we care what the previous RfC decided? Seems like the implementation of that consensus would be more or less similar to vandalism. Which can be reverted by anyone at any time. --Khajidha (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is very important. No rule can be implemented without interpretation and there is a legitimate difference in opinion here. Rules are guidelines are always in tension and we must use consensus-building to determine which way it will be. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Khajidha: because we already had an RFC about it. Although it violates those rules, the decision was to WP:IAR. I'm all for making a new RFC if you guys want. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 23:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gabriela Cantu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When it's not a crime

By analogy with homicide, matricide, patricide, regicide and all the other -cides, one would conclude that suicide is a crime. In this country it hasn't been a crime for 20 years, so I find it problematic when killing yourself is referred to as "suicide". Before it was legalized, someone who killed themself "committed suicide". That is, they committed the crime of suicide. Someone who kills themself nowadays isn't committing anything; it isn't possible to "commit suicide" in this country.

I propose to alter the first sentence of the lede, as follows:

"Suicide is the act of intentionally causing one's own death."

becomes

"Suicide is the act of intentionally causing one's own death in violation of prevailing laws."

I'll leave it for a few days before I do this, because (a) I can't read the citation for that sentence, (b) I don't yet have an alternative citation to support my proposed wording, and (c) it's the first sentence of the lede in an article on a subject that arouses strong opinions.

[Edit] I just read archive 7. I see there's been extensive discussion of the word "commit"; I think I'm making a different point. I think the use of the word "commit" is incidental, and becomes moot if it's made clear at the top that the article is about a criminal act.

MrDemeanour (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article discusses suicide broadly; it isn't focused only on suicides that are crimes. An editor may want the term suicide to be used only when the act is a crime, but that wouldn't reflect the common usage of the term. One should not assume that all -cides are crimes. When a person kills another person in self-defense, this can be described as homicide, but it is unlikely to be considered a crime. Larry Hockett (Talk) 20:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't make edits based on our personal reasoning, especially when it's simply wrong. -cide is a suffix that is related to killing, it has nothing to do with crime. Whether it's legal or not in a given country has no bearing on whether the term suicide applies, plainly speaking.--Megaman en m (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Megaman en m - ~~I disagree with your proposed edit, and I do not understand what you are trying to argue~~. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 15:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make a proposal, I was opposing the proposal made by the original poster.--Megaman en m (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's embarassing! I apologize @Megaman en m for confusing you with the OP. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 04:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK.

I still think the use of the term "suicide" to refer to a non-criminal act stigmatises killing oneself. I particularly object to "commit suicide", a phrase that implies a crime, and is hard to avoid when using the noun "suicide", because there's no corresponding verb-form. And in general, I don't think arguments from etymology go down very well on WP. But I won't make the proposed change, because there doesn't seem to be any support.

Thanks for your comments.

MrDemeanour (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "commit suicide" is problematic. I just added a sentence on the topic with a reference (diff). In that reference, APA recommends "died by suicide" (or "suicided", which sounds awkward to me). Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 23:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2022

This edit request to Suicide has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the following statement in the third paragraph of section "Mental illness" where lithium effects on suicide are discussed: "A recent systematic review and meta-analysis has shown the beneficial effects of chronic lithium consumption through drinking water on reducing suicide risk in the general populations."

Source: Barjasteh-Askari, Fateme, Mojtaba Davoudi, Homayoun Amini, Mohammad Ghorbani, Mehdi Yaseri, Masoud Yunesian, Amir Hossein Mahvi, and David Lester. "Relationship between suicide mortality and lithium in drinking water: a systematic review and meta-analysis." Journal of affective disorders 264 (2020): 234-241. Davoudimj (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Judging from the editor's name, this is likely one of the authors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It appears there is opposition against this being added so I'd rather there be a discussion here and/or {{request edit}} could be used as there may be a conflict of interest. --Ferien (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Approximately 1.5% of all deaths worldwide are by suicide.

There is a mistake in this sentence. Although the sentence is a citation of a reference, it is evident that the context of the reference is missing. The word "human" should be added into the sentence. Approximately 1.5% of all human deaths worldwide are by suicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.229.19 (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding link to new wikipedia section

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the paragraph on prevention, I would like to add a single sentence with a link to a new section on another wikipedia page that I wrote. Specifically, I would like this to be added:

[Suicide prevention is a term used for the collective efforts to reduce the incidence of suicide through preventive measures.] In some countries, legislation has been introduced in order to improve suicide prevention efforts. :

I want to change this because I think it is important to focus on the work that governments have done in order to prevent suicide, and so getting more people to see that it is becoming more common to have this legislation in place is a positive thing. It might help politicians who are unsure about whether they should support a new Bill if they can read that many other countries have already done so before them.:
The page I am referring to is here: [[15]]:

Nikkivaneijk (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Done ––FormalDude talk 09:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Justification for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS)

I'm puzzled why CFS is prominently mentioned as a suicide risk factor when none of the sources cited afterwards support that? (i.e. sources 2,3,5 and 10) (I know CFS is a risk factor for suicide but should we not have a source to support that if it's the main example in the beginning of an article? Or perhaps the main example could be the most important risk factor?) Phytographer (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2022

This edit request to Suicide has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Suggestion to update the physical disorder 'chronic fatigue syndrome' with the patient preferred 'myalgic encephalomyelitis' or 'myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome'. 2405:6E00:268C:2E88:A01E:E485:3DBB:5539 (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. ––FormalDude talk 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2022 (2)

This edit request to Suicide has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under Risk Factors/Medical Conditions. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is missing a citation. This study would be an appropriate citation as it discusses the risks at length of Suicidal in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8227525/ Adsnbbi (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done ––FormalDude talk 12:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autism

I'm confused as to why autism is listed as a mental disorder/mental illness in beginning of the article. Autism is not a mental illness, it's a neurodevelopmental disability. While autistic adults do often suffer from mental illness and some also suffer from suicidal thoughts, it should not be categorised as it is currently. 109.147.107.148 (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autism [...] should not be categorised as it is currently. That would be a discussion to be held at Talk:Autism spectrum, here is not the right forum.

Per the recent merger, which has established that "autism" is an acceptable synonym for "autism spectrum disorder" for both sides of the pathology/neurodivergence conversation, and seeing as both redirect to autism spectrum, I have shortened "autism spectrum disorder" to "autism" in the article. Paradoctor (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2022

This edit request to Suicide has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under the topic methods. Every available poison has a medical treatment which is injection of activated charcoal.

Davidson's Principles and Practice of Medicine pg 131 https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Davidson_s_Principles_and_Practice_of_Me/v3VKDwAAQBAJ?hl=en 2401:4900:61B4:2EB5:0:0:E21:502F (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History

It's tighter and better written than History of suicide and Suicide in antiquity but if anything it's even more WP:BIASed. I get that USians kinda default to history being Greece>Rome>Christians>Renaissance>England>USAUSAUSA but this topic kinda demands a little broader treatment. India, China, and Japan all somewhat ridiculously show up 12–18 times each in other locations but not once in the History section. Judaism involves rather a bit of history and shouldn't be dealt with only as an afterthought in the religion section. Et multa multa multa cetera. — LlywelynII 19:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Suicides_rising_across_the_US-1] "Suicide rising across the US". Centers For Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved 27 September 2018.

[2] ttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17824349

[3] ttps://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/2014/09/09/preventing-suicide-all-wrong-ways

[4] ttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/sltb.12339

[5] Gould, Madelyn S.; Lake, Alison M.; Galfalvy, Hanga; Kleinman, Marjorie; Munfakh, Jimmie Lou; Wright, James; McKeon, Richard (2018). "Follow-up with Callers to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: Evaluation of Callers' Perceptions of Care". Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior. 48 (1): 75–86. doi:10.1111/sltb.12339. ISSN 1943-278X.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]