Jump to content

Talk:Suicide

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ceejayoz (talk | contribs) at 00:09, 16 August 2005 (→Adding links to how to commit suicide pages?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

See


Reorganisation

This article is reaching the 32K limit. Approximately a third of the article is about religious views and pro choice views. How would people feel about these and maybe the philosophical views being put into an article titled "Suicide, religious and other views", "Suicide, religious and philosophical views") or something similar with a link in the Suicide article? I think the legal views (which I would rename as legal aspects) should remain in the main article, as should the history which could be expanded. The discussion of murder/suicide would benefit from being in or next to the legal aspects and needs a little work. The list of famous suicides should probably just be a link without any examples since the list itself is comprehensive. Suicides in the military is begging for a separate article status, again with a link.

The role of depression as a factor and indeed the entire aspect of the treatable nature of suicidal ideation does not currently receive much coverage. It would be good to add some statistics on this.

The section headed "Attempted Suicide" is problematic. It goes on to discuss the newer terminologies but sticks to the heading choice in the rest of the text. My vote would be to replace this with "Parasuicide or deliberate self harm", both of which are used in the literature by those working in the field.

The section "Suicide Prevention" has nothing about treating the underlying causes and has a POV quality about it. It also does not address significant national campaigns and strategies aimed at suicide prevention. The subject is a huge one and once started would probably end up being a stand alone article.

Please comment on the above and/or have a go at any of it. I intend to commence work on this in the near future. --CloudSurfer 06:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed, those are all great ideas... I would name the "Suicide, religious and other views", "Suicide, religious and philosophical views" to Philosophical Views of Suicide (the stub to be called Philosophical Views (Suicide)) this would make a much better title.
As far as "Attempted Suicide" goes, I prefer to use this, but your suggestion of "Parasuicide" is fine with me as well. But this needs stubbed.
"Suicide Prevention" needs stubbed, and spoken about at length to come to a conclusion of what is and is not POV in this topic.
I also suggest that "Suicide in History" may need to be stubbed and the current views should take precedent in the main article. This is just a suggestion.
Also, a good idea would be to provide current, as can be found, basic statistics on the subject for the countries the english page serves. Like for US, UK, Canada, IRL, etc. jijin|machina 19:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

100 percent

What is meant by

"It is probable that the incidence of suicide is widely under-reported due to both religious and social pressures, possibly by as much as 100% in some areas."

? In other words, zero incidence of suicide is reported in these areas? Sounds unlikely to me, but if it's true it should be reworded to something more direct such as "resulting in no record of suicide whatsoever in some areas." --Chinasaur 10:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I imagine that is what they mean: that none is reported. It doesn't seem impossible that there are societies in which it is entirely hushed (or as near as damnit). But it would be good if the person that added that point could clarify. --bodnotbod 09:02, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)


Reorganize now

This page really should be reorganized, and possibly split into different pages. Also, in the interest of helping those who may be at risk, we have an obligation to put information on suicide prevention near the very top of the page...no matter the importance of the educational/informational purpose of Wiki, the #1 obligation is human life, which, after all, is more important than mere factual knowledge.

The page needs internal integration (such as cultural/historical views) and serious attention by a knowledgeable party. Thanks. ~ Dpr 02:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  • I agree, i've done a little to work on this for the moment, reordered some of the groups. I think the history and choice issues should be outlined in the main article individual links created for each of the topics, they could certianly be articles all their own. I'll try to flesh out the treatment and prevention areas, perhaps pulling info from the AMA. Cobalty 14:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against, adding only "Please don't commit suicide! Click here for more info.", this would be POV. When did wikipedia become a place to sway people one way or the other? If the link to suicide prevention is placed at/near the top, there should be another for a NPOV pro-choice look at suicide or even a support group external link. People need to be informed to make a choice from rational people who have been in the same position they find themselves in.
As a suicidal person, anytime a link is provided that only begs a suicidal to "save her life", I ignore it as this is not something I care about at the time. However, what I do care about is finding somebody that I know has been where I am, just to ask what logic they took to get where they are now. As well as what position they still take on suicide. I look for information from both sides of the argument to make probably the most important decision of my life.
It's hard to explain, but the best way to look at it is; a suicidal person is looking at suicide as a purchase. A big/life-changing one, very similar to choosing a home builder. When you are looking for home builders you want the good info, which you can easily get directly from the company, but you also want any negative experiences others have had to build on their collective experience. That is very much like what a suicidal person is thinking, normally the only things they can find on the topic is the negative about suicide (like the positive from the home builder), but what they really want is a place to read/hear collective sets of experiences with their thinking on suicide. That way they can make their own choice on the topic. After all, it is their body.
I will be watching this and I will debate people on this topic. But I do not think the page needs to be "reorganized". Possibly broken up into stubs, but as it stands now it close to NPOV. (edited previous user's comments to make it better mark up and easier to read) jijin|machina 17:49, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmmm, you have a point. I do understand that this is an encylopedia article and is thus needed to be unbiased. However, I am looking at this from the point of view of our reader. Someone who is researching suicide is likely either dealing with the issue or researching it, and likely from a suicide as a condition point of view. Personally I support someone's right to suicide, but I don't see how someone like, oh, a battered wife would be served by saying it's a noble thing to do. I guess there are actually two articles here, one that talks about suicide as a medical emergency and another about suicide as a choice. I'm starting to ramble, anyone else have any insight to this? Cobalty 17:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted, and I also think that suicide should not be glorified. The point I was trying to make, excuse me if it was not clear, is to send them to a pro-life support group, and a pro-choice support group. Do this near the top, maybe even in a disclaimer box like the POV warning, saying something like "If you are suicidal, please contact a mental health professional immediately. This article only attempts to document the history of, potential future, and major sub-topics regarding suicide. It is not an attempt to dictate what should be considered right and wrong.". Those people who are actively suicidal, that is making plans to commit suicide, should be pointed toward two communities on the topic that are on the "opposing" sides. This should be done for abortion as well, but sadly that topic is pretty locked in discussion. Again, I am completely for breaking this up into stubs if that is an option. Then, a separate discussion can take place for each sub-topic. So things like the history of suicide get their own due effort. jijin|machina 19:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand both points of view, and would just like to comment that I think a clear link to the assisted suicide (euthanasia) page should be added to that list. catseyes 02:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


PROGRESS UPDATE: I have begun the process of reorganization by adding the following new articles to wikipedia:

  • suicide treatment
  • suicide prevention
  • suicide and evolution
  • Suicide methodology (as redirect to suicide methods)
  • Parasuicide
  • Suicide in History
  • suicide and the law
  • suicide and religion
  • suicide and culture

I will try to come back and work on summarizing the sections in the article itself and referencing the secondary articles for more info. Possible structure, See Main article: Article, a persistent side box across all categories, or both. Cobalty 08:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add more cross-references to enable a more clearer view on "Suicide"

Namely, add a cross-reference to biology:apoptosis.

In fact, each day 50 to 70 million cells take on suicide, unnoticed by the human that is made up of these suicidal cells...

Second, a link to martyrdom or martyr and ritual suicide would also be very apropriate here.

Thanks!

Bias?

A user removed "Northern hemisphere" from the epidemiology section in a para. relating to suicide in December/Christmas season...but this is not bias because Christmas/December is winter *only* in the Northern Hemisphere...environmental and thus, perhaps, socio-psychological conditions are different in the SOuthern Hemisphere. ~ Dpr 13:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No discussion on the effect on suvivors

Perhaps some material (or a new topic) on the effect of suicide on family and friends - thoughts?

Rflynn1000 14:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a section on "Social Effects of Suicide" would be good. ~ Dpr 07:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Percentages

The current article gives numbers of what I think are suicides / population in several societies. Also interesting would be the rate of suicides / (total deaths in the period). --Error 21:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV?

Is this not POV? To be considered suicide, the death must be a central component and intention of the act, not just a certain consequence; hence, suicide bombing is considered a kind of bombing rather than a kind of suicide, and martyrdom usually escapes religious or legal proscription. There are only legal consequences when there is death and proof of intent. ~ Dpr 07:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide notes

Persons attempting or dying by suicide sometimes leave a suicide note--this is certainly relevant, but does it have to be in the head section of the article? ~ Dpr 07:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

Given the benefits of minimizing article length, can we strive to omit superfluous words? The etymology is important, but given that Wikipedia isn't Wiktionary, maybe we could take out "sui caedere" and simply say that the word "suicide" is from the Latin. Just a thought. ~ Dpr 07:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing, re: Islam POV

With regards to the part that mentions the Islamic point of view, the following is indicated: "According to the Sunnah (life and way of the Prophet Muhammad), any person who dies by suicide and shows no regret for his wrongdoing will spend an eternity in hell" {emphasis my own}. How can one show regret for suicide? Isn't that part of the reason as to why suicide is considered so heinous, that it removes all possibility of repentance? Just my $0.02 (canadian). --GNU4Eva 04:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need to add links to pages that tell you exactly how you can and should commit suicide? An anon added a link, I removed it, he added it back and told me that there are other links about the same topic. I'm tempted to just remove them all, there are too many external links anyways, but rather decided to ask for some other opinions on this. So, why should we link to such pages? Shouldn't we rather link to pages that actually try to help suicidal people instead of sites that are encouraging them? --Conti|✉ July 4, 2005 01:13 (UTC)

As I see it, this would violate Wikipedia's principle of NPOV. The article is informal and neutral, and contains as such both "positive" and "negative" views on suicide (although mainly the latter). Logically, the same principle of neutrality must also apply to the list of references. Your suggestion implies turning the article into a support page, which obviously has no place in a (neutral) encyclopedia. – 83.108.3.189 4 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)
The following view on the issue--which is surely shared by a large number of people, and also opposed by an equally large if not greater number of people--may be one which conflicts with the very essence of Wikipedia's vision and its construction of NPOV.
No matter how encyclopedic we aim to be, there must be limits drawn on actions which have the potential to seriously encourage suicide. Such a severe course of action, traumatic to so many people, cannot be permitted to be seriously encouraged by any work or writer(s). Philosophic and cultural arguments in favor of suicide are one thing, but the line must be drawn--in this digital, impulsive, unthinking, instant-gratification age, radicalist age--against links which could promote impulsive suicide choices. If my view is articulated unclearly/ambiguously, please ask for any necessary refinements. ~ Dpr 4 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)
providing accurate and nonbiased information is a good thing. however, i doubt that wikipedia wants to include information such as how to successfully plot a murder, mix up a poison, build an atomic bomb, or engineer a biological weapon. in the same vein, i dont think that providing nonbiased information means providing easy access to a how-to guide that has the potential for triggering grave harm. suicide attempts are often impulsive acts, and by making it effortless to get a good idea of how to make an attempt as lethal as possible, we run the risk of contributing to unnecessary loss of life. surely this goes beyond the idea of NPOV! adam black 2005 July 5 01:52 (UTC)
I fully agree with adam black; this is an encyclopedia and I know of no other (professional) encyclopedias that wouldteach how to commit suicide. As far as I know, aiding suicide is still illegal in 98% of the world... --GNU4Eva 6 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)
I strongly concur with both Adam Black and Dpr. It would sicken me in the heart to learn this the project we were working on—one of the greatest repositories of human knowledge ever conceived—were used to bring harm to others. NPOV is trivial in comparison, and I can't see how it can be argued otherwise. --Ardonik.talk()* July 7, 2005 08:04 (UTC)
Reality check: Nothing you can do can prevent a person who really wants to kill themselves from killing themselves. Very little you can do can make a non-suicidal person want to kill themselves. To help someone commit suicide is illegal in most juristictions, true. Florida included, probably. Still.. I somehow doubt having a link that describes suicide methods is enough to be held to the legal standard of aiding in a suicide. Wikipedia is broad (I've never seen a professional encyclopedia have as much on BDSM or the CIA, either) and as as far as I can tell, NPOV is held highly. I hate to play the slippery slope card, but if NPOV trivial here, where is next? Where would we get off ignoring something "absolute and non-negotiable"?
Sometimes just knowing how to kill oneself is enough to make one feel secure enough not to kill oneself. Just a thought. AmyBeth 00:32:42, 2005-08-05 (UTC)
I suggest you review your understanding of legalities. If it was not illegal to provide detailed information on how to kill oneself, then why is it that the alt.suicide.holiday newsgroup was banned? I find that in this article and several others that may be controversial, people seem to confuse the idea of a free-for-all war between the "fors" and the "againsts" constitutes a neutral provision of information. Providing information on "suicide" and information on "how to commit suicide" are not actually the same thing. One can provide a great deal of information on suicide, such as the states of mind of attempters, common demographic statistics, cultural views, outcome for survivors, stigmatization of attempters, treatment by emergency responders, and so on, without going into any detail on how one may go about it. We have treated many of those topics I just mentioned in this article. I feel that the inclusion of methods for attempting to be inappropriate even by the standards of logical organization. The "suicide prevention" section has its own article. Move the "arguments for suicide, and ways and means" stuff to its own section, and see how long it lasts without outcry. If you don't think you can be held legally responsible for someone's attempt or completion of suicide, wait till the first teenager does so and his mother finds a link to wikipedia's article in his favourites. You underestimate the tendency of people who experience a loss to blame anyone and everyone they come in contact with. Also, many suicide attempts are unsuccessful precisely because people do NOT have an accurate idea of what constitutes a lethal action. If inescapably lethal attempts become the norm among all attempters, many lives could be lost through an impulse that would have been relatively brief if not for the ease of achieving lethality. --adam black 00:01, 2005 August 8 (UTC)
While I agree that WikiPedia should not be telling people how to commit suicide, I must quibble with your point re: alt.suicide.holiday. Newsgroups are an entirely open system - I can start my own newsgroup, but ISPs decide whether to carry it. Individual ISPs may have stopped carrying the newsgroup, but no legal action was (or even can be, at least in the US) taken.— ceejayoz ★ .com 00:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sociological study of suicide

The sociological study of suicide rates (as disinguished from acts) has been a major concern of sociologists since the 1700s--that is, before sociology existed as a recognized field. For much of that time suicide rates were a topic of what was called "moral statistics," an enterprise which examined such government-supplied statistics as were available--rates of birth, death, and murder, for example. Emile Durkheim, one of the classic sociologists, carried out a major study of suicide rates, and there have been many studies of them in sociology since. The present long article needs a section on this; several major sections now in it are far less important.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suicide&oldid=21102545"