This is an archive of past discussions about Suicide. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
As currently worded, it is implied that St. Augustine's discussion of suicide was in the middle ages, and that Justinian's work predated St. Augustine's. But the truth is the opposite: Augustine having died in 430, before the middle ages began; and Justinian having been born after the middle ages began. . I don't feel quite up to rewriting the section in a creditable way: perhaps someone else can take this on? Publius3 (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I just created a new page on Familicide but it quickly became a candidate for speedy deletion due to its limited, dictionary-definition content. It is my wish that the psychology and crime scholars among you help me expand the article's content so that it will no longer be considered beneath Wikipedia standards. Thank you. J.A.McCoy00:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Once you get a job (the standard "9-5" deal) in Japan without an extremely good degree, chances are that if you quit or are fired you will not get hired again. Even if you do keep your job, they are often unsatisfying and leave very much to be desired, causing a spiral of depression. When I was in Japan for two weeks, my subway train was delayed on two different occasions due to men that had jumped off of bridges over the tracks.71.178.227.402:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
suicide as a social fact?
as a sociology student i can't help to notice the lack of a sociological point of view in this article. bieng "suicide" by Durkheim one of the most important pieces on this topic, where he statistacally shows that the main causes of the sucide rate are social, rather than psycological or otherwise. i'm planning on working a little bit on this direction, but i want to registrate as a user and hear some opinions before donig so.
gabriel
ps. i may have several ortography mistakes, forgive me for i am not a native speaker.
National suicide rates - contradictory and unclear
Contradiction: "National suicide rates sometimes tend to be stable"; "National suicide rates, apparently universally, show an upward long-term trend."
Citations with insufficient detail: "Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1983; Lester, Patterns, 1996, p. 21"
While this article affirms that "the practice is fairly common, occurring in approximately one out of three suicides...", the Suicide note article says "but statistics show that the majority of suicide victims do not leave notes; in some countries, fewer than 10% of suicides are accompanied by suicide notes". Just warning whoever looks after these articles. Simoes - http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio:Simoes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.47.34.200 (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
The first two statements don't contradict each other at all, even though the wording is clumsy since it was clearly written by two people coming at the numbers from different perspectives.
--Causes of Suicide--
Substance abuse stated so blatently has no place in this list. A person may be under the influence when they kill themself, but its almost always because of a deeper underlying problem.
Suicide Rates
The article makes interesting points about the differing rates of suicide by country around the world, and states that the rate of suicide to homicide is 3:2 in the USA. I want to know more. There should be a map or a table of suicide rates by country and by age and sex if possible. I strongly believe that the suicide rate in the United States is higher than Americans realize and that this is a fact the the country does not own up to or care to look at and admit. Or, a link to a separate article on 'suicide rates' should be supplied. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.178.36.234 (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
I think this small section deserves its own main article - I've created a redirect, but the subject certainly has such scope to qualify for its own article. While I'm here, could I request someone actively contributing here please expand the lead section a little - even one paragraph would be enough. I'm looking to summarize the topic in death but the lead section is only a definition. Richard00101:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Mahanga, I'll add the section now. I've realized there is already an article on military suicide (i.e. suicide attack), I've added the main template to make that clear. Richard00111:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Islam
It says that Islam has consistently condemned suicide. This is very dubious. There are deliberate suicide attacks, and this is drawn from Islamic rhetoric about martyrdom and accepted as OK by significant numbers of Muslims. In fact the euphemism they are found under in Islamic media is 'martyrdom operation' or variants. I'm going to tag it dubious for now, as there is a problem here. The Behnam15:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The use of suicide attacks aren't strictly prohibited in Islam as the article says, instead of that Islam highly motivate for suicide attacks on enemy troops in case of threatening Islam or Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Husam2002jo (talk • contribs) 15:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Although the proposed merge has been somewhat overtaken by the AfD proposal for the methods article. The methods content is far too long to merge into here, and deserves a page of its own anyway. Eve17:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
For those seriously considering suicide, it is worth remembering that the best method is probably via inhalation of nitrogen, helium or other noble gas as doing so is painless, effortless and virtually guaranteed to do the job - unlike so many other methods. ie quick and effective with little or no trauma.
Tripod000 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Firearms as a suicide means
Other sources state firmly that Canada has a much lower homocide/suicide rate relating to the dramatically lower number of firearms. Here, Canada has a much higher suicide rate than the USA. How reliable are ANY of the numbers? 207.178.98.79 (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Causes of Suicide Organization
The list of "causes of suicide" is too circumstantial with the specific examples. The article should thematically discuss that section and use the current list as examples. I would suggest Emile Durkheim's classic sociological model of suicide with the primary motives of suicide being Anomic (stress, grief, unemployment), Altruistic (ie sacrifice, cults, terrorism, etc.), and Egosistic (loneliness, absurdism). Overall it would present intentional causes in a more constructed, but not limiting, manner that the current list of examples lack in. Reesebw05:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest a more current model based on contemporary studies and widely accepted in the psychological community. SonoftheMorning21:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
removed the following section from article, and posted it here for discussion
The following section isn't suicide, nor is it a type of suicide, and no relation to suicide is described (just a non-relation). This has left me wondering why it was included in the article in the first place. I've placed it here for discussion, in case there are important issues I've missed. The Transhumanist23:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Self-harm is not a suicide attempt. There is a non-causal correlation between self-harm and suicide; both are most commonly a joint effect of depression. Social issues are key as SI is most common among those living in overcrowded conditions, loss of loved one(s), in conflict with their families, with disrupted childhoods and history of drinking and violence. Borderline personality disorder is another frequent psychological factor. Individuals under these stresses become anxious and depressed and then, usually in reaction to a single particular crisis, they attempt to harm themselves. The motivation may be a desire for relief from emotional pain or a desire for attention, although the motivation will often be complex and confused. Self-injury is the paradoxical practice that relies on inflicting pain and injury to relieve or communicate another pain.
Self-Harm/Self-Injury was not really studied as its own practice until the 1960's. This is because many with self-injuries were recorded as suicide attempts. Although the actions are very different, some still perceive self-injury as a suicide attempt. I'm not sure if self-injury and self-harm carry two meanings. I believe the former refers to the specific practice of self-injury, whereas self-harm may be any intentional act that results in the harming of the self even though harm and pain might not be the primary intent. I think self-injury should still be somehow linked to the suicide page because of the misconception that self-injury is a suicide attempt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reesebw (talk • contribs) 23:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
Yes I agree with Reesebw, there is still a significant confusion between self-harm and suicide attempts in the minds of Joe Public (and also a few out-of-date health professionals, worryingly). So I think it's probably a good idea to keep something in there making the difference clear and linking to the SH page. We could maybe lose some of the detail about motivations for SH though. Eve09:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The American Torpedo Plane Attack on IJN Carriers at Midway Likened to Kamikaze Style Attacks?!
This part of the article is ridiculous, but that is POV on my part. Though I do feel this is a stretch. I wanted to remove it outright but...
Umm... no. This is a general article about suicide, not really the right place for info on specific cases, unless they're extremely notable. To be honest, the Anna Halman article has had contested notability anyway, which together with its stub status seems to be motivating the merge suggestion. I suggest if notability is contested then send it to AfD; otherwise leave it as a stub, add more info to make notability clearer, or try and find another page to merge it into (something like List_of_suicides maybe?) Eve12:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The Suicide article does not seem to list individual people who committed suicide, so merging Anna Halman here would not make sense. If she is added to List of suicides then her article would normally be kept as well, so that's not exactly a merge. Although Anna Halman survived a contested AfD recently, the passions seem to live on. Her case received attention on the BBC, and led to a statement (and maybe a policy change) by the Polish Minister of Education. This seems to establish notability, though the sources could be better. Any further discussion on this matter should (in my opinion) take place at Talk:Anna Halman, where no one has yet said anything about a merge. EdJohnston13:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The article strikes me as presenting (or implying) one viewpoint as "the correct view", which it later amends. It also doesn't show the topic in overview very well at present. As an overview article of the subject, I think this can be done better.
The description of suicide starts with the statement "Considered by modern medicine to be a mental health issue, suicide may also be caused by psychological factors..." Only quite a bit later does it then add (as a somewhat minor note) that in some cultures it is seen as honorable or a means of protest, and it never mentions that the view of suicide as mental issue is far from universal culturally or historically. So it's never presented as the rich subject it is, or placed really in any other than a primarily clinical context. (Even then the medical view is very limited - a note on "cry for help" or repetition as a major feature of suicide attempts is crucial to note even in the intro.)
The overall view of suicide as a disapproved act and mental health issue is the appropriate majority view, but I think the topic as a whole needs the way it's presented (ie its "contexting" of this delicate subject) to be slightly improved. I've had a go, because the current view seems rather "pushing one specific viewpoint" (albeit the predominant western one). I've tried to ensure it doesnt get biased the other way by mistake. My approach has been to look at the intro and restructure it as follows, keeping the length sensible:
Definition of suicide.
Views have largely been shaped by cultural views (eg religion, honor, meaning of life), and therefore suicide has a diverse significance in different cultures and religions. So present suicide and the range of its meanings and places in different cultures.
Then, the predominant view of modern society and of most professionals that suicide is categorized under mental health, and as a response to pain or fear in which the value of life is outweighed by pain, fear or other psychological pressures, etc. (And add in omitted note about suicide as a cry for help.)
or the so-called "right to die"
The "so-called" can also be rephrased to "also known as". Right now it's POV by taking a stance against right to die. Even if the majority is against this, there is an article to cover it.
Adding something on Emile Durkheim's studies about suicide would be helpful. I also have plenty of support that identity issues such as homosexuality, being adopted (to some extent), etc are one issue rather than two issues which lead to the disconnection from society. Any objections on the above should be addressed before Sunday, upon which time I'll start the revising process. I just need an editor. --Hitsuji Kinno21:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
As I was looking at the page, I noticed that the table titled "Suicides per 100,000 people per year" should be on the right edge of the screen. It looks like it gets caught up by the graph above it. I would move it, but I'm new to this wiki thing and I don't know how.
There are many ways to refer to the act of intentionally terminating one's life. The one employed here is slanted, or as we put it here, "POV." It criminalizes the act. After all, one "commits" suicide the same way one "commits" a crime, and the term is also semantically connected to "homicide" and "infanticide" (please do not mention "insecticide"). The etymological implication of course is that it is a killing, and a culpable one at that.
May I suggest a more neutral term, often used in antiquity: "voluntary death"? We could have a redirect page, or perhaps a separate article specifically about the crime of "suicide." Haiduc02:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
"Suicide" is the term found in all literature and all colloquial use. Any grave connotations the word carries are mostly tied to the fact that it denotes the act of killing oneself, and not that it is "committed" in much the way one "commits" a foul in a ball game. I suspect you are joking, but in any event, I don't think voluntary death (which is itself entirely ambiguous-- whose death, exactly?) will be replacing suicide here or in popular usage anytime soon. SonoftheMorning14:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Haiduc isn't alone in this; the term "commit suicide" has fallen out of favor among psychiatric and psychological associations and organizations. "Died by suicide" is one recommended alternative.Carlaclaws03:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The people in this thread might want to read up on George Carlin's monologue about euphemisms. Saying "voluntary death" might end up as "voluntary absence of life" which might in turn end up as "voluntary respectable choice to free one's life from one's person", which ends up being ridiculous. Also, I have never met an English-speaking person which refers to suicide as "voluntary death". I'm not just talking colloquially here, I'm saying that this phrase is never used by anyone except stuck-up people or as George put it "smug, greedy, well-fed white people [which have] invented a language to conceal their sins." --BiT (talk)
NPOV re: external links
The external links section seems to link to quite a few websites for suicide prevention and support groups, but I don't see a single link to a site for suicide promotion or assistance. Obviously, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a how-to manual, but if there are external links on how to avoid suicide, I think that it's only the fair and balanced thing to do to post external links on how to go through with suicide (like, say, http://www.satanservice.org/tokus/suicide/guide/). The only way you can justify not doing so is to say that it's a worthier goal to prevent suicides than to promote them, which of course is the definition of a non-NPOV. ElHalo
What did Justiian's law code really say on this yopic? The linked 'reference" is not at all authoritattive, and does not mention Justinian anyway. I ask because the Wiki article on religious attitudes to suicide very nearly contradicts this one, stating that suicide to avoid trial was a crime and sin in 533 (ie presumably under Justinian's code of that year), and this was extended generally in 590.
World map of suicide rates
This figure is essentially useless, since the key doesn't offer much. <13 what? Suicides per capita? Suicides a year? It should probably be removed, or replaced with something useful.
If you had bothered to read the description for the image or clicked on the suicide rates link in the caption, you'd quickly see that it's the number of suicides per 100,000 people per year. MahangaTalk20:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Copycat suicides
Not having seen this article for a while, my immediate reaction to the pictures in it was that they had the potential to glorify suicide. One potential outcome of this is copycat suicides. While there is a need to be NPOV about the subject, there is also a social responsibility to not contribute to further suicides. It is significant that neither the article on murder or homicide have pictures of victims despite the ready availability of such material. This brief entry is to encourage a debate about this. --CloudSurfer22:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
If someone can show me a link to a policy or relevant talk discussion suggesting that the pictures were removed from the murder and homicide articles for that reason, I will do the same for all the photographs on this page that depict suicides that could reasonably be imitated (I do not view the likelihood for copycat suicides involving self-immolation or kamikaze attacks significant enough to be worrisome). The artwork, I would think, is intended to romanticize suicide and is therefore NPOV-protected. SonoftheMorning03:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I oppose removing images based on censorship, even if some believe it helps prevents suicides (?) although I would dispute that desired outcome as well, maybe showing the end results of a suicide may help prevent sucicide Bleh99912:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I have Been Bold and changed "commit" to "complete". I see this was discussed and changed long ago before, but somehow got changed back to "commit." It might be even better to substitute most of these instances with "kill oneself" -- it would be the most neutral -- but maybe someone else.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friarslantern (talk • contribs) 23:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not see that "commit" carries a negative connotation, but perhaps your views differ. Regardless, it is the term used in virtually all academic literature and colloquial usage, and wikipedia is not the forum for changing universally accepted idioms by fiat. SonoftheMorning04:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
"Commit" ~clearly~ carries a negative connotation -- one only "commits" something that they are not supposed to, that is bad to, in current usage (we're talking about the word as a synonym of "perpetrate" -- again, these are only used (unless one's being ironic) with a connotation of doing something that is bad, or that one shouldn't -- it is judgemental. I can't think of any phrases using "commit" or "perpetrate" that don't imply bad, crime, sin, or shame, except when used comically). While it is an idiom in current usage, it's negative connotation is conscious and clear, and therefore not representative of a NPOV.
And no, it is not universally used among experts on suicide -- many of them, perhaps even approaching most -- would prefer to say "kill oneself", "complete suicide", or the neologism, "to suicide". I think you'll find that to be the case if you review sites by professional organizations -- they are tending -- on purpose -- to use the neutral terminology more and more (there are occasional uses of "committed suicide" there, but more often, they say "kill oneself"). The American Association for Suicide Prevention's webpage of recommendations for journalists goes as far as requesting of the press: "In the body of the story, it is preferable to describe the deceased as "having died by suicide," rather than as "a suicide," or having "committed suicide." The latter two expressions reduce the person to the mode of death, or connote criminal or sinful behavior." ([2]).
While I'd agree that "she suicided" or even "they completed suicide" is noticeably awkward, and would tend to sound soapbox in themselves, to use "kill oneself" in this article will ~not~ stand out in this way. People will NOT read this saying "What axe is WP trying to grind here -- they say "kill oneself" in this article instead of "commit suicide!". I feel "kill oneself" is arguably more NPOV than "commit suicide", and am planning to revert back to the "kill oneself" version barring convincing argument to the contrary. Friarslantern18:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is the negative connotation in "commit forces to the region" or "commit to a relationship", pray tell? As for expertise, you can see that the apa [3] itself uses "commit" in formal literature. And no, no matter meticulously I review professional sites, I won't find them tend to use a bizarre neologism in lieu of the universally accepted phraseology; there are some 37,500 google hits for "complete suicide", as opposed to ~2,000,000 for "commit suicide". Regardless, any change at all is unnecessary unless you can demonstrate that a majority of scholars feel that the term is too loaded and an alterantive has gained substantial acceptance. Otherwise, I direct you to [4], which trumps marginal and questionable POV quibbles. SonoftheMorning07:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Committing forces is a different use of the word, meaning, guaranteeing or giving a mission to -- it's not the same usage -- different section in a dictionary. Same with "commit to a relationship". The usage we're talking about is "to commit [an act]". It is a usage commonly understood by any native speaker of English, and, if asked to think about it, any user would recognize that it adds a negative connotation. We don't use it otherwise: we commit an error, we commit a sin, we commit a crime. We DON'T commit a good deed, we DON'T commit a favor, we DON'T commit a success. It has come to implicitly indicate that the act in question is bad, or even shameful. I can't think of any exceptions to this.
Note that in my edits, I left two uses of "committed" because they had nothing to do with the usage "to commit [an act]", which, again, is the only construction that implies a bad act: "Sometimes, a person will make actions resembling suicide attempts while not being fully committed," and "Suicide-like acts should generally be treated as seriously as possible, because if there is an insufficiently strong reaction from loved ones from a suicidal gesture, this may motivate future and ultimately more committed attempts." In these two examples, "committed" is used as an -adjective- to mean "dedicated", or "in earnest".
Expertise: if you look at the sites of professional organizations of psychologists and social workers that focus on suicide, such as the one I cited, or the AAS, I feel you will notice a tendency away from saying "commit" suicide; they are tending towards saying "completed" suicide, or "to suicide", or, most commonly, simply, "to kill oneself" in their writings where the average person would more often say "commit suicide". They are not, nor are psychological professional organizations, thorough about it -- the colloquial usage is a strong habit. I bring up the examples to point out that this is not something I invented, but something others have thought of, and pointed out to be not neutral.
You brought up the argument that I am proposing the use of a neologism. Not the case. I have made it clear that I am switching to arguing for "to kill oneself" rather than my previous use of "complete suicide". "Commit suicide, " being of Latin origin, is more of a neologism than the (Germanic) "kill oneself". For me to replace "commit suicide" with "kill oneself" would not stand out to a reader as a neologism would; nor would it appear to the average reader to be soapbox in any way; "commit suicide" is common parlance, but "kill herself" is not uncommon at all, though it is more straightforwardly factual. I cannot imagine that anyone who wasn't already aware of this controversy or sensitive to this usage would even notice if this WP article used "kill oneself" rather than "commit suicide". This is an issue of style that affects tone in a way that makes it slightly, but clearly, less NPOV. There is no neologism issue here, and so I no trump of my NPOV complaint. Aside from my personal aversion to the phrase "commit suicide", on the face of it, "kill himself/herself" is more straightforward, more factual -- more encyclopedic.
I'm also thinking, now that I'm on this, of changing the opening statement: "Suicide (Latin sui caedere, to kill oneself) is the act of intentionally terminating one's own life" to "Suicide (Latin sui caedere, to kill oneself) is the act of killing oneself." Why beat around the bush? We don't describe murder or homicide with such indirect language. ..... Diving right into another can of worms, worst possibility ;-) Friarslantern01:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC) 01:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
You said: if you look at the sites of professional organizations of psychologists and social workers that focus on suicide, such as the one I cited, or the AAS, I feel you will notice a tendency away from saying "commit" suicide; Well, prove it. Effacing the APA's (not to mention everywhere else's) accepted terminology from Wikipedia because you disagree with the connotations is itself POV. You also made the unsubstantiated claim that "kill oneself" is more encyclopedic. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for one, does not support you there [5]. Note also that one could readily "commit an act of kindness". 138.192.140.2204:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
>> "...Well, prove it".
Umm.... no. It was a minor part of my argument: I've already quoted the section of the AFSP site that should establish that someone up there has thought about this issue enough to request the media to not use "commit". Beside, I don't get a clear sense that proving this would convince you, 138.192.140.22.
>> Effacing the APA's (not to mention everywhere else's)
>> accepted terminology from Wikipedia...
You make it sound like the APA and everyone else would object. I have already argued this: that I believe not only that they wouldn't object, but that they probably wouldn't even notice. Not only that, but "accepted terminology" implies that they've actually thought about it and made a decision on the use of it: not at all necessarily so. I would complain to them too (and should!).
>> ...because you disagree
>> with the connotations is itself POV.
If the connotations are judgmental, then leaving them would be sustaining this POV. And, if you're going to get picky, the act of USING a NPOV is, itself, taking a stance of sorts -- a POV (that we should be NPOV)! "Commit" is the most common way of referring to this act, AND it is judgmental -- not necessarily (and probably not) on the conscious part of the individual using it, but socially, as a nod to the shame that we used to (and some still do) feel should be attributed to suicide. The other reason that just occurred to me that it might be used would be for euphemistic purposes, by employing an arcane construction to distance the brute facts of the meaning behind it from both the speaker and the audience. But again, this also would carry a POV (that suicide is to be treated as taboo) in itself, as would it be if we started replacing instances of "X died in 1991" with "X passed away". While WP shouldn't go out on linguistic limbs, it should also avoid carrying on judgment (such as taboos). "Kill oneself" does neither.
While it is an idiom, it is one whose different parts are still used apart from each other and have their own denotations and connotations, intentional or otherwise. A written document, particularly a constantly refined one that pointedly strives for neutral point of view, has the ability and, sometimes, the obligation, to stray at times away from what is common usage, for various reasons, and this certainly wouldn't be the first time WP strayed from common usage for some reason important to its policies. Unless, of course, this straying would stand out as unusually novel, or pointed, or jarring. The change I made (which was reverted) did not do that (at least not any more than avoiding referring to "those who commit murder" in an article about murder, in favor of "those who murder" or "those who kill" would, for example).
>> You also made the unsubstantiated claim that "kill oneself"
>> is more encyclopedic.
Not completely unsubstantiated -- I've shown how it is POV, which makes it un-encyclopedic. But, true, additionally, I appeal to common sense in saying that, of the two different ways of saying it, "kill oneself" is more encyclopedic by comparison. It's right there in the definition (line 1): suicide means to kill oneself. And, "to kill oneself", while usually supplanted by "committed suicide", is still quite current, and the only connotation it has -- as, on its face, it is quite straightforward -- is as being blunter than the roundabout or euphemistic "commit suicide". Are you arguing that Wikipedia ~should not be that blunt~? And why?
>> The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for one, does not support you there
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosphy probably hasn't looked at this issue. They probably are using the more common "commit suicide" rather than the (current, but less common) "kill oneself" for just that reason -- because it's how their authors talk. That doesn't mean they would not change it if it were brought to their attention as something arguably less encyclopedic. Do you know they've dealt with this issue and come to a conclusion? Just because it IS used in other encyclopedias doesnt' make it necessarily more encyclopedic when viewed critically. We have the opportunity to do that here in Wikipedia.
>> Note also that one could readily "commit an act of kindness"
Point well taken. But this is the exception to the rule. Ask someone randomly "What act have you just committed?" and they will generally assume you are accusing them, humorously or not, of having just done something wrong. They will not get that same feeling from being asked what act they have just "performed", however, or what they have just "done". And the dictionaries bear this out: yes, "commit" can mean simply, to "do", but it has a particular connotation synonymous with "to perpetrate", clearly a word with judgmental connotations.
Umm.... no. Then your changes do not meet the criteria for verifiability. You, backed by a small minority of advocacy groups, do not get to change universally accepted language by fiat. You feel that the term "commit suicide" is POV; I do not, and neither do the overwhelming majority of scholars on the subject. And the idea that the APA, the Stanford Encyclopedia, Britannica and virtually every other reputable source out there do not at any point critically examine their language is ludicrous. Unless you can prove that there's a legitimate and well-supported reason that "commit suicide" is inherently POV, your changes will be reverted back. 138.192.140.2202:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Wait a minute. This is not an issue of what facts are included in an article, or what articles are included: THESE are elements subject to verifiability standards! Backed by advocacy groups? Now you're trying to paint this as lobbying effort. Not so. "Neither do the overwhelming majority of scholars on the subject" assumes that the issue has been dealt with by these scholars -- I don't think so. "...the idea that the APA.... and virtually every other reputable source out there do not critically examine their language is ludicrous": Yes, it is. And I would be too IF I WERE MAKING SUCH A BROAD STATEMENT. I am not, and you are attempting to PAINT me that way. My point was that there's a good chance they haven't examined THIS PARTICULAR wording issue - which is a very different assertion. "Unless you can prove there's a legitimate and well-supported reason..."???! I have answered your (user 138.192.140.22!) and Sonofthemorning's (or are you the same people?!) counterarguments thoroughly here. I have kept coming back with clear reasoning, and straightforward language. You have never indicated any actual problem you have with the wording "kill oneself". I think the problem here is that you can't find any problem that you yourself actually have with the wording. You just don't like that I am proposing a change on a Wikipedia page that you wouldn't want to make in the way you yourself speak in everyday life and are offended, inappropriately I'd say, that I would make this change -- in speech and in writing. Well, I'm not asking you to change the way you yourself talk. But if that's your only reason, I will not let it stop me from making this change, for the sake of making this page a modicum more neutral, at no expense of readability and without adding a single neologism or modifying it in any way that almost any reader would notice for even a moment. Friarslantern18:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
You are unable to offer a real and objective reason that your changes would make the page more neutral. You feel that "commit suicide" carries a negative connotation, although this is not linguistically provable and most major organizations have no trouble with the wording. I respect that, but your personal feelings on the matter are entirely immaterial. Universally accepted terminology on Wikipedia is not subject to change simply because one or a handful of users feels that it is POV; this would lead to an endless and unmanageable euphemism treadmill in every article whenever some crank decides that basic idioms are in some trivial way invidious. If you wish to add a section on "naming conventions" or some such that would be acceptable, but changing standard language requires some significant degree of scholarly support, which you do not have. 138.192.140.2205:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
"Commit" ~does~ carry a negative connotation - see a dictionary. If you want me to quote dictionaries, I'd be happy to.
You say you're worried about a euphemism treadmill? Well, that's what I'm combatting here. It is you who defend the euphemism, and I who defend the plain speech (jeesh, my phrasing even has half as many syllables!). A quick check yielded this: on WP, "pass away" re-directs to "Death". An example of WP preferring the non-euphemism. I suspect I could find a general tendency in WP to do this. "Kill oneself" is not euphemistic, nor does it stand out in an ideological/soapbox way, nor is it needlessly profane (but these weren't your arguments anyway). People use it commonly because they want to use a euphemism. An encyclopedia's language should represent more than that. And, changing standard language does NOT necessarily require "some significant degree of scholarly support", as you claim: this is a red herring. I think it's clear that, even if the APA -- whose lack of an opinion on this you have cited as significant -- said "No one should say "commit suicide" anymore!!!", you would not then concede anything to me here. What we're talking about is is a style issue, and my arguments are "common sense", and have ~not~ been countered with scholarly arguments from you or from SonoftheMorning (really the same person, it appears, for some odd reason chosing to remain anonymous!!), but rather with other "common-sense" arguments.
Your arguments, frankly, masquerade as reason for the wording in this article not to change, IMHO, but are really arguments defending the use of the term in conversational speech; you are standing on the soapbox of conservativism for the sake of conservativism; your arguments are not literary, they are socio-cultural. And, you continue to dodge my question: what problem do you have with the meaning or even the sound of the phrase "kill oneself" to be used in this article. I supsect that, had you come to this article while it had this phrasing (kill oneself), you would not so much have noticed that it didn't use the word "commit". I have parleyed in good faith here for quite some time, and am changing the wording back now. Friarslantern18:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
you would not then concede anything to me here This is an example of a circumstantial ad hominem attack; it is fallacious, irrelevant, uncivil, and in this case, completely incorrect. The fact that you feel the need to speculate blindly on my ostensible motives for wishing to preserve basic idioms when there's no legitimate reason not to suggests only a lack of merit in your substantive arguments. Regarding your actual points, "commit suicide" is not a euphemism-- it is frank, straightforward and ubiquitous. "Commit" does not necessarily carry a negative connotation, as you can plainly see here [6]. You claim that you have no obligation to find any scholarly support for altering standard language on the site, but it is evident that permitting people to go around changing universally accepted terms willy-nilly is repugnant to the basic mission of Wikipedia. 138.192.140.2202:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I am defending my edits. I am giving point after point, half of which you're chosing not to address. I gave you a quote supportive of my position from the AFSP, and you wouldn't address it or, seemingly, let it sink in and affect your debate. It doesn't feel like a huge jump to say that, if I could find a statement from the APA condemning "commit suicide", as you implicitly have challenged me to do, you still wouldn't let it affect your debate. I feel your main position is a defense of the status quo, for the sake of the status quo -- which is fine -- you could argue, for example, that encyclopedias should preserve the status quo, for reason X.
The statement you quoted spoke to my frustration that you bring up arguments, I answer them, and -- with the exception that you've suggested I write a section on naming conventions, which was something of a concession, I'll grant -- you don't acknowlege the logic of my answers to your arguments: I am defending the action of my going ahead with my proposed edits (ie, to have thoroughly hashed it out in the Talk page) in addition to defending my philosophical justification for the change. If I had claimed that "You wouldn't concede anything to me even if the APA suggested it and therefore you're wrong that the WP article on Suicide should use 'commit suicide' instead of 'kill oneself'", THEN I would have committed a circumstantial ad hominem attack, and it would be "fallacious, irrelevant, uncivil, and in this case, completely incorrect." But this was not my claim. If you want to complain that I am speaking of your possible motives, fine, but it doesn't help the process that you insert false logic when you could simply re-state your ultimate argument, which is, I feel, maintenance of the status-quo in the wording of this encyclopedia, and emphasize, simply, how strongly you feel about this.
That you say there's "no legitimate reason not to" preserve basic idioms, is a good example of my complaint that I give you reasons, and you do not seem to hear my answers. I have explained why I feel "commit" is not NPOV, and said go to a dictionary, and you come back with a webpage ([7]) in which, you claim, I can "plainly see" does not necessarily support my claim that the term carries a negative connotation. And yet, the definition (in the first bulletted section, which is the relevant section in this case) states "perform an act, usually with a negative connotation". What are you saying, it's only "usually", not "always"??? This is what I mean by not responding to my arguments. I don't dispute that it's ubiquitous. I don't dispute that people don't mean to convey a negative connotation in a conscious, concerted manner when they use the term. As I have argued, this is an issue of subtext. A way of saying something CAN systematically have effects on others, such as judgmentalism, without that being the conscious intent, and still be used so as to maintain the status quo of the idiom, or, for some, to be euphemistic or to convey disapproval.
But, as I have argued already, written reference materials have the opportunity to word things more thoughtfully and simply. And when that wording can BOTH a)be more neutral; and b)do so in a way that doesn't disrupt an academic, literary style with neologisms or other strange wording, then I think it should be changed. I give you actual reasons for my changing it; you, on the other hand, have changed it back without a single reason on the merits for not liking my version, but instead arguing, essentially, that you're pre-emptively defending against "cranks" who would change things "willy-nilly". You're using status quo as reason to block my changes and not to respond to my question, What problem do you have with the sound, style, or effect of the wording "kill oneself" in this article?. I know that my insistence on this new wording here is a little unusual, but it is genuine; your aversion to responding to my basic question, though, seems to assume bad faith in me. Is not that something "repugnant to the basic mission of Wikipedia"??? Friarslantern19:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
you still wouldn't let it affect your debate. This is speculative, false, irrelevant and fallacious. Kindly refrain from attacking me personally. If you're frustrated about your inability to put together a convincing case for making unnecessary and subjective changes to basic language, I suggess you buy a stress ball or a boxing bag instead. Speculating on my perceived motivations is uncivil and can only detract from whatever merit your arguments may have.
and you come back with a webpage ([7]) Wordnet is the Princeton lexical database, i.e. a comprehensive and sophisticated cross-referenced dictionary. It's also the first result when you google "define 'x'". Do some cursory research before disparaging other people's sources next time.
I have explained why I feel "commit" is not NPOV, Precisely. Why you feel. Not how you can prove that it is POV, not how you can rationally and objectively demonstrate that it is POV. A feeling is not sufficient reason to obliterate all uses of a common idiom from Wikipedia. This is clearly unacceptable practice. 138.192.140.2223:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
you still wouldn't let it affect your debate. This is speculative,
false, irrelevant and fallacious. Kindly refrain from attacking me personally.
This is a charge, but not an attack by any stretch of the imagination.
Speculative? Perhaps. False, irrevlevant, fallacious? I suppose its possible, though it wouldn't be conscious on my part. But in order for me consider this, then tell me where you acknowledged or demonstrated above that the citation in question had an impression on you.
If you're frustrated about your inability to put together
a convincing case for making unnecessary and subjective
changes to basic language, I suggess you buy a stress ball
or a boxing bag instead. Speculating on my perceived motivations
is uncivil and can only detract from whatever merit your
arguments may have.
No, I am frustrated by the arguments that you are using: that they are generally non-responsive to mine. This is a forum to discuss changes to articles, why they should or shouldn't be changed, and we're supposed to hash controversial changes out here it before making changes; if you will not logically engage some of my most cogent points, as I have quite straightforwardly requested, then you have the effect of walking away from the debate. I believe I have put together a convincing case, and it seems to me that you will not yield me a response on some of my most important points. Nevertheless, I will try to be more gentle from here on out.
and you come back with a webpage ([7]) Wordnet is the
Princeton lexical database, i.e. a comprehensive and sophisticated
cross-referenced dictionary. It's also the first result when you
google "define 'x'". Do some cursory research before disparaging
other people's sources next time. ¶
If you would read the section I wrote, I didn't disparage your source at all -- in fact, I will now be looking to use it in the future. I simply pointed out that it didn't appear that your source supported your argument -- but rather that it supported my argument. You could disagree, & clarify how it supports your side. But otherwise, on the face of it, it goes to my position about connotation.
I have explained why I feel "commit" is not NPOV, Precisely.
Why you feel. Not how you can prove that it is POV, not how you
can rationally and objectively demonstrate that it is POV. A feeling
is not sufficient reason to obliterate all uses of a common idiom from
Wikipedia. This is clearly unacceptable practice.
138.192.140.2223:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The sad thing here is, my whole point is quite arguable, but you refuse to engage me on something where you actually have the advantage, instead, you fall back on a needless appeal to popularity. Granted, if enough people think that a)"commit suicide" is not loaded with any particular bias (which I'll concede, that the vast majority wouldn't say it is biased, at least when asked point blank); AND either b)"kill oneself" sticks out as awkward or too novel, or c)that the absence of use of "commit suicide" in itself feels awkward upon reading it, then my mind would be changed. But while I concede a), I don't concede b) or c), and therefore -- because "commit" has a negative connotation (which I pretty much have proven), and, I propose, "commit suicide" has a biased subtext and/or is euphemistic (my weakest point, but, ironically, one which you stop short of fully addressing) -- I am still left with the conviction that changing "commit suicide" to "kill oneself" is worth any minor awkward stylistic qualities (which qualities I can't imagine -- can you?) it might engender in order to make the article's language less judgmental, and more neutral. Friarslantern17:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You haven't shown that "commit suicide" is biased language, and because it is the most commonly used term, it's the appropriate one for this article. Not every suicide involves actually killing yourself - euthanasia and "suicide by cop" spring to mind immediately, but there are others. It doesn't add to the article to remove "commit suicide". Orpheus21:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I have shown it's biased. What is your argument that it isn't? And yes, every suicide involves killing yourself, even if one indirectly employs others to do it. I have never heard of the distinction you're talking about. It doesn't strengthen the article to replace "kill oneself" and replace it with "commit suicide". Friarslantern21:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
No, you haven't - your argument isn't convincing, which the user editing from an IP address above has shown very clearly. "commit suicide" is overwhelmingly the popular usage in every English speaking country, and as a result Wikipedia should follow along behind that. Orpheus21:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Which part of my argument isn't convincing? You say "commit.." is overwhelmingly popular - I conceded that above. But, like I said above, no one would notice a difference if the article said "kill oneself". And, as I feel I have shown convincingly -- and I am not the only one, there is a professional organization that requests the same thing of journalists in order not to show bias -- "commit" (and dictionaries, including the one quoted by the above anonymous user himself) carries a sting. You say WP should follow along behind the popular usage? Is there a policy or guideline you can direct me to in that regard -- and are you sure this would trump any possible bias claims? WP, it seems to me, often choses to use non-common usages. Look up any number of medical ills the way ~you~ would say them, and you'll be re-directed usually to a more technical name, often that you haven't heard of, as an article title (want to know about high cholesterol? You'll be taken to Hypercholesterolemia). So common usage is not an absolute here, if the change is for some greater purpose (in the medical examples, the purpose of standardization and organization; in my case, to eliminate a subtext of shame). So far no one is saying " 'kill oneself' sounds too stark and direct -- people don't like to hear about death that way -- that's why we say 'passed away'... the sound of it is distractingly vulgar and would therefore take away from the user-friendliness of the article" or giving a similar reasoning that deals with the "kill oneself" wording per se. I do not bring this up as a theoretical: I can assure you, that there are many people, suicide survivors, who subsequently have become painfully aware of the subtext of shame in "commit" (=perpetrate), and bristle at it, and don't use it... Friarslantern23:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Look up any number of medical ills the way ~you~ would say them, and you'll be re-directed usually to a more technical name, often that you haven't heard of, as an article title (want to know about high cholesterol? Again, inadvertent nail on the head. Medical articles are organized according to the official terminology of the profession. Likewise, here we defer to the American Psychological Association [8], the American Psychiatric Association [9] etc. etc., along with any number of encyclopedias also written by trained professionals. "Commit suicide" is the standard and objective terminology amongst all major organization dedicated to psychology and subsidiary disciplines, yet you would have us disregard these institutions and trample over an expression that's universal and virtually unchallenged in both common speech and expert jargon because of your subjective, idiosyncratic perception of bias. So I ask, which is the better model for determining terminology on Wikipedia, credentialed authorities concerned with studying the phenomenon in question, or the lay opinion of an internet user? 138.192.140.2204:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the medical articles you mention, you'll see that the technical term is used as the article title but the popular term is used throughout the article. In this case, as the IP user points out, the technical term *is* the popular term so there's no reason not to use it.
I asked around my local office (people who grew up in Australia and New Zealand), and they were of the opinion that "kill yourself" is more offensive than "commit suicide". This seems to be a cultural thing. "Asking your mates" isn't a reliable source, of course, but fortunately we don't have to rely on people I ask, or people you ask. We have two policies: WP:NEO and WP:CENSOR to guide us towards the technical and popular usage, specifically "Commit suicide".
I'm pretty sure I remember reading a Bible passage saying that the body is a temple and desecreation of the temple is a sin, so I believe there is a specific passage thats says no to suicide. Have to dig up my Bible and check on that specifically, but 1 minute of Google searching brought up 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have recieved from God? You are not your own, you were brought with a price. Therefore honor God with your body." This also seems to make obesity a sin and state that we are all slaves to the church... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.155.35 (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This is one interpretation of the passage, but not one commonly cited as prohibiting suicide, as opposed to, say, Augustine's argument from the sixth commandment or Aquinas' Aristotelian argument from natural order. It's also problematic when juxtaposed with some Christian notions of asceticism. But if you can find a good reference, by all means, add it. SonoftheMorning04:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Something needed here about the shameful aspect
We need something in the Cultural section on how the shameful aspect of suicide (as evidenced, for example, in the continuing use of "commit" as the verb) is still prevalent in most cultures. It's also a factor that could be mentioned in the Impact of Suicide section - that the isolation survivors feel is not only due to their own grief, questioning and guilt feelings, but also to an automatic aversion that many people feel -- possibly due to the culturally shameful aspect of the act, possibly due to questions about the role that the survivors could have had in preventing or causing the suicide -- towards suicide, which manifests itself frequently as a reflexive withdrawl of contact or support towards people normally considered friends, people, who -- it's my sense -- would receive ample, more immediate support had their family member/loved one been murdered. In other words, there is a primitive taboo about it that survives in modern, industrialized culture -- about even discussing it. I'm nearly positive there's serious research out there to this effect, would need references....
(In general, this article could use more references.....).
Friarslantern16:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
On the subject
I kind of feel like killing myself today. Probably due to the fact that I edited Wikipedia - the methampetamine article, taking out stupid shit like "injection may be the safest way to use this drug" - when I used to do meth, and my bosses decided to riff and laugh on it one day after everything fell apart (or at least that's what I heard secondhand through the grapevine), and laughed at me when I couldn't and still can't make a living. It's not a good idea, but those are my feelings, and since Wiki helped me take away my job I figure it can take my confession. ;) What an idiot I was to be honest about my identity on Wiki... Don't ever do it, guys!!! Discuss! 76.170.206.6912:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair to lay this sort of thing on regular people just trying to edit and encyclopedia; that is to say if you are really going to take your life. I'm sure most people on Wikipedia would be more than happy to talk you out of it or just have a little chat so that you'd feel better but this way it's pretty much a situation where you can make people feel bad by writing this sort of thing while they can't do anything about it. --BiT (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I am confused. How did wiki take your job? Were you fired for editing a meth article or (more likely) for being a meth addict? You sound incredibly paranoid, which is a symptom of amphetamine abuse. Please seek help, if you're still alive.
Intro POV
Hi all, I was reading over the intro when I came across the line "Most Western and Asian religions—the Abrahamic religions, Buddhism, Hinduism—consider suicide a dishonorable act; in the West it was regarded as a serious crime and offense against God due to religious belief in the sanctity of life." This is problematic - as written it conflates present religious attitudes with past cultural views all while collapsing all of Western thinking on the subject into one negative assessment. Western culture may have viewed suicide as a serious crime, but no longer, you don't go to jail or get probation for attempting suicide. As for all of w. culture viewing it as an offense against God, I think that's way too general and assumes a religious viewpoint for all western people, many of whom identify as agnostic or atheistic. Also the phrase "serious crime" probably shouldn't be used in conjunction with civil institutions (like all of western culture) when the frame of reference is spiritual and not secular. I suggest changing the wording to remove the ref. to western culture or rewrite it as two or more seperate sentences. Phyesalis19:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Accidental Suicide vs Intentional
There is some ambiguity in this article: in it's defining line, the article states "Suicide (Latin sui caedere, to kill oneself) is the act of intentionally terminating ones own life." However, throughout the article there is reference to "accidental" suicide. How can intentionally terminating ones own life become accidental. I'm thinking either the definition needs to change, terminology needs to change surrounding "accidental", or something needs to be added to make it clearer how intentional acts can be "accidental". PsYoP7803:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The caption for the photograph "Two Japanese Imperial Marines who committed suicide" says they "committed hari-kari by shooting themselves." This is incorrect as hara-kiri is the English word for "seppuku" meaning ritual suicide by disembowelment, not shooting. I suggest this caption be amended to simply "committed suicide by shooting themselves". --81.1.82.39 (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The standalone article has developed independent of the section in the parent article - though hasn't moved beyond a stub. Having two separate articles on the same topic creates a WP:CFORK. Having one article in one place allows people to work together to build the information in a progressive and organised fashion. When/if the information becomes too much to be contained within the section in the parent article then it can be broken out in summary style. A sub-topic is usually discussed within the parent topic as much as possible until it needs breaking out due to amount of information. If the amount of information is three paragraphs or less (a stub length) then it is unlikely to need breaking out. SilkTork *SilkyTalk12:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Murder-suicide also seems to be a fairly well recognized concept within law enforcement and among health professionals. I've been expanding the article with a few lines and a reference. I'll be removing the tag. ΑΩ (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Quick grammar note
In the murder-suicide section, Chris Beniot's act was called "famous". I believe this word should be replaced with "infamous" or "notorious." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.254.45 (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Slanted towards the USA?
I'm not here to start a flamewar. This is rather something I've noticed; why are the first (three I think) images on the page all of or pertaining to the USA? It seems odd that an article discussing this sort of "international act" should start with more than a couple of pictures of statistics from only one country (and the first two only regarding white males and females), why isn't the image of the suicide rate of the world or something more international used? Also, I was quickly passing through this article so this might be splitting hairs but I noticed two consecutive images with the caption "...suicide, rather then surrendering to U.S. somethings". I don't know why but there's something I don't like about that, but I'm having a hard time formulating it- maybe that it gives me the impression that the soldiers were so frightened of the US soldiers that they would rather die than fight them- this may as well be a silly point but I can't help getting that impression. I'm not trying to be anti-American (even though I'm pointing these things out :P), nor am I Japanese or German so I'd like to think I'm relatively unbiased. I just thought I should point the impressions I got from it. :) --BiT (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, some animals do commit suicide. Well, lemmings do, though they may not know they are doing it, they may think the ocean has an opposite shore they are trying to reach. The snare (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
To date, no one has been able to demonstrate definitively
that suicide exists in animals. Lemmings, scorpions, whales, dogs, termites
and other animals do not intentionally kill themselves. And although it is
true that some parasites make their host kill itself1, the use of the world
suicide in animals remains metaphorical. On a different scale, scientists
have observed that some cells self-destruct, particularly during embryonic
development. But it is their environment that causes them to die2.
1. To ensure its own survival, the nematomorph, a parasite of the cricket and
locust, changes the insect's behaviour, causing it to jump into water and
die. Source: Nature, 6 April 2006. 2. This phenomenon of self-destruction,
also known as apoptosis or programmed cell death, is for example responsible
for the formation of the fingers. Without it our hands would be shaped like
mittens.
Eyewitness evidence from Jonestown's defectors/survivors suggests that many victims were coerced at gunpoint to "commit suicide" or murdered by other means if they did not comply with Jim Jones's orders. The majority of the commune's victims may have been murdered rather than willing participants of a suicide plot. The term "peer pressure" is insufficient to cover the causes of the tragedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
This topic indicates no more external links. If that's true, please remove one of the existing ones and add this to replace it. NO external link is more important!
I actually added this link july 16, 2008, but it's not here now. I could not find it anywhere in the logs. As I said then and repeat now, I was myself suicidal and could find no link for help HERE in this entry in Wikipedia ...the most logical place for people in trouble to look and exactly where I came. Had I not stumbled upon the site I'm trying to add, i would not be here now trying to add it. It is respectful, supportive, unbiased, and honest. PLEASE!
There's already is another US-specific anti-suicide link in the external links section. No need to make it two, and stuffing that section with "Please don't kill yourself" links. This article is about the suicide phenomena, and not a hotline for people on the edge. And, to be very frank... During the year when I was close to suicide, if I had read something as rantingly ignorant of what it feels like to be suicidal as the link you want to add, it would have increased the likelihood of me killing myself. Dendlai (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Sati in Hinduism
First of all suicide is bad!!
The practice of Sati is not sanctioned by any authoritative text in Hinduism. It started as a voluntary excessive and peer pressure gradually led to more following during the middle ages. But thankfully apart from a few stray cases, this is unheard of, and outlawed in India today. I should hope somebody changes the "Sati is" on the Suicide page to "Sati was". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.230.53 (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Suicidal Linguistics
See my (Stuart Sovatsky) Words From the Soul: Time, East/West Spirituality and Psychotherapeutic Narrative. (Albany: SUNY Press, 1998)Chapter 2 "Revenge Against Impermanence, Temporal-Spiritual Psychopathology" for a discussion of the grammatics (specifically, the predominant use of the past-tense in narrating one's life-story, as often happens in the course of various forms of psychotherapy, and also the contraction "it's" [all over] that conflates traumatic events of the past into a single, tiny word, "it," coupled to the tiny present-tense of to be, "is" lost in the single "s") of the English language that underlie suicidal language that guides suicidal actions. The chapter also covers themes of existential and Buddhist impermanence of life that suicide hopes to permanently "end." It discusses temporal indeterminacy as a therapeutic basis for hope and relief from the suicidal narrative. The chapter is based on the earlier article in The Review of Existential Psychiatry and Psychology, "Clinical Contemplations on Impermanence: Temporal and Linguistic Factors in Client Hopelessness." 21-23, 1993, 153-79. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartcsova (talk • contribs) 00:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
NERO SUICIDE
The reference for Nero's suicide is correct (29) BUT he did not commit suicide because of the fire of Rome.
I would erase the last part of that sentence; leaving Nero's death as an example of Roman views on disgrace.
I'm NOT doing it as this is a semi-protected page and I'm too lazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slaclos (talk • contribs) 21:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Correction
{{editsemiprotected}}
I have no account, but someone who has might like to correct the following error:
In footnote 28 and under "further reading" the title of the book by Geo Stone is quoted as "Suicide and failed suicide". The real title is "Suicide and attempted suicide".
84.61.8.40 (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
In footnote 28 and under "further reading" the title of the book by Geo Stone is quoted as "Suicide and failed suicide". The real title is "Suicide and attempted suicide".
{{editsemiprotected}}
Please add above link as a reference where 'citation needed is, at end of 'Suicide Locations' paragraph. Reference text: Beachy Head - Suicide Spot, BBC Inside Out. 89.240.13.162 (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me like the article doesn't discuss what mental events transpire while overcoming the survival instinct as a person decides to take their life. As in, how a person rationalizes suicide to the point of trumping this instinct. Does this belong here? --86.197.188.189 (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Impact of suicide
"It is estimated that each suicide in the United States leaves an average of six people intimately affected by the death, either as a spouse, parent, significant other, sibling, or child of the deceased person. These people are referred to as survivors."
It is estimated that 80% of all in home suicide scenes are cleaned up by a close friend, significant other, or a family member. Those that clean up a suicide scene of a close friend, significant other, or a family member are 75% more likely to commit suicide later on in life.
75% more likely than who? than the population at large or other close people who didn't clean up a scene? 75% sounds like a lot but does depression run in families?
'signifigant other' , how about 'lover' or 'partner'
I have removed the text about 'cleaning up' and the 75% statistic as the referenced did not give credible data for the citing of these statistics. Feel free to put them back in if a more sound source can be found.
For your second point about the term 'survivor', this is a very common term used by the mental health service user community - the survivor movement is very well known. See for example these wikipedia pages: World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry, Psychiatric survivors movement. Jenafalt (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Removed Globalize and Refimprove as their placement was judgmental given that there are 50 in-line references, a clear indication of both some cross-country comparisons and appropos this being the English wiki some concentration on the US. The other language wikis have developed articles and the degree of both these attributes is appropriate for the current article length. If they are justified then expand and others probably are as well. Lycurgus (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
-Recently,my book 'Suicide and Evolution: A Philosophical Analysis of the Definition of Suicide and an Examination of the Relationship Between Suicide and Evolution' was published by Muller Verlag- ISBN978-3-639-13444-5. I suggest that the general ideas from this book should be added to the Wikipedia article on Suicide under the section Philosophical Perspectives. I would be happy to provide a summary, in order to increase the common perception of the relationship between suicide and evolution. In my book, I first provide a historical-philosophical account of suicide including Plato, Immanuel Kant, and David Hume. Then I detail the relevant theoretical shifts within evolutionary theory that provide an enhanced understanding of the phenomenon of suicide. Finally, I provide an action theoretic analysis of the definition and extension of suicide. I am new to Wikipedia and apparently cannot change the content of the article, though I assure you that I am well qualified to write on this topic. Metabenji (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! This is not my field of expertise, but as a general advice; perhaps you could write a first revision of your summary in this section and if consensus is to post it, then someone will add it to the actual article. Obviously, correcting errors and adding additional information in this manner would be crude and cumbersome, but for the first revision and as a temporary solution it should be feasible -- until you are able to make changes with your own account. Posix memalign (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
International Association for Suicide Prevention
Hello, you may want to include the International Association for Suicide Prevention (IASP) (www.iasp.info) in your external links. Many thanks Iasp suicide (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The Religion
Under the religion, it states one of the ten commandments as being "thou shall not kill"
This is incorrect for the bible states "thou shall not murder" there is a huge difference between the two--70.128.42.216 (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I am going to start work on universalising the article by taking out the data and diagrams that solely focus on suicide in the USA and adding back in more universal statements. Perhaps the references to suicide in the USA could then be moved into their own page? Jenafalt (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I have significantly cut down the epidemiology of suicide section. I cut out parts that were contradictory, lacked references, were not universal (for example the age pattern of suicide rate differs significantly between countries - the American example given was not standard across even 'developed' countries). I removed the section on season and suicide for lack of references and because it was not universal about misconceptions rather than what actually occured. Jenafalt (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Suicide prevention
I'm looking for opinions on whether or not there should be a short paragraph within the page which is concerned with suicide prevention. I think its missing one. What do you think? Jenafalt (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
develop it into its own article - there's a huge amouunt of infotrmation there. eesopceially when you include suicde prevention acorss diffrentr countries. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Animal Suicide
Is there any information on whether suicide has been observed in animals? A very interesting topic, but there is nothing about it in the article. Suit Endeavour (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
May I add a link to Debt bondage which causes lots of suicide, even in children whose parents can't get out of debt, & being upset about being unable to dress like their friends, do what friends do, etc? Stars4change (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Given that people who are ideating about suicide might search it on the internet and end up here is it appropriate to give a support link here? What do others think? Jenafalt (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
In the article, under the "France" heading, someone stated--"During the Napoleonic era, suicide was seen as an acceptable way to release oneself from a dishonorable circumstance (such as bankruptcy). and i don't like the French".
The latter sentence should be removed. I'm new to editing Wiki articles and I'm not sure if this is the appropriate way to address this, so please forgive my ignorance. Adri71 (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
An editor keeps adding back citations of the watch tower organisation for medical statistics. This is not an appropriate reference per WP:MEDRS. I am not going to revert again as I have aleady reverted this editor twice. I would recommend discussion here if the deletion of the citations are still challenged.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?21:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Completely agree with you LG that watchtower is not a good enough reference. This information is supported by Meel B (2006). "Epidemiology of suicide by hanging in Transkei, South Africa". Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 27 (1): 75–8. doi:10.1097/01.paf.0000202738.28446.4a. PMID16501355. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) "Globally, an estimated 815,000 people killed themselves in 2000, making suicide the 13th leading cause of death.1 During the last 45 years, suicide rates have increased by 60% worldwide. Suicide is now among the 3 leading causes of death of those aged 15–44 years.1,2 Suicide attempts are up to 20 times more frequent than completed suicides.1" Still not completely happy with this ref though.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
IMO images are best if set a default. A couple are currently set at 250. All should be aware that they can set preferences for default pictures from 180 to what ever they wish. Any other thoughts? Removing Antarctica would improve the image.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Since unregistered readers - and that's the vast majority of wikipedia's users - don't have the option of setting preferences, we need to ensure that we don't make the images so small that the very point of them becomes lost, and that is to present information that is better presented visually. I am grateful that James has found a reasonable balance between catering for low resolution displays and the problems of older readers, such as myself, whose visual acuity is not what it was. For those interested in image sizes, there's a discussion on what range of image sizes should be in preferences, and what the default should be, at WT:Image use policy#Proposal to increase the default thumbnail dimensions. --RexxS (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Nice work on the gender specific maps, James. Would you consider that placing them with the subsection "Gender and suicide" would be as appropriate? At present, any browser wider than about 1340px will have the maps floating against the image above it, rather than the right margin. Moving them down a section avoids that problem on all browsers up to and including 1920px wide. --RexxS (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Reffering to the Jim Jones Guyana Massacre, i think it would be great to mention that people were pressured into it did not knowingly drink the poison or have a choice in the matter. The reason for this request is that my aunt died in this massacre and i would like it very much if would do her and me this honor. Respectly, Lenni Johnston. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.45.227 (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Tor PC, Ng BY, Ang YG (2008). "The media and suicide". Ann. Acad. Med. Singap. 37 (9): 797–9. PMID18989499. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Pirkis J, Blood RW (2001). "Suicide and the media. Part I: Reportage in nonfictional media". Crisis. 22 (4): 146–54. PMID11848658.
This one is really interesting Stack S (2005). "Suicide in the media: a quantitative review of studies based on non-fictional stories". Suicide Life Threat Behav. 35 (2): 121–33. doi:10.1521/suli.35.2.121.62877. PMID15843330. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Parasuicide ("suicide attempts") was redirected here almost two years ago, but isn't included in this article. Can someone either fix this omission, or recreate a (properly sourced) article on the subject? (I'm not watching this page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
There's a bit of abuse of statistics here. The article states that 40% of world's suicides are accounted for by Japan, India and China combined. This suggests that that's a high proportion whereas in reality as almost 39% of the world's population lives there, it's hardly a significant statistic.
Can we also say something about the ridiculous introduction? One of the most puzzling, intensely personal experiences in the world and you aim to attribute it to a cluster of mental illnesses and warning signs that precede the act. It is entirely disingenuous and characteristic of mock-objective pseudoscience.
Suicide vs Self-harm
Acts motivated by self-harm are not considered suicidal attempts, as the text points out. But the following sentence, that the is no causal relationship between the two, is unwarranted and controversial. At least one theorist, Thomas Joiner, in "Why people die by suicide",posits that acts of self-harm can precipitate suicide attemps. The author speculates that the experience of pain during self-harm can provide to the sufferer a mental image of what is expected during self-affliction of pain, thereby alleviating some inhibition towards a suicidal attempt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.85.5.20 (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Suicide vis-a-vis afterlife beliefs
One aspect of the "escape" motivation for suicide that I have not seen addressed: Have there ever been studies to determine what percentage of suicides and suicide attempts are undertaken by individuals who believe that death will usher in some sort of better, higher, or even merely benign afterlife (e.g., heaven, reincarnation, etc.) versus those who hold no such beliefs and desire annihilation or non-existence in preference to suffering? If such studies have been done, a brief summation of the findings would be a useful addition to this article. StanislavJ (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
That is is what the article says in the second paragraph, however I can't seem to find solid, recent statistics verifying that suicide is the tenth leading cause of death worldwide. It seems to be generally shown between the 9th and the 14th, but I don't know which is the most accurate and recent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micropsia (talk • contribs) 21:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
This article only discusses humans. Is there any incidence of suicidal behavior in animals? As in, animals that consciously choose to end their lives, not animals who are prone to killing themselves by accident. --86.197.188.189 (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
There have been cases. An octopus that stabbed itself with its beak after being abandoned by its trainers (Reference ~ The Noonday Demon by Andrew Solomon) and dogs that have drowned themselves when they were rejected by their pack or family (Reference ~ The Savage God by A. Alvarez)Neues (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The social insects- ants and termites especially- provide remarkable instances of self sacrifice for the sake of the group. Clearly, these insects lack the intentionality that human being have and thus it is difficult to assert that they are instances of suicide. However, from an evolutionary perspective the instinctual self sacrifice of the soldier ant provides a stronger case for the adaptive nature of the act precisely because humans can have goals other than evolutionary. I take up these issues in 'Suicide and Evolution: A Philosophical Analysis of the Definition of Suicide and an Examination of the Relationship Between Suicide and Evolution' ISBN978-3-639-13444-5. Metabenji (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The only issue there is that (as far as I know) social insects have no morale. There's a theory that the social insect is a superorganism much like the human. We are made up of many individual cells, all of them alive. Like our individual cells, the insects gladly die in order to serve the superorganism. Perhaps that's the case? ReignMan (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC) ReignMan (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Probably not directly. Unless we have a reliable source describing a philosophical reason for suicide, rather than despair and depression which are already covered. An existential crisis is not per se a proximate cause of suicide. I'll add that if most people were honest about their day jobs, they'd probably identify with Sisyphus too.Mattnad (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Suicide And A Tendency To Creative Writing
There should be something about the tendency, particularly among journalists, to view suicides as an opportunity to practice one's creative writing. For example, journalists often completely ignore the sources of authoritative information on suicide, such as the CDC's fact sheets (www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/index.html), in favor of something out of their own imagination.Godofredo29 (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you care to pull at least one example out of an orafice of your choosing? I'm not saying you're not right, I'm just saying I have no idea where you are going with this or what you are trying to say. What exactly are people imagining and how does this contradict the "facts"? I'm truly interested. 213.167.158.254 (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
In the "Substance Abuse Section" it is claimed that "Up to 25% of drug addicts and alcoholics commit suicide". This seems to be an outrageously high number; I have known many alcoholics and drug addicts and not a single one has committed suicide. Such a dramatic claim should be supported by a proper citation; however, there is no citation to substantiate the claim that one in four addicts will kill themselves. I tried to remove the line, but I don't think I am able to edit this page, so if anyone can edit this page please remove the line or provide a proper citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.128.166 (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
A The article is on human suicide. There are many instances of self destruction in the animal kingdom. Whales and dolphins occasionally take part in mass beachings, when they are put back into deep water they turn around and beach themselves again and die. Is it suicide in the human sense? Did they all lose their jobs at the same time? Black widow spiders kill the male after mating, so do praying mantis' etc. Somehow putting in that salmonella commit suicide is comical in a dark sort of way. 7mike5000 (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
What is "the human sense" of suicide? If it is being human, then that's circular reasoning. If this article is about human suicide, then why does it include "living beings" in its opening sentence? Evidently other editors would support a broader definition, so it is conjectural. These articles question the notion that animals can not commit suicide. [11][12][13] What sources can you provide that state that suicide is exclusively a human phenomenon? ArtistScientist (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
It says "living being" because I changed it yesterday. :) But aside from that, perhaps it will help suicidal humans, and anyone else interested in human suicide, put things in perspective if they understand the role of suicide in the animal world? We can eventually split off human suicide to suicide (human) or human suicide if necessary, or break off suicide in animals or suicide in non-humans into a separate article or heading if needed. Tisanetalk/stalk15:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding animal suicide: most of the examples appear to fall into the area of self-sacrifice, which is explicitly excluded in the definition of suicide in this article. Perhaps they'd be more appropriate there? Dcoetzee17:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem is, if self-sacrifice and suicide are deemed to be mutually exclusive, where do you draw the line and say that killing oneself is self-sacrifice rather than suicide? Suppose someone kills himself in order to draw attention to a political cause. Does that count as self-sacrifice or suicide? I would argue that it would be both, and most sources that I'm finding on Google Scholar seem to support that view. Plus the articles on animal suicide call self-sacrifice "suicide." Tisanetalk/stalk18:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Leave the section where it is it's perfect. After someone with suicidal ideations depresses the crap out of themselves reading about suicide, they can read "Some species of termites have soldiers that explode, covering their enemies with sticky goo"
Hi, I am concerned by the level of detail contained in the entry for 'suicide'. I am aware that there are strict guidelines journalists have to adhere to when reporting any information about suicide. I wondered why these do not apply to Wikipedia. I have lost people close to me to suicide and am worried that Wikipedia's entry reads very much like an irresponsible 'how to' guide in places. This could prove fatal to a vulnerable, distressed person trawling the internet for sources of support and help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.77.107 (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The page does not read like a how-to guide. It does contain discussion of the various methods, historical and modern, by which suicide has commonly been performed, but this is an obvious and essential part of an encyclopedic article on suicide. If you have a concern with a specific part of the article, the best place to bring it up would be the article talk page, in this case Talk:Suicide. --erachimatalk17:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand your concerns here, but discussing suicide without discussing methods of suicide would be omitting critical information that is important for the many people who are not suicidal to understand the topic and its importance. I think the article is fine as it stands, particularly in light of the inconclusive scientific studies regarding whether exposure to information about suicide motivates suicide (mentioned in this article). Dcoetzee17:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I would object to that whole principle of ignorance is strength, that holds that we can prevent suicide by getting rid of information about it. True, we would perhaps reduce the number of people who commit suicide after reading our suicide-related articles, but correlation is not causation. It is quite possible that a lot of suicidal people struggle to understand their feelings, and in their search for meaning, browse through our articles after doing a Google search. Much of the suicide-related information on the Internet is biased one way or the other, or laden with emotional propaganda, and thus not ideal for people who try to approach such decisions from a logical, unbiased point of view. Wikipedia can hopefully provide a source of balanced, factual information that will be useful to researchers attempting to understand suicide epidemics, suicidal people themselves, surviving family members of suicides, etc.
Even the suicide methods page can serve a legitimate harm reduction purpose. E.g., if people know that laying on a railroad track is not a surefire method of painless suicide, maybe they won't do that. Likewise, it might cause someone to reconsider his plan to kill himself with a .22 caliber rifle when he finds out that can cause permanent brain damage without killing him. More information is a good thing; consider that we also have pages on cross site scripting that could be useful to newbie hackers, but the info is probably even more useful to those seeking to safeguard their sites from such hackers. Tisanetalk/stalk19:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
To me, it is also a question of democracy and egalitarianism (as in all people should be treated as equals and have the same rights). With maybe a few exceptions, I think it is fundamentally wrong if some people would have information that they think other people should not have access to, even if this would be "for their own good". For me, this is basically the idea with Wikipedia: information available to all. Also information on suicide. Lova Falktalk16:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Glamorizing suicide increases the rate of suicide. This is something some media has done in the past. There is no evidence that discussing the risk / treatment / etc. for suicide has this effect. I do not think this wiki page glamorizes suicide and therefor feel these concerns are misplaced.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
psychological causes reverted edits
I have reverted these changes until they can be added again with a better range of sources. There is a great deal of debate about the psychological causes of suicide and this needs to be reflected in a discussion which gives information from a wider range of sources. These sources are all articles by the same person (and give links to a personal webpage at manchester university). Since the user who added these pages also added similar text to other pages on the same day and citing the same sources then it looks also as if this might be some sort of academic self-promotion. Jenafalt (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Doubtful this is academic self-promation. When I read up on an author I go and look to see what info from that author I can add to Wikipedia. Probably a similar occurrence here.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I must have been in a grumpy mood when I made that comment. I was just alerted to the fact that this person had added work from the same sources to multiple pages after not having edited Wikipedia since last year. It rang some alarm bells. I'll try to not be so suspicious in the future! To clarify - I think it would be fine to re-add this information to the page, but it needs to be much more balanced as the text and related sources that were added only relate to one small aspect of this very complex and contentious issue. Jenafalt (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Kk np, although thanks for the idea of using Wikipedia for self-promotion. I'll be sure to do that with my own works in the future. :PWikiposter0123 (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Minor Edit in Introduction
The first sentence read "Suicide is the act of a human being intentionally causing his own death." I changed it from "his" to "his or her", because suicide can be attributed to both men and women. If anyone wishes to change it back or change it to something else, they are welcome to do so, but I do not think it should only be attributed to men.
LaughinSkull (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I've moved your post to the bottom since older posts go at the top and newer ones begin at the bottom. I've changed "his or her" to "their", thanks for bringing this to our attention.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Picture
Debated image. Person depicted(Thomas Chatterton) became a symbol of the "tragic genius" after his suicide and depictions of him in art(multiple poems and paintings) is usually heavily romanticized.Suggested alternative. Depiction of a generic suicide by Manet. Won't conjure up the same connotations as using Thomas Chatterton.
I'd like to suggest that the picture of Thomas Chatterton be removed, or at least displayed less prominently in the article. The article is not about suicide in the romantic movement, romantic literature, or other such subjects - it's about suicide in general. A picture of a Romantic poet is hardly appropropriate to an article about a mental health care issue of this kind. It also runs the risk of glamorizing suicide, making it look exciting, sexy, romantic or whatever. Surely it's obvious that we shouldn't be doing that? UserVOBO (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
That dead person, Thomas Chatterton became a symbol for the tragic, brilliant artistic genius who perished under a non-understanding world, and that image does highly romanticize it(as was the artist's intent).
Another image you could use would be Manet's Le Suicide. Using the image of Chatterton is POV because it might seem like we are suggesting those who commit suicide are usually geniuses who are misunderstood by the world(instead of depressed, upper middle class white males).Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
It's supposed to be an academic article on suicide. Including any depiction of a person who is supposed to be dead, via suicide or any other means serves no valid purpose. People who are having suicidal ideations have a tendency to look up "suicide" on the internet, an example is the author Iris Chang. The article gets on average 5k hits a day.[14]. It's not a far stretch of the imagination to say a large majority of those 5k visitors may be contemplating suicide. If any article requires tact and common sense this one does.
When a person is suicidal there is a tendency to try and find external sources to give validity to a course of action, whether or not they should die. An image depicting a dead person may seem innocuous to many, but to a person who is suicidal it can become an object of fixation....A negative one. 7mike5000 (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Especially when the image features a tragic artist lying in his bleak, dark room, with the light of the sunrise filtering through the window and landing upon his body, but not lighting up other parts of the room.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
A drawing of a dead person is not the form of content that promotes suicide if you read the literature. This appears to be an effort to suppress content. With respect to glamorizing suicide anyone heard of Romeo and Juliet?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Sexual Orientation
I think there's a bit of a problem with the wording under this heading. It says:
"It appears that about one in three teen aged suicides is by a gay or lesbian. Since homosexuals represent only about 5% of the population, gays and lesbians are greatly over-represented."
I'm not sure if it is gramatically incorrect to use "gay" as a noun, but it is certainly offensive. As well as this, the author has not specified that the statistics are from the US. Perhaps this sentance should instead read thus:
"It appears that, of the teenagers who commit suicide in the US, about one in three are known to be gay. As only approximately 5% of the population is openly gay, this statistic suggests that teenagers who are gay are far more likely to commit suicide than those who not."
However, since the pervious sentence was copied directly from a website which does not seem particularly reliabe, and is very vague about facts, I think it would be better to use the more convincing evidence from and existing Wikiedpia article entitled "Suicide among LGBT youth":
A 1989 U.S. government study found that LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender) youth are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than other young people.[1] This finding was supported by a 2001 study that found LGBT adolescents 2.3-2.5 times more likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual peers.[2]
And I copied their references:
1 ^ Feinleib, Marcia R., Ed. Report of the Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide. Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (DHHS/PHS), Rockville, MD. 1989
2 ^ Russell ST, Joyner K (August 2001). "Adolescent sexual orientation and suicide risk: evidence from a national study". Am J Public Health 91 (8): 1276–81. PMID11499118. PMC 1446760. http://www.ajph.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=11499118.
I would suggest also linking this page, but since the Suicide article is not specific to America as this LGBT article seems (for some reason) to be only about the US, this does not seem like such a good idea. Certainly I think that this section should include statistics about other countries, which I will spend some time finding later.
In The Godfather Part II (1974), Corleone Family consiglieri, Tom Hagen, and caporegime, Frank Pentangeli, make a deal. The Family will take care of Frank's dependents if Frank - who entered the Witness Protection Program and intended to testify about the Corleone Family's criminal activities in court, but ultimately did not - will pay penance for the intended disloyalty by slitting his wrists, Roman style, while taking a bath.
Heathers (1989) deals with the themes of individual and mass suicide by teenagers.
The 1993 novel, The Virgin Suicides, and the 1999 film based on the book center on the suicides of five sisters in Grosse Pointe, Michigan during the 1970s. The Lisbon girls' suicides fascinate their community as their neighbors struggle to find an explanation for the acts.
Television
HBO's series, The Sopranos, frequently addresses the theme of suicide.
Several other characters contemplate, threaten, or bungle suicide attempts: Tony Soprano's ex-comare, Irina, threatens to kills herself (in "The Knight in White Satin Armor"), Artie Bucco - perhaps Tony's best friend - attempts suicide by mixing pills and liquor (in "Everybody Hurts"), A.J. Soprano unsuccessfully attempts suicide by drowning (in "The Second Coming") - which is fortunate, since he ultimately wants to live - and Tony's sister, Janice Soprano, confides to Bobby Baccalieri (in "Pie-O-My") that she came close to shooting herself when her husband left her, but was saved by thoughts of her son, Harpo.
The British soap opera series, Brookside, regularly wrote characters out by means of suicide, such as Petra Taylor, Theresa Nolan, Liam Riley, Graeme Curtis, Clive Crosbie and Simon Howe - who committed suicide - and Gladys Charlton - who died after an assisted suicide.
{{edit semi-protected}}
"Counter-arguments include the following: that the sixth commandment is more accurately translated as "thou shalt not murder", not necessarily applying to the self; that taking one's own life no more violates God's Law than does curing a disease; and that a number of suicides by followers of God are recorded in the Bible with no dire condemnation.[98]" should be omitted because in Catholic doctrine there is no arguing whether or not suicide is a sin, it is a sin beacause murdering also includes yourself.
i also think that methods of suicide should be ommitted so that people wont get ideas of how to commit suicide.
Whether one believes suicide is a great evil from which a person must be rescued from, or whether one views the choice between life or death as a basic human right - it's impossible to deny that this is a matter of (polarising) debate. The article currently bears six external links, *all* six fervently in support of the former stance. Can we balance this out a little?
It's as if the 'external links' on the Homosexuality page were to point to, say, some speech from the Pope, Ann Coulter's website, and the Westboro Baptist Church... it just makes an otherwise very good article look unnecessarily 'opinionated'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.74.250 (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if maybe it would be a good idea to add a hatnote suggesting the user where he could find help should the individual want to commit suicide. I know there are some links at the bottom but maybe something more visible might help better? when you make a google search for suicide there is a link to the National Suicide Prevention Line in the US. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Has been suggested many times and we should not place this sort of information at the top of the page. It may be appropriate to discuss it in the treatment section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Semi-vandalism by user Camilo Sanchez, and page is still protected, please remove
Over two days have passed since user 'Camilo Sanchez' added an utterly un-encyclopedic (not to mention bigoted) link at the top of this page. Could someone whose account is privileged enough kindly revert back to the last good edit, by user 'GraemeS'? Tiresias79 (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Please include Samaritans of Singapore (SOS) in the External Links section as this can be a relevant site (www.sos.org.sg) for users who may want to find out more about suicide prevention and resources.
SOS is a non-profit organization which aims to provide 24-hour confidential emotional support to people in crisis, thinking of suicide or affected by suicide in Singapore.
SOS is also an affliation of Befrienders Worldwide, which is listed as an external link.
Thank you for your consideration.
{{edit semi-protected}}
"Since homosexuals represent only about 5% of the population, gays and lesbians are greatly over-represented."
Given the disputed numbers of the people who are homosexual/bisexual, either self-identified or in practice, the percentage of people who are homosexual in the article should be footnoted / commented that the 5% figure is disputed. Reference the percentage of people who engage in homosexual acts in the Kinsey Report and other more recent studies.
Nearly 10% of Self-Proclaimed 'Straight' Men Only Have Sex With Men
By Daniel J. DeNoon
WebMD Health NewsReviewed by Louise Chang, MD
Sept. 18, 2006 --
Nearly one in 10 men who say they're straight have sex only with other men, a New York City survey finds.
And 70% of those straight-identified men having sex with men are married.
In fact, 10% of all married men in this survey report same-sex behavior during the past year.
This is not appropriately referenced. Ie. the source is not reliable. Thus removed.
===Sexual Orientation===Data concerning young homosexuals is somewhat unreliable. It appears that about one in three teen aged suicides is by a gay or lesbian. Since homosexuals represent only about 5% of the population, gays and lesbians are greatly over-represented.[1]
Several population-based studies have reported an elevated risk of death by suicide [2]
suicide attempts [3]
and suicide ideation among traumatic brain injury survivors [4]
It has been suggested that this is related to hormone deficiencies caused by pituitary damage, a frequent concomitant of head injury [5][6]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joannalane48 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
suicide risk factors
Please change (under heading Suicide Risk Factors - Biological") the following
BiologicalGenetics has an effect on suicide risk[57] accounting for 30–50% of the variance.[58] Much of this relationship acts through the heritability of mental illness.[58] There is also evidence to suggest that if a parent has committed suicide, it is a strong predictor of suicide attempts among the offspring.[59]
to
BiologicalGenetics has an effect on suicide risk[57] accounting for 30–50% of the variance.[58] Much of this relationship acts through the heritability of mental illness.[58] There is also evidence to suggest that if a parent has committed suicide, it is a strong predictor of suicide attempts among the offspring.[59]
Several population-based studies have reported an elevated risk of death by suicide, [1] suicide attempts, [2] and suicide ideation among traumatic brain injury survivors [3]. It has been suggested that this is related to hormone deficiencies caused by pituitary damage, a frequent consequence of head injury [4], [5].
[edit] = References =1.^ Teasdale TW, Engberg AW, “Suicide after traumatic brain injury: a population study.” J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry (2001; 71: 436-440)
2.^ Silver JM, Kramer R, Greenwald S, Weissman M, “The Association between head injuries and psychiatric disorders: findings from the New Haven NIMH Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study,” Brain Inj (2001: 15: 935-945)
3.^ Simpson G, Tate R. “Suicidality after traumatic brain injury: demographic, injury and clinical correlates.” Psychological Medicine (2002; 32: 687-98)
4.^ Popovic V, Aimaretti G, Casanueva FF, Ghigo E. “Hypopituitarism following traumatic brain injury.” Growth Hormone and IGF Research (2005; 15: 3: 177-184)
5.^ Schneider HJ, Kreitschmann-Andermahr I, Ghigo E, Stalla GK, Agha A. “Hypothalamopituitary dysfunction following traumatic brain injury and aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. A systematic review.” JAMA (2007; 26:1429-38)
Not done: there are plenty of external links already and this one is non-notable and not suicide-specific. — Bility (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Confusing percentages of drug addicts and alcoholics - numbers don't add up
This phrase raises some questions: "Up to 25% of drug addicts and alcoholics commit suicide ...[30]" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1932152). While it is cited, and not a dead link, it is only a link to an abstract and not the entire article.
However, the WHO also says that there are over 140 million alcoholics worldwide (http://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/2001/english/20010219_youngpeoplealcohol.en.html). If the original citation in the suicide entry is correct (25% of alcoholics and drug addicts commit suicide), the number of suicides would 35 million counting ONLY alcoholics. I wonder if the original citation (to the abstract) meant to say that 25% of suicide victims are attributable to alcohol/drug abuse? It appears the numbers don't add up and that something is amiss here.
Possible for a small Wikipedia-style banner up the top linking to help for people considering suicide?
Guys, I realize that Wikipedia is meant to be a "Neutral" and empirical source of knowledge that has a strict set of rules and guidelines. That being said; it's a reasonable assumption to make that people considering committing suicide would looking at the topic on the internet. Wikipedia is one of the internet's largest websites; links to it are vast and everyone knows about it. Could a banner be placed at the top of this article linking to help for people considering suicide? I just Googled "suicide" and the first thing that is shown in the Google result is the same kind of banner that I'm talking about (I'm not basing this discussion point on that, Google seem to have independently thought up the idea; a friend recently took his own life prompting me to make this post. See: http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Suicide). If wikipedia can run a massive banner above every page thanking the New South Wales Library of Australia for donating works, I think it could manage a small banner label offering help for those contempating suicide. If it takes the breaking of one Wikipedia rule, and ends up saving one lift, it will have all been worth it. Skythe (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
One question is how would we make it location specific. Does Africa or India have help lines like this? Some are listed here [16] but it does not appear to be national in India. How about registered users? Would we turn it off for them or is it possible to determine there IP? Also is there any evidence that these help lines actually decrease suicide. I do not know which I why I am asking. This BTW has been discussed a number of times before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Review article from 2007 Sakinofsky, I (2007 Jun). "The current evidence base for the clinical care of suicidal patients: strengths and weaknesses". Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie. 52 (6 Suppl 1): 7S–20S. PMID17824349. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help):
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.
STRONG OPPOSE. Wikipedia articles have no separate disclaimers. Wikipedia does have a neutrality policy, and it will be neutral even to the topic of suicide, NO MATTER WHAT. Putting up any kind of notice at this page would be a direct violation of this principle. If we do that, then we might as well hand the whole website over to Evangelical Christian radicals. --87.78.131.12 (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Suicide prevention sounds like a universal good. I think a link to suicide prevention free telephone calls (800 numbers) sounds like a wholesome idea that few would object to. I approve of the idea. Bus stop (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Universal good? Go proselytize elsewhere. Wikipedia is to remain completely neutral on the matter of suicide, like on everything else. Wikipedia as a neutral encyclopedic project can neither approve nor disapprove in any way, shape or form of suicide, the people who contemplate it, or the fact that they contemplate it. You think that suicide is a bad thing. That is a purely subjective viewpoint and renders you unfit to edit this article. Period. --78.35.210.84 (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Doc James—how would one prove that a person who called a "suicide prevention hotline" and did not commit suicide—would have committed suicide if they had not called that telephone number? There is a saying, a cliche, that it is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness. The telephone number provided, in the banner being considered, is the analogue to providing the candle in the aforementioned cliche. It is actually a "human" touch. I don't really think there is any argument to be made in opposition to providing the sort of "banner" that Google provides. To argue against the inclusion of such a banner is to argue for "coldness" and "impersonality". It might not prevent suicide. But the inclusion of such a message is the right thing to do. Google reaches that conclusion, I think it is safe to say. Bus stop (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
You have failed to reply to my points above. Even if it made a difference and saved lives, we are not here to judge people for wanting to commit suicide. Go to some Christian website, this encyclopedic project is COMPLETELY NEUTRAL on all issues, including suicide. --78.35.195.4 (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
One could find two comparable communities. Create a suicide prevention line for one and not for the other than determine if there is a difference in completed / attempted suicides in the two communities.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I dont like it but I must say that wikipedia must remain neutral, if you can not uphold your own principles why have principles at all.This site is for information and facts not a site for "touchy-feely you have a reason to live" if you want that just google suicide there is the number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.159.20 (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I came here to suggest the same thing today. I believe that this can be done in a neutral way. Such as "Phone numbers are available to those in crisis. Click Here to see a list" Just informing people of their existence and the actual numbers. This would provide crisis hotlines to those in need in a way without bias, with it near the top it would be very useful to those who are searching specifically for that possibly time sensitive information. DeSalvionjrTalkContribs23:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
If you google suicide it just has a little "need help?" thing and a phone number for a local samaritans service at the top. Would that be so unthinkably against the rules? Wikiditm (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on this specific matter either way, but whenever someone proposes an additional banner or warning with the intention of being helpful or informative to other Wikipedia users, it's immediately shot down because Wikipedia already has a disclaimer. I'd just like to point out that disclaimers aren't (and aren't meant to be) helpful or informative to users (who rarely read them, if ever) but only to relinquish any assumed responsibility. A hotline banner is not a disclaimer. Wikipedia is not obligated to take measures to prevent suicide, but that does not preclude it from doing so. The issue here is whether Wikipedia should take a stance on the issue of suicide itself, i.e., against suicide. While this would go against Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, one could argue that Wikipedia does occasionally go against that policy on some issues, e.g., the pro-Wikipedia stance illustrated by banners asking for donations. OzW (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Adding a message at the top of this article as proposed is an excellent idea. While there's a general consensus against adding banners, we also have a policy of ignoring all rules that stand in the way of improving Wikipedia, and this would be a significant improvement. If it saves a single life, as it is likely to do so given that the article gets thousands of views per day, it would be worthwhile. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
That's where the issue lies though. That same argument could apply to the Abortion page, which would obviously be much more controversial. I know suicide prevention might seem to be universally supported, but there's also a similar position of pro-choice (so to speak). OzW (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I see the relevance here, and we're talking about this article, not the abortion article. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy applies to all articles. It'd be naive to have this discussion without considering the precedent that would be set here. OzW (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
OPPOSE I have requested evidence and have not been presented any showing benefit. If people are concerned they should research the evidence about effective prevention techniques and add them. Adding potentially unfounded info does not fulfill WP:RSDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
If anything, there should be a section on how attitudes about suicidal people need to change. Suicidal people are treated like they have the plague. Their symptoms are treated (not by doctors...) by people as selfish. Their symptoms are treated like it isn't worthy of being spoken about. Too often people either brush off a suicidal person by not wanting to talk to them (I am thinking of friends and family) or they give them the 'get over it' or 'get over yourself' sort of conversation. None of those attitudes are helpful at all when someone is truely depressed and hopeless.Mylittlezach (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
We would need to begin by describing what the attitudes are. There is a better chance of finding reliable sources on that. Suicide is also commonly associated with mental illness in the first world which may be the basis for the above observations... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Suicide legislation section
The suicide legislation section in this article has limited information and the link it provides to the 'main' article has even LESS information. Suicide used to be illegal in the USA. I was looking on here to see if it still is. Where is all the legislation information? There is nothing except a blip about Brazil and Germany. I looked years ago and there was more information. Please have someone redo that main article on Suicide Legislation with some real information.Mylittlezach (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I wish I had access to WestLaw or some other legal online resources, but, alas, I do not. I did wade through about 20 pages on the internet. I did find one site that appears to be reliable. I do not think I have the literary chops to write for Wikipedia. Here is the link: http://www.freelawanswer.com/law/1507-1.html
Should hunger striking be included in this article as a form of suicide? If so, the current version implies that hunger striking, and indeed suicide as a protest, are purely Irish phenomenons, and that is not true. If hunger striking ending in death is to be accepted as a form of suicide, we must also accept that Mohandas Gandhi attempted suicide. The article Hunger Strike contains more global examples.Quasihuman (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I have placed a globalize template on this section. In addition to the one-country view, I have doubts about the source that apparently says that hunger strike is attempted suicide, it appears to be an opinion piece in a philosophy journal, and just represents one point of view, and even that source says that there is debate about whether this is suicide or not. Perhaps a compromise would be to represent this issue as something under debate, and detailing the two sides of the debate (if references can be found). Quasihuman | Talk16:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Youth Suicide warrants it's own page. The issues that lead to and the impact of Youth suicide are not exactly the same as in the case of adult suicide (not suggesting in any way that one is more or less acceptable/worse/has more impact etc than the other). For example, young people can be more influenced by the suicide of a celebrity or idol, and youth specific services are already rare and young peoples experience is mostly that they get channeled into a generalist service developed more with adults in mind. I believe it would be an error to follow that same pattern here. I think the article could be further improved by adding youth specific data and material about successful interventions from around the world.
In terms of neutrality I see no conflict with the notion that a section about services supporting young people seeking help, it could describe the modality of different services and external websites relevant to the content could be listed at the bottom of the page.
Need Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Need Peace (talk • contribs) 19:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Epidemiology
The intro of the article lists suicide as 13th leading cause of death, the epidemiology section lists it as 10th, and the actual linked epidemiology article lists it as 12th. A little clarification on these numbers seems necessary. 96.53.84.50 (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
A high quality review was remove and thus I restored it
With the rise of people finding how to commit suicide, using forums and websites to establish suicide pacts, watch suicides "live" (no pun intended), goad people into doing it (fake pacts) and finding others to enter a downward spiral with - the effect of internet on suicide promotion and prevention is notable, imho - not unlike the pro-anorexia crowd on the internet. For or against? Any good sources? Pär Larsson (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure how the fact that psychiatric disorders are associated with self harm relates to prevention of self harm? Thus I have moved this content to the causes section that discusses the relationship between psychiatric disorders and self harm where it is better placed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Image
The article's main image, The Death of Chatterton was removed. Since this is a fairly major change and was not discussed, and especially because it wasn't replaced, I've restored it for the time being. I'm not particularly opposed to having another image if another one would be better, but I'm not convinced by the stated reason for removal, that it romanticizes suicide. I'm not sure that it does so and I'm not sure that if it did it would violate NPOV: you could argue that the main image for the article on lions romanticizes lions, but would that be the same as arguing that it was POV? Does anyone have a better image to suggest, or any other thoughts on the image? GideonF (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
No offense the picture "The Death of Chatterton" or any similar image is something one would expect to see on a tennage emo girls Myspace page not on an 'encyclopedic' article on suicide. If there is a good reason to keep the image can somebody state that in terms other than "it's the best image we have thus returned".
The reason "The Death of Chatterton" should be kept on the Suicide article is: (place reason here, for example: it looks pretty and the model used kind of looks like Danny Bonaduce from the Partridge Family)
The lion example is not a good comparison unless suicidal lions are reading the page. And from my understanding we don't place images on pages just for "decoration". The image adds nothing to the understanding of suicide, it detracts from the credibility of Wikipedia and it very definitely does romanticize suicide that is self-evident by looking at it...but there are also references. Just Google "The death of chatterton romanticizes suicide"[17] Here are some of the results:
"In the work of the 19th century, the influence of the romantic period is evident in the work of painters such as Henry Wallis, whose The Death of Chatterton (1856) surely serves to romanticize the suicide of the 17-year-old poet". Handbook of death & dying, Volume 1 By Clifton D. Bryant p. 993 [18].
"...which resulted in the emergence of romanticized suicide. It was the Romantics, in the figures of Chatterton and Werther, who made suicide not only acceptable, but a mark of honor genius and cultivation. Breaking the thread of life: on rational suicide By Robert Laurence Barry p.73[19]
"both at the Cenotaph and in the romantic dirges surrounding Chatterton's death, the real brutality, crudeness and often sheer mess of suicide is ignored." Suicide--the ultimate rejection?: a psycho-social study by Colin Pritchard Open University Press, 1995
"One of the most romanticized suicides in Western literature is that of the English poet Thomas Chatterton" Suicide: theory and clinical aspects by L. D. Hankoff, Bernice Einsidler - 1979
"Wallis, the painter, romanticizes the early death of a young poet who was celebrated by just about every romantic writer since Chatterton's suicide took place. ... Dante Gabriel Rossetti, poet and painter by by Eben Bass (1990)7mike5000 (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think other editors will appreciate your combative tone. Please remember to be civil. I'm not sure what a list of Googled quotes is supposed to prove other than there are at least five people in the world who argee with you that the image romanticizes suicide, which I think we could have taken as read. I'm not aware of a wikipedia policy which forbids images that could be said to romanticize their subjects.GideonF (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how my reply can be construed as "combative" and your reply is anything but so please remember to be civil.To answer your questions:
"I'm not sure what a list of Googled quotes is supposed to prove other than there are at least five people in the world who argee with you that the image romanticizes suicide."That's called a rude comment, The "Googled quotes" are called references, please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and also Wikipedia:Verifiability
"I'm not aware of a wikipedia policy which forbids images that could be said to romanticize their subjects." Please read: Wikipedia:Image use policy specifically the section on "Content" which states: "Images on Wikipedia should be used in an encyclopedic manner. They should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article."
Here are some more "people in the world who argee with you that the image romanticizes suicide" in case no one else has "taken as read":
The Heroic Ideal: Western Archetypes from the Greeks to the Present By M. Gregory Kendrick, p. 140[20]
Life sentences: the modern ordering of mortality By Zohreh Bayatrizi p. 89 [21]
A Handbook for the study of suicide by Seymour Perlman (1975) pp. 32-37
When We Die: The Science, Culture, and Rituals of Death By Cedric Mims p.39[22]
A mighty mass of brick and smoke: Victorian and Edwardian representations of London By Lawrence Alfred Phillips pp. 26-29[23]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, what is placed on it should be based on fact. I am not the only one to question the placement of the image on the page. I've stated the facts with references and citing Wikipedia policy why it should not be used, so unless you or someone else can do otherwise there is no plausible reason for the image to be there except for temper tantrums and bulllying. 7mike5000 (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Posting like that and claiming not to see how it is combative would be surprising coming from anyone. Coming from someone with your history on Wikipedia, it makes it difficult to assume good faith. Also, this is a talk page; not an article. You don't need to back up all your opinions with references here, all you're achieving is to take up space and break the formatting. Now, whether the image increases readers' understanding of the subject matter is one of the things we're here to discuss (it may be that is does not, but it's been stably in the article for almost three years and a consensus will be necessary to remove it); however, it is unarguably relevant and unarguably depicts the contents described in the article (i.e., suicide). That a picture could be argued to romanticize the subject matter is not policy grounds for its removal.GideonF (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Gideon only in so far as it strikes me that the picture is perhaps not in violation of any policy. So perhaps we can only deal with this as a subjective matter. My personal opinion is that the picture looks out of place. OK, we're all going to look at the picture and think "that man has killed himself" because it's on the suicide article. Out of context, the image at that size and ignorant of the man depicted in it, it could be someone sleeping. Suicide is a common cause of death, often borne of treatable mental health issues. I'm not sure our could-be-slumbering, poetic-looking friend is really suitable as a totem for the article. I'm not sure any image would be, really. So my preference would be to ditch it or move it elsewhere in the article. I'd prefer something, if an image has to be used, that speaks of the science of suicide rather than the art. --bodnotbod (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Knowledge of the context is necessary to understanding the lead images in a lot of articles. If you look at the article on Columbus, Ohio, you'll be unsurprised to learn that it leads with a picture of Columbus, Ohio. If you don't know which city the article's about, and you've never been to Columbus, it's just a picture of a city that could be any city. I am aware of no compelling argument for the article on suicide not to open with a picture of a suicide. Hypothetically, we could have a photograph of someone committing suicide (e.g., Budd Dwyer or Thich Quang Duc), but I think that would be in poor taste and I think most people would agree with me; so, I prefer an artistic rendering of suicide. Among artistic renderings of suicide, few that spring to mind are as well known or well regarded as The Death of Chatterton (perhaps The Suicide by Manet, but if a romantic painting of a suicide romanticizes suicide, I worry that an impressionist painting of a suicide might impressionize suicide).GideonF (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that an image of an actual suicide would be gratuitous and hard to justify. Similarly anything that depicted a method, such as a stark picture of a noose or pills spilled out on a table would not be appropriate. Well, I have no intention of removing the image. I will just restate that, personally... I guess what I don't like about it is that it's a very peaceful image. Quite often a suicidally depressed person longs for peace. So I feel that, in that regard, the picture is sort of a positive depiction of suicide. Anyway, I shall say no more for now. The debate is begun, so let's see if anyone else has feelings about it that would move this discussion on. --bodnotbod (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
You've managed to do two things there, neither of them very helpful to the discussion. Firstly you've denied that Wikipedia is something that nobody has attempted to claim it is. And then you've asserted something stridently, in the face of at least two people who beg to differ, without giving anything material in support of it. When there is a discussion saying "this is so" (unless it's something that can be verified) doesn't really get us very far. This is clearly a matter of subjective taste. --bodnotbod (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
While nobody has claimed that Wikipedia is literally a patient handout, 7mike5000 (whose idea removing the image was in the first place) has basically admitted that a big part of the reason he wants the image removed is because of effects he believes it might have on suicidal persons who read the article, and you've hinted at the same yourself. However laudable a desire to discourage suicide might be, it is not an objective that is shared by Wikipedia, which is not censored, contains content that may be objectionable, and attempts to maintain a neural point of view.GideonF (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't looking for the internet drama but but I guess that's par for the course here. If we could discuss the image without trying to obfuscate the facts with my alleged "comabative behavior" which is your opinion. This is the only article of 3.7 million where the person viewing is at risk of killing themselves. That fact seems to be lost on people, the cavalier attitude displayed citing not censored, contains content that may be objectionable,I personally find reprehensible, but that's just me. The fact that the image romantacizes suicide is a given, giving examples like lions and Columbus, Ohio is illogical not everyone knows what Columbus, Ohio looks like most people including young children know what "dead" looks like. Any image of a dead body even what may seem innocuous is gratuitous, unnecessary and trivializes what the a person who is contemplating suicide is going through.
I know the page is not a "patient handout" if it was all they are going to find out here is how to kill themselves and what book they can find the details in, what movie they could watch showing others killing themselves others or they can read about "suicide in other species" how bugs kill themselves. What they can't find is any viable information on how to save their lives; the prevention section merely states that calling a suicide hotline there is "little evidence to support or refute their effectiveness". A little tact and common sense goes along way.7mike5000 (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know where you got the idea that this is the only article on Wikipedia that is ever going to be read by someone at risk of killing themselves, but that's by the by. If you find WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored and WP:CODI reprehensible, maybe Wikipedia just isn't the project for you. Wikipedia provides information, not advice. It's not here to tell people that they should or shouldn't kill themselves. If the subject's so close to your heart that you can't take a neutral point of view on it, maybe you should step back from it.
If you think there should be more information on suicide prevention in the article, put some in, but that there is little evidence to support the effectiveness of suicide hotlines at reducing suicide rates is properly sourced and referenced information: that's the Surgeon General of the United States says about the evidence. If you have any reliably sourced information about what is effective at preventing suicide then by all means add it to the article.
I say again that the only reason you have given to remove the image that is consistent with Wikipedia policy is the argument that no image is necessary to aid the understanding of the topic, and I don't think a consensus yet exists on that point. The guidelines at WP:Images encourage the use of images, stating "Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions [...] rather than deleting them—especially on pages which lack visuals," so I think it would be more constructive to suggest an image that you think would be an improvement rather than call for the page to lack visuals.GideonF (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Not for nothing for somebody that equates lions and Columbus, Ohio to a topic concerning human suicide you have an awful lot to say, you have the audacity to mention my combative behavior when you seem uncapable of making one post without some attempt at sarcasm. You can't make a logical argument to support your position so you utilize doublespeak and nonsensical b.s. This is yet another example: "the only article on Wikipedia that is ever going to be read by someone at risk of killing themselves, but that's by the by", suicidal people have a tendency to look up "suicide" not "Beenie Babies". As far as being a topic that is "close to my heart" any topic that concerns the health and well-being of innocent people is "close to my heart" it's called being human. Silent stroke doesn't affect me doesn't affect me in the least yet I wrote it.
If "Wikipedia is not for me" what type of person is going to write and improve the articles, someone such as yourself? Since you broached the topic of my "combative behavior", my behavior also includes writing a hell of a lot. I noticed that you have written Zero, Pages created by GideonF:[24]. So how is it that I have to kowtow to you and convince "you"? To anybody of reasonable intellect the picture in question perfectly coveys the sentiment that the artist wanted it romantacizes suicide, yet you "aren't convinced" that shows that you have a remarkble inability to draw information from visual clues. 7mike5000 (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Please remember to try to be civil. Now, do you have anything to add on the subject of improving the image/article, or have you said all you have to say?GideonF (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree 100% with every word posted by Mike, above, including his view of GideonF's uncivil baiting. I won't repeat Mike's excellent and, I believe, compelling argument, which is reason enough to remove the image from this article. However, as a depiction of death by arsenic, the painting is grossly misleading, so it should be removed on that basis alone. Suicides by arsenic do not drift into a tranquil eternal sleep but generally die covered in their own vomit and shit, slumped over a toilet after seizure or acute kidney failure. It should be removed because it may mislead some distressed person into choosing arsenic over a more humane mode of suicide. I oppose replacing it with any other image that romanticises suicide for the reasons eloquently laid out by Mike. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
For the record, a week or so ago, I read another, more authoritative description of death by arsenic, which gave the usual cause of death as irreversible circulatory insufficiency. The early signs are
Initially, the patient experiences a metallic taste in the mouth and a garlicky odor on the breath. Burning and dryness of the mouth and throat, dysphagia, colicky abdominal pain, projectile vomiting and profuse, watery diarrhea or "rice-water stools" are also early manifestations and occur within hours of exposure. Shock develops rapidly as a result of dehydration and generalized vasodilation.[25]
I deleted the image, it does not conform to Wikipedia's image use policy and additional logical reasons have been given by more than one user to support deletion of the image from the suicide article, I am not looking to get into a tit for tat argument with anyone or to malign anybody but statements like this are illogical:
"A drawing of a dead person is not the form of content that promotes suicide if you read the literature. This appears to be an effort to suppress content. With respect to glamorizing suicide anyone heard of Romeo and Juliet?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)"[26]
The literature shows that how suicide is portrayed in the media, and Wikipedia can be considered as a form of media, can have an effect on suicidal individuals. "Evidence continues to amass on the significant impact of media coverage on suicide." (Gould MS. 2001, Suicide and the media. PMID11411187).
This is just one reference, I do not belive it is necessary to get into nuanced detail. Suicide falls under the auspices of medicine, no reputable medical resource contains the type of content contained in this article, nor do they utilize images such as this. Doing so detracts from Wikipedia's credibility as an online medical resource. 7mike5000 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
You can agree as much as you like with Mike's reasons, and his personal attacks against me, but the action he wishes to take and his stated reasons for it are not consistent with Wikipedia's policies on image use, neutrality or censorship. If you are concerned that it is an inaccurate depiction of arsenic poisoning, then by all means please suggest an image that you don't think has such problems, although since it's not specifically an article on arsenic poisoning and the image isn't there specifically to illustrate arsenic poisoning then I'm not certain how big of a problem that is. What about Manet's The Suicide ([27])? Would you prefer that?GideonF (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
This is a post from another user who summed up the appropriateness of using the image in a much more succinct manner than I am capable of:
I'd like to suggest that the picture of Thomas Chatterton be removed, or at least displayed less prominently in the article. The article is not about suicide in the romantic movement, romantic literature, or other such subjects - it's about suicide in general. A picture of a Romantic poet is hardly appropropriate to an article about a mental health care issue of this kind. It also runs the risk of glamorizing suicide, making it look exciting, sexy, romantic or whatever. Surely it's obvious that we shouldn't be doing that? UserVOBO (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC
And this was the reponse:
It is the best image there is currently on the page thus returned it. I do not know have an image of a dead person glamorizes suicide. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
So two people who do not seem to have a rudimenatary grasp of the subject matter; one states:
"I do not know have an image of a dead person glamorizes suicide."
another states:"but I'm not convinced by the stated reason for removal, that it romanticizes suicide. Yet they have to be entertained personally I find it incredible, also the last time I checked four beats two, especially considering the four against manage to articulate a rationale basis for removal, the two in the minority can't come one simple sentence based on logic. As for this individual: GideonF, and comments like this:"and his personal attacks against me", I'm clueless as to his/hers' malfunction but the little bait routine is getting old every illogical post has he/she has made has contained an effort to push my buttons. The parrot routine is getting old too, but to reiterate:
The image is not supported by the text
It does nothing to increase a viewers knowledge of the subject
It was painted with the express purpose of glamorizing suicide, so it's promoting the same sentiment which is a POV
The subject of suicide is under the auspices of medicine, and reputable, or in this case strives to be reputable , medical articles do not use grautuitous images of dead people,either photographs or roamantacized paintings for decoration.
The use of the image helps to create an unnecessary maudlin tone which compliments the other unprofessional and irresponsible additions to the page
It is blatantly at odds with Wikipedia's image use policy because it is notjing more than a decoration
As far as commenting here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, no offense but it is somewhat of a clique and obviously I am not a part of it and there is a little personal animosity, so the possibility for bias is there as it has been done previously concerning other articles like Depression (differential diagnoses) and I'm sure most are aware of the content of the suicide page. So if a majority opinion and common sense is not sufficient then take it to the next level because I think the whole article is a discredit to Wikipedia. 7mike5000 (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay. So, let's make it a general RFC. The category options listed at WP:RFC are
Biographies
Economy, trade, and companies
History and geography
Language and linguistics
Maths, science, and technology
Media, the arts, and architecture
Politics, government, and law
Religion and philosophy
Society, sports, and culture
The category/ies we choose will determine, to an extent, the areas of interest and expertise of the editors we attract. I suppose Maths, science, and technology would be apt, but Society, sports and culture, and Religion and philosophy may be helpful too. Others? Thoughts? I propose wording the statement of the issue thus:
Math, science and technoilogy doesn't seem as appropriate as religion and philosophy. The relevance of science to the subject of suicide is slight and tangential. The wording Anthony has proposed only addresses half the issue: if the image is deemed not to be appropriate we won't be any closer to finding an image that is appropriate.GideonF (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Well done for generating an RFC. I should have thought of that myself. As for it addressing "only half the issue" that presupposes that the article must have a leading image. I don't think it does really. It would be good to have one but I hardly feel it's absolutely necessary.
I went on a little scouting mission around some other articles such as murder, manslaughter, depression (mood), vegetarianism, death to see what, if any, images they led with. I know, I know, those articles aren't very good as analogies with suicide but I couldn't think of any better ones. I was groping around in the dark really. Anyway, my trip (perhaps unsurprisingly) didn't really furnish me with any great insights into what sorts of image may be a good substitution. Hopefully anyone coming for the RFC will see this discussion and may be inspired with an idea. --bodnotbod (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I support removal of that picture or any like it. I have not the slightest interest in the fancied romanticising of suicide, and I don't think the picture would romanticise anything of the type for anyone over the age of 12 or so; if that picture were presented as "Afternoon nap of a fop" it would carry more conviction. The problem is that, whatever artists might think of it as a work of art, the picture has no merit in enhancing the value of an article on suicide. It is not informative, not NPOV, not interesting in context. If anyone thinks it is of value, let him enter it into an article on some appropriate article on art. If anyone thinks that one or more factual, verified, variously edifying illustrations of suicides would improve the article in manners appropriate to WP policy, I would support it heartily, but this picture isn't that picture. JonRichfield (talk) 09:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Image RFC Question
I happen to be all for the use of images, I have been accused of using images for "decorative purposes", which admittedly on occasion I have used copyrighted images using a questionable fair-use rationale. However my indiscretions did not have the potential to negatively affect people. As stated by User:Bodnotbod, I myself tried to find a suitable alternative and I can't think of anything appropriate which does not come off as pandering to a certain point of view or look superfluos. No medical articles contain superfluos or gratuitous images, this is the type of article to emulate: Medscape: Depression and Suicide[28]. The images are limited to graphs and charts complimenting and visually elucidating the subject matter, there is no decorative use of images. The image sets the tone for the rest of the page which in my opinion does not even come close to a reputable source on the subject of suicide. As far as the wording, I believe in order to avoid the same protracted debate in the future over potential images, it should be worded::
Is Henry Wallis's painting The death of Chatterton or any similar such image appropriate illustrations for the article Suicide?
Should the article Suicide contain an image depicting suicide, or an image that could reasonably be seen as sanitizing, glorifying or romanticizing suicide.
This formulation rules out a yes/no response. Commenters would need to be offered four options:
"Support images depicting suicide and images that romanticize, sanitize or glorify suicide"
"Oppose images depicting suicide and images that romanticize sanitize or glorify suicide"
"Oppose images that romanticize, sanitize or glorify suicide, but support images that depict suicide without romanticizing, sanitizing or glorifying it"
"Oppose images depicting suicide, but support images that romanticize, sanitize or glorify suicide (cenotaphs, crowds of adoring mourners, etc.)"
The principle of offering options is OK, but not vary relevant in context. The only questions relevant to the discussion are:
Does the picture add to the value of the article (IMO at present it does not unless there is a section discussing the quality of art in the depiction of suicide)?
Does the picture in its particular role in that article meet the requirements of WP policy? (I think not, but that is another matter.)
If there is an opinion that the picture does meet those two requirements, but that it should not be published because the policy should forbid such subject matter whether it is valuable or not, then no problem: get the policy changed. However, in that case, until that opinion prevails, there are no grounds for its exclusion, but why complain to us? We didn't set the policy! JonRichfield (talk) 09:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, come on. That question is ridiculously loaded and POV. The whole problem here, as I see it, is someone with an anti-suicide agenda POV pushing. Let's just keep it about facts and not opinions.GideonF (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
After reading Mike's links, above, it is clear to me that there is a problem with us using any images depicting suicide, not just those that romanticize suicide. The purpose of this wording is to give editors the opportunity to comment on both positions: no images depicting suicide, or simply no images romanticizing suicide, because some may be okay with one kind of image but not the other, others may be okay with both or opposed to both. There is no intention here to load anything or push anything. Could you please explain more precisely what is the problem with this wording, or propose another formulation that would address the appropriateness of each type of image? If your concern is about the present image, would it help if we were to also ask for comment on this question?
Should Suicide contain any image depicting or symbolizing suicide? Is any image that romanticizes suicide appropriate for the article? Does Henry Wallis's painting The death of Chatterton romanticize suicide?
We don't really need an RFC to decide whether an article should have any image depicting its subject: we just need to look at the Image guidelines. Yes it should. Unless, that is, you want to make the subject of suicide a special case that has to be tiptoed around, but in what sense would that not be POV? I support DocJames' simple "should we use image A, image B or no image to illustrate suicide".GideonF (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
We shouldn't need an RfC to determine whether The death of Chatterton fits the image use policy, which stipulates images "should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter." Chatterton does not increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. But it is being argued that, notwithstanding that policy, the image should be retained. Hence, James suggested an RfC.
You appear to have a more complete understanding of that policy than me. I can't see which part of the policy says an article should have an image depicting its subject. The only part that seems directly to apply here is the segment I quoted. That is, "relevant and increase readers' understanding." In other words, if it isn't both increasing understanding and relevant, it doesn't conform to that policy. It's decoration.
So, as far as Chatterton goes, I don't believe its exclusion from this article should be difficult to achieve, because it is not supported by policy and the expert consensus is that (1) it romanticizes suicide and (2) romanticizing suicide increases the risk of those contemplating suicide actually doing it. That shouldn't be a hard sell.
Everything to do with suicide, ethics, sex, politics, personal tastes or opinions, is a hard sell (someone somewhere, mercifully ineffectually, moaned about pictures depicting the mating of insects!!!) The thing to do in this case is to think in terms of the value of the picture to the article. I say Chatterton has none to speak of. The question of whether policy supports the use of pics in general is not relevant; the real question is: Does pic X in article Y add value without policy problems such as copyright etc. IMO Chatterton does not, but other pictures might well and should be considered all on their own merits. JonRichfield (talk) 09:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
But simply excluding Chatterton without soliciting comments on "images that romanticize suicide" would find us back here in five minutes arguing against another romantic image. Hence, "Is any image that romanticizes suicide appropriate for the article?"
And one important media guideline advises against using images of any kind to depict suicide, because of the risk of making suicide more likely. Since a picture of a suicide victim or an image symbolizing suicide brings nothing to this article of value, even if there is only a remote risk (and it appears to be a significant risk) that it will increase the likelihood of depressed people killing themselves, such an image does not belong here.
But you and James are arguing that Chatterton is policy-compliant. If it turns out you are right, or if someone brings an image here depicting suicide, that does increase understanding (though I can't imagine what that would look like) we believe, because of the probability that putting it in the article will do real and serious harm, it would be morally unjustifiable to do so. And if that means this article is a special case, so be it. Hence the third question, "Should Suicide contain any image depicting or symbolizing suicide?" --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm more than willing to entertain the possibility that Chatterton may not be the best image to use, but the guidelines are quite clear that images are, in general, a good thing and that replacing images with better ones is preferable to removing them.
Wehether the imagee makes people more or less likely to commit suicide isn't a relevant concern. No part of the purpose of this article is suicide prevention, and arguing that the article must be changed because it is insufficiently effective as anti-suicide propaganda goes against everything the NPOV policy stands for. GideonF (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
OK. I understand your position. And I'm pretty sure you won't be the only person holding that view. We disagree. If we host an orderly RfC we'll see how much support there is for each position. I think we've each put our cases clearly and concisely, so let's see what others think. I guess I'm saying I'm unlikely to convince you and vice versa, so bring on the RfC. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
In actuality we don't need an Rfc becuase a majority therefore a consensus has already been reached. The first time the image restored by User:Jmh649 three users were against it, myself, User:UserVOBO and User:Wikiposter0123 which 3>1=majority=consensus which User:Jmh649 feels he didn't need to adhere to. This time around there are three users against, myself, User:Anthonyhcole and user User:Bodnotbod, which, 3>2==consensus which User:Jmh649 and User:GideonF feel they do not need to comply to. The image which we have "marked as read" and is supported by multiple valid references as romantacizing suicide, multiple reputable medical sources have suggested that the use of any image depicting suicide is to be avoided as the use of said images has a negative effect on those contemplating suicide. That being said to include the use of the heretofore mentioned image on the article Suicide represents, in addition to what may be deemed to be a lack of morality and ethics, a most definite and blatant violation of Wikipedia's well crafted policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. In consideration of the previously mentioned facts, to wit; consensus has been reached on two previous occasions supporting removal the image in question, why is it that two users; User:GideonF and User:Jmh649 feel that they need no comply with Wikipedia policy as the image is still in place. Also in my estimation comments such as this by User:GideonF:
Oh, come on. That question is ridiculously loaded and POV. The whole problem here, as I see it, is someone with an anti-suicide agenda POV pushing
are not conducive to a mature discussion of the issue; so please remember to try to be civil and let's please stick to the facts, that is why do users User:Jmh649 and User: GideonF feel consensus does not apply to them. 7mike5000 (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
A 3 to 2 consensus settles nothing. An RfC, involving lots of editors from different relevant topic areas should bring about a stable resolution.
If an image says nothing about the article subject, and only performs a decorative function, must it be removed, per this policy, or may it remain if a majority of editors like it there. That is, does the policy prescribe removal in this situation, and if so, does local consensus trump that prescription?
I'm disappointed to hear people saying an RFC isn't needed. Even if you take that position, what possible harm can there be in garnering more input to the discussion? It could be that any new voices that arrive will be against my position but I still see a wider contribution of views as a good thing.
I'm somewhat disturbed to hear that we shouldn't be considering whether or not an image may actually cause a suicide to happen. Personally I think it's a bit of a stretch to think that the Chatterton image will do that. But it is thoroughly irresponsible not to take that factor into account when deciding on an image. By the way, the UK Government does have a "suicide prevention strategy". And the US government promotes "suicide prevention programs". Both, I feel, could be spoken about in this article. --bodnotbod (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I think we're all on board with the idea of an RfC (it doesn't look like a consensus is going to be reached any time soon without one), we just have different ideas about the scope of it.GideonF (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Given my rationale above, how do you feel about going forward with
Should Suicide contain an image depicting or symbolizing suicide? Is an image that romanticizes suicide appropriate for the article? Does Henry Wallis's painting The death of Chatterton romanticize suicide?
I don't think the issue of romanticization is a useful avenue to go down. X romanticizes Y is always a subjective assessment, whatever the values of X and Y, and no amount of critical agreement can make it into a fact any more than whether a painting is good or bad can be established as a fact. Even if it could, there are Wikipedia articles that lead with images that could be said to glamourize gun crime and images that could be said to romanticize warfare. Them being there doesn't mean Wikipedia is taking a pro-gun-crime or pro-war stance, but removing them because they might romanticize their subjects would mean that Wikipedia was taking an anti-gun-crime and anti-war stance (both perfectly reasonable stances to take, but both POV).
If we restrict the question to the matter at hand, we'll get further, quicker. Just ask whether the image is appropriate, what would be a better image if it is not, or whether there should be no image. Let people present their own opinions in their responses, don't supply them with opinions in the question. If there is a consensus for there to be no image I won't agree with it, but I'll go along with it.GideonF (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
OK. How about
Is it appropriate for the article Suicide to contain an image depicting suicide? Is Henry Wallis's painting The death of Chattertonappropriate for this article?
I assume "Maths, science and technology" incorporates medicine and psychology. "Media, the arts, and architecture" may involve people with something to say about the effect of the media on behaviour. I'm not sure what religion could contribute. So, how about we notify
A disproportionate amount of suicides in the world occur in Asia, which is estimated to account for up to 60% of all suicides. According to the WHO, China, India and Japan may account for 40% of all world suicides.[rf 1]
According to the article World population somewhat over 60% of the worlds population lives in Asia. Moreover the populations of India, Japan and China add up to 38.13 %.
The source actually says nothing about proportion, and uses the weasel words "up to" so in fact all we can theoretically conclude is that "A disproportionate amount of suicides in the world occur outside Asia" - but even this would be reading to much into the somewhat vague figure "up to 60%" as 60% could well be rounded and really mean, say, "up to 60.4%". RichFarmbrough, 22:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC).
Support. It depicts the subject, it's a well known painting by esteemed artist, it doesn't need to be trimmed or distorted to illustrate the article, and it avoids re-use.GideonF (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Support. Depicts an actual common method. These are already paintings, not photos. So I cannot see how we need to be any less graphic than this. The 2nd doesn't imply suicide, and the 3rd is only good as "artistic", not as identifying the subject to a general reader. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK09:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Support. The vast majority of suicides are sad, private and sordid. The Manet painting captures this in a way that the suicide of Socrates does not. Socrates is very much out of the ordinary, especially in our modern culture where there is no tradition of political suicides. Option 2 is arguably neutral in the sense of being a "medical" image but to my mind is an illustration of a dead body rather than a suicide. SpinningSpark17:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Support, unless a better image is found. #2 is a particularly poor choice as there is no immediately obvious indication of homicide, much less suicide. #3, while a noteworthy historical event is too busy to obviously depict the general action and, for the general reader, is unlikely to quickly bring to mind suicide. Those unfamiliar with this particular suicide have no chance to discern why it is shown here (before reading the caption, of course). This brings us to #1. Not a great choice but it looks like suicide to me (unless it's one of my students returning to their dorm after "a few"). I readily admit I would be easily swayed to image #4, if someone were to come up with one (someone holding a gun to their own head would be -- gulp! -- nice. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Please focus on the content, not the wikipolitics or assumptions about the motivations of other editors. SDY (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Haven't all editors above commented on the value of the photo and not other editors? Is there a particular issue you see? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK12:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, that was a reply to Hmwt's comment about WP:NOTCENSORED, and it appears that it was displaced. I've moved it back to where it was. Choosing an image that depicts a different aspect of the topic isn't necessarily an attempt at censorship, and accusing editors of attempting to censor the image is more or less an assumption of bad faith. SDY (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Support Illustrates the main body of the topic well as per WP:Image#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature without being too unnecessarily graphic. The naked body one is not obviously about suicide. The one of Socrates is really a western version of seppuku rather than the main version of suicide in the world, it also fails straightforward recognizability as about suicide and is just some artists imaginings and very likely is not at all like what happened. Images should look like what they are supposed to be illustrating. Dmcq (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Support For the following reasons: depicts a known act of suicide, provides historical and cultural context, disrupts modern Western assumption that suicide is necessarily linked to depression. Importantly, it depicts the act of suicide. If all else fails, it's a fairly banal picture that won't distract readers from the text, which is a real concern for the second option. The purpose of the article is to inform, not to persuade, and shocking images are tools of persuasion. I agree with Jmh649's concerns that the image doesn't display well at that size. One possibility is to crop the image to remove some of the negative space that's important artistically but doesn't add to the utility of the image. In all likelihood there are other portrayals of the same event that would have the same value and might work better as images. SDY (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Now that I think about it some more, your crop focuses on the subject more directly and will probably read better at infobox size. I like it. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Support, I am all for an image and have been fine with the past few. This one personally attracts me since it looks like Socrates is giving the bird to the world one last time before he goes(I am a fan of Socrates). Besides that it is tasteful and not very gloomy, allowing the reader to take away some sort of visual reference to the article in their memories without being too morbid and depressing the reader.AerobicFox (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, I see no point in making this a special tiptoey article circumscribed by fear. Wikipedia is in the business of providing straightforward information. So we should just describe things factually and illustrate them factually without the high drama of say the Socrates photo with loads of people around showing their anguish. Suicide is well illustrated by the first choice here. Dmcq (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Support It has not been demonstrated that an image is required. IRWolfie- (talk) 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Discussion
I am all in favour of illustrations to any acceptable WP article or topic whatsoever, from sexual techniques to murder, taking in suicide on the way. However, I cannot see what any of the proposed pictures have to do with the price of parsnips. Except that some of them are better pictures than Chatty, they add no value and they suffer the same objections of irrelevance. If we present a picture in an article, its presence should leave readers better informed than its absence would do. Which of those pictures would do so in the proper context? They might do for an article on art in communication, but what do they tell anyone in an article on suicide? JonRichfield (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The whole discussion is off the point. The first thing required is to write the article in a proper logical structure. Having achieved that, decide which points in the article would profit from pictures, and if so, of which nature and for what purpose. Then consider whether any picture adds the appropriate value. Saying: "Oh dear, some people didn't like that pic; let's propose a few rival candidates" is waaaayyyy off track. Don't ask the authors' opinions, ask the article. Ask the logic. JonRichfield (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Not to be rude but there is no logical connection between an article on chair and suicide. One concerns an inanimate object; nothing in that article is going to have an effect on a persons mantal well-being unless they have some kind of perverted chair fetish. The article on suicide and what's on that page can most definitely have an effect on the mental well=being of the persons reading either positive or negative. To what degree varies on the individual. I didn't know that Dialectical behavior therapy is an Evidence-based treatment for reducing suicidality. Did you? If you did I'm sure you would have added it. So if somebody reads that and discovers and switches to a therapy that actually works they have derived a benifit from the article. And depressed suicidal people are not lolling around apathetic and listless they do visit websites related to depression an suicide. The author Iris Chang metioned that before sh killd herself:<blockqoute>I promise not to visit Web sites that talk about suicide</blockqoute>
As far as User:JonRichfield's comments: "The first thing required is to write the article in a proper logical structure" they are 100% on the mark. I tried to make the article more logical and on topic but we can't even get passed whether or not the article should have an image just for "decoration". The lead itself is ludicrous:
Is the article about humans or "organisms"? Do organisms kill themslves because they are alcoholics or have financial difficulties etc. And if "organisms" kill themselves per year? Is it a disambiguation page? It looks like it. For example, I deleted Metaphorical suicide yet it was put back. The whole article needs to be cleaned up. Starting with canning the nonsense over the picture in the infobox. 7mike5000 (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Question: Anthonyhcole linked to this excerpt as an example of expert opinion advising against the use of images in this context; were there any other examples cited? This one in particular seems to refer only tangentially to the situation we have, here: this is an encyclopedia article about the topic of suicide in general, not a news article about one specific, recent suicide -- the disconnect is even more clear at the actual website of the American Association of Suicidology. Other than that, I take it as a significant point that many editors who have opposed the inclusion of images, above, are now voicing a preference for the Socrates painting in this thread. In particular, the painting is historically noteworthy and seems to satisfy several criteria that have been mentioned, previously (not a photograph, not sensationalist, not overly distracting, no immediate living relatives, and so on). I also have a hunch that some of the editors expressing concern over the question of harm are less concerned by this particular image. Seems like a good candidate for compromise? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
No it's not a preferance for the image of Socrates per se it was actually an attempt at sycophancy, at least on my part. Socrates is not as innapropriate as Le Suicide, The Death of Chatterton etc. I personally don't think any decoration is necessary, professional or "encyclopedic". 7mike5000 (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps "preference" wasn't the best word, but I had to get to a meeting; I think I get your meaning, though. Perhaps you don't think an image is helpful, but it's clear that a considerable chunk of editors do. In my own experience, many readers strongly prefer illustrated articles. If I might redirect the question a bit: do you think an image would be actively unhelpful to a reader's understanding of the topic? I realize that you'd rather not have an image, but I'm not sure why you're acting as if one would be damaging. – Luna Santin (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The advice not to use illustrations in articles covering suicide appears in many national guidelines but they all refer to newspaper and magazine reports. No one has brought to this discussion any guidelines covering encyclopedia articles, or any expert opinion on this advice's appropriateness to an encyclopedia article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, that. Wanted to be sure I hadn't missed something (looks like you all have been at this for a while). Regardless, I'm glad it was brought up for discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I came in from RFC. I really wonder what value a picture of a dead or dying person would have in the context of this article. Perhaps I am not a very visual person. Greglocock (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a sidebar mostly about the discussion above about "expert" recommendations. The book linked above says that experts say to "Avoid use of pictures". The actual recommendations from these experts are more complex—and, BTW, appear on an image-containing website directly controlled by these very experts. The recommendation is not "zero images, thanks, guys, you saved a life today." The actual recommendations are to not show dramatic or graphic images of a specific, recent suicide when reporting news events. The list specifically names images showing "the location or method of death, grieving family, friends, memorials or funerals". That's a fairly narrow recommendation, and I'm not convinced that it applies to any of the historical artwork contemplated here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree. I believe gratuitous or emblematic images are inappropriate for this article but no one has brought an expert opinion to this talk page to support that. I'm settling for Socrates and pulling out of this discussion unless someone brings new evidence. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I am a new editor on this article and my impression right away is that I appreciate the factual information provided in the article. The pictures do not seem like they add to this and might be better placed in an art history article?Coaster92 (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
You hit the nail right on the head, unfortunately not everybody seems to see what is to others plainly self-evident. It's a deadly serious subject that doesn't need artwork, historical or otherwise for decoration. 7mike5000 (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The vote above to see the state of concensus then appears to have been flawed since no image was not an option. I came to this article from the RFC and presumed a choice was needed but I think having no image is best. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I would vote for no image, if that could be an option. The article as it stands has a more scholarly approach as I read it, which I think makes for a valuable reference piece. My opinion-- the pictures would detract from that.Coaster92 (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
"Oppose illustrating the article with depictions of suicide" was on of the options above in the Rfc.[29] but your both right "no image" should be an option at least if it is not directly related to the accompanying text and with the express purpose of elucidating the subject material not for gratuitous decoration. 7mike5000 (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
there was actually no option for "no image", the closest was: 4. "Oppose illustrating the article with depictions of suicide".
There would probably have to be another "Rfc". It's asinine to have any image but Socrates is a vast improvement over the crap that was up there. You could see all the B.S. necessary to remove the previous image "The Death of Chatterton". 7mike5000 (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I added "no image" as an option. I am not convinced that the thumbnails are harmful, however I share the feeling of other editors that the images in question add nothing to the article as it stands. If there were a section on "romanticisisation of suicide" or 2suicide in art" then they might have value. To understand suicide better maybe this illustration might be apposite. And for those who doubted it, yes people suffering clinical depression do read and even edit Wikipedia. RichFarmbrough, 22:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC).
Yet another person confirming that the article needs to have a non-depression related image in the lead. Yes, suicide is often related to depression, but it is not synonymous in any way, shape or form. SDY (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Probably worth noting that some of that may simply be correlation rather than causation: HIV/AIDS is such a terrifying disease because of the massive social stigma that suicide might have nothing to do with the medication, but rather an escape from a new diagnosis, a change in medication because a previous treatment regimen failed, or poor quality of life from side effects. Serious Adverse Events (death obviously a serious event) during clinical trials tend to end up on the drug labels even when there isn't any proof of a causal relationship. The relationship between medications and suicide is much better studied (though I wouldn't say understood) with antidepressants in adolescents, and the general concept of "suicide related to medication" might be an interesting subsection to add to the article, with the proper caveats that there isn't really any proof of a link, just temporal associations and a lot of caution. SDY (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Can't really work on it right now, but this would be an excellent source to use for that section. We can throw in comments about other medications (e.g. antiretrovirals) but the big dispute there is really over the SSRI's, and we should follow the sources for what we focus on. SDY (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Almost all medications contain "thoughts of suicide" or "depression" as potential symptoms, this is mostly because typically people testing medications have these problems at a higher rate than the general population, but drug companies still have to report this as a potential side effect. I would like to see something that specifically sets retrovirals apart from typical medications with this warning since I can't think of any reason a retroviral would cause depression. A section on medication though would be a good addition.AerobicFox (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
One other drug I need to do some legwork on is mefloquine, which has gotten quite a bit of press for psychiatric side effects. At any rate, if it's commonly listed but only done so in a defensive fashion, we should be able to state and cite that in the article. I know that overuse of black box warnings and the 'crying wolf' problem has been brought up. SDY (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Many things are used as defensive labeling, and while sources would probably be able to be found that discuss defensive labeling with regard to suicide, there would likely not be a source for each product with defensive suicide labeling specifically calling the suicide warnings on that label defensive. It would be better to find a source which discusses psychiatric side effects of a specific product then to look for a specific reference for each product which labels itself as potentially causing depression(which would consist of thousands of drugs).AerobicFox (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Should the article Suicide contain an image depicting suicide? 23:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
1. Support illustrating the article with The Death of Chatterton
Support I do not find the argument that this image will increase the risk of suicide credible. These are the same arguments that where put force during the attempt to WP:CENSOR the Rorschach ink blots. First of all people who are depressed and suicidal will not be reading Wikipedia. Secondly we have movies such as Romeo and Juliet that romantise suicide to a much greater extent. I do not see people picketing William Shakespeare performances or trying to get his books removed from schools. This image is like a drop in the bucket. It relates to the topic at hand and images in the lead are recommended. Thus for all these reasons I suggest we keep it.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you get the award for Most Transparently Desperate Denial of Moral Responsibility for your statement "[P]eople who are depressed and suicidal will not be reading Wikipedia". (And even if this was true, people who read Wikipedia talk pages will likely become depressed and suicidal after staring into the vaccuum of jejune amorality found therein.) I give you extra bonus points for achieving the Wikipedia equivalent of Godwin's Law, the invocation of WP:UNCENSORED for no discernable reason. And the Shakespeare invocation shows promise, but your failure to work in the term "jack-booted thugs" disappoints. Herostratus (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
"Around 100 studies have been conducted to examine the ‘Werther effect’ – the phenomenon whereby there is an increased rate of completed or attempted suicide following the depiction of an individual’s suicide in the media. These ‘media influence studies’ provide strong evidence for the existence of the Werther effect in the news media, and equivocal evidence for its existence in the entertainment media."[30] Thus it appears that announcing suicides as current events increase rates but art work does not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Your link points to a login page so I don't know what you're quoting, but it is clear from the quote that the evidence for the Werther effect in entertainment media is equivocal, not that art does not affect suicide rate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Support. The notion that this image somehow has the totemic power to make viewers kill themselves is ridiculous, as evidenced by the absence of a pile of bodies outside Tate Britain. However, even if it were true it would be irrelevant. Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia is neither pro- nor anti-suicide. Just About everybody who is opposing the use of this image is arguing for its removal on the basis of their personal anti-suicide bias, and many are citing guidelines that are explicitly for the POV purpose of suicide prevention, and editing Wikipedia with the intention of preventing suicide is exactly as POV as editing Wikipedia with the intention of encouraging suicide. The "risk" they speak of is the risk of someone disagreeing with them.GideonF (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Your first proposition is correct. No one is arguing it though. The picture certainly romanticizes Chatterton's suicide, and experts believe romanticizing suicide may cause people to identify with the victim and "contribute to" teen suicide.
You make an extremely important point with your second proposition. You adopt the "So what?" stance. So what if our association of suicide with a romantic image contributes to some crazy person topping him- or herself? Not our job. I disagree. But I've seen this question, whether editors should exercise moral judgment when real actual harm may issue from our gratuitous actions, arise in two other fora in the last month. I'm very curious to see what the community position is here.
Finally, I really don't know how to respond to your criticism of people with an anti-suicide agenda. I'm anti-mental illness, and see suicide as a terminal symptom of that in most cases. For the record, I'm in favor of the right to die but against encouraging it or glorifying it, or doing anything that might help persuade a vulnerable person to choose it over seeking medical care and social support. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
While no-one is making the case as starkly as I have put it there, people are arguing that including the image may incline readers towards suicide, something for which evidence is absent.
If you disagree with the position that it's not Wikipedia's job to advocate one course of action or set of beliefs over another, I just don't see how you can believe that is compatible with NPOV. One of Wikipedia's most important founding principles is its commitment to neutrality. That doesn't mean remaining neutral until you find a subject on which you have a really strong opinion that you believe is self-evident, it means remaining neutral all the time.
You may see suicide as a symptom of mental illness and an outcome to be avoided, the prevailing view in contemporary Western culture, but other cultures, other periods in history, and other individuals have viewed it differently, and Wikipedia can't prefer your POV over theirs. It's fine that you have the opinion you have, and I'm not asking you to abandon it, but I am asking you to put it to one side while editing Wikipedia.GideonF (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
We're agreed that the statistical evidence hasn't been brought to this discussion by any of the amateurs involved, but the expert opinion is clear, unless you've found reliable sources opposing their view about romanticizing and depicting suicide.
The key questions I see here are: Might associating suicide with a romantic image increase suicidal behaviour? If it may, should we avoid making that association in this article? To me it's a no brainer: if there's the remotest chance that a valueless image in the article might do harm, you get rid of it. I want to continue this discussion but perhaps we should take it to the threaded discussion below, rather than fill up the !voting. I'm going out now, but will continue down there when I get back, if you haven't started something. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it is more "if people identify with the person who committee suicide" and the suicide is presented in a positive / romantic way than that could increase the risk of suicide. I view Chatterton as safe a few people would identify with an 1800s poet. Art, movies and plays are entertainment and I have provided a study which found that the evidence regarding these is equivocal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Support If there is going to be a not-taken-from-real-life depiction in this article, I see no reason why this one shouldn't be it. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
2. Oppose illustrating the article with The Death of Chatterton
Oppose The present image does not increase the readers' understanding of the subject, as prescribed by WP:IUP, but it may be harmful, because it romanticizes suicide,[1] and romanticizing suicide may encourage others to identify with the victim, and contribute to the suicide rate among teens.[2]
The media guidelines of the American Association of Suicidology and the American Suicide Prevention Foundation recommend using no pictures when discussing suicide, in order to reduce both the risk of romanticizing suicide and the risk of promoting contagion suicides.[3] I oppose any depiction of suicide in this article because such images add nothing to the readers' understanding and may do actual harm.
"... Henry Wallis, whose The Death of Chatterton (1856) surely serves to romanticize the suicide of the 17-year-old poet." p. 993. [32] "Wallis, the painter, romanticizes the early death of a young poet ..." p. 51. [33]
"Research suggests that inadvertently romanticizing suicide or idealizing those who take their own lives by portraying suicide as a heroic or romantic act may encourage others to identify with the victim." p. 1277 [34] " "Also contributing both to the suicide rate among teens overall, as well as suicide pacts, young people have a tendency to romanticize suicide." p. 218 [35] "... media reports should highlight suicide as an outcome of psychiatric illness that is treatable, rather than romanticize the act or the victim which tends to heighten the likelihood of imitation." p. 6 [36]
"These guidelines are used to help reduce romanticizing suicide and reduce the likelihood of contagion suicides. Examples of these guidelines are [...] avoid use of pictures." [37]
Oppose. I am unconvinced that this picture helps to contextualize suicide for unfamiliar readers. Rather it seems to require the viewer to already have an understanding of suicide in order to interpret the painting. Axl¤[Talk]00:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Hofmann Lehrbuch suidide
Oppose only if alternate image can be found - I am very skeptical that a troubled person would visit WP to look at this ariticle, and see a "romantic" painting, and get pushed over the edge because of the lush colors. On the other hand, if utilizing another image saves even one life at some point in the next decade, I guess it is worth it to find another image. My suggestion is to find a candid public-domain photo of an actual suicide: something very gruesome. I'd wager that it would have a beneficial effect: it may actually dissuade persons from taking the step. I found this illustration at right as an example. But I'm not sure that it is quite right: better would be a photograph. --Noleander (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOTADVOCACY. Also, that image has its own problems, as it's got this artistic "white field" background like it's ripped straight from THX1138 and a lot of weird green stuff that's not on most real dead bodies. Ultimately, it's just a picture of a dead body, and other than the caption implying a cause of death, it doesn't illustrate the topic at all. SDY (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that pic not not good (I think I said as much above). But I continue to assert that a factual, representative photograph of an actual suicide would be appropriate and encyclopedic, and would not run afoul of the issues raised by the psych. community. --Noleander (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The question is: a picture of what? Someone "in flagrante"? Those will be hard to find (art of Mr. Montague or Ms. Capulet, maybe a still from a film depiction a likely suspect). Again, the objection is that an image of a dead body doesn't really illustrate the topic very well. SDY (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Per external professional advice on the use of pictures. Per Anthonyhcole's comments above that the image isn't actually a realistic depiction of arsenic poisoning (so might at best suit an article/section on "suicide in literature/art" but not a lead picture). Colin°Talk08:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. If the people who's business is suicide prevention think its not such a good idea, that's a pretty strong reason not to have it. Incidentally, the accuracy of the picture is debatable. According the lede in Thomas Chatterton: "He died of arsenic poisoning, either from a suicide attempt or self-medication for a venereal disease". Herostratus (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I find the idea that the image is going to motivate someone to commit suicide dubious at best, if nothing else it's the same or greater risk exists in the textual description of suicide. However, the image is just a gratuitous "hey we needed an image for the lead" image, so there isn't much point in keeping it. Use one of the images from the epidemiology section, maybe? If the image were a cultural touchstone, something that a reader would relate with, it might be different. The Romeo and Juliet image suggested above might also work: it's a story that readers of an article in English are likely to be familiar with. Images associated with seppuku would also work, as it's clearly suicide and it's likely something that our readers will identify from the image alone as suicide. I don't think an image of a dead body is meaningful as a depiction of suicide: people die for many reasons. SDY (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. The image seems more decorative than illustrative. Isn't it a bit melodramatic? Personally, I don't really think the article needs a lead image as the subject covers a lot of different areas which would be hard to address with one illustration. Kaldari (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
3. Support illustrating the article with depictions of suicide
Support. Anthonyhcole has helpfully provided links to professional guidance. However I'm not sure that this guidance is based on any actual evidence. In my opinion, it might be possible to find a depiction of suicide that is helpful for this article. In particular, I think that a depiction of medically-assisted suicide would be helpful (although not for the lead/infobox). Although I cannot think of a specific picture that would be appropriate for the lead, I'm not going to refuse all pictures out of hand. I would consider any proposal on its own merits. Axl¤[Talk]00:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the second question should have specified "gratuitous" depictions of suicide, depictions that don't add to the reader's understanding. Mike suggested that formulation but I disagreed and went with all depictions of suicide, since that mirrors the press guidelines. Would you support excluding images depicting suicide that add nothing to understanding, Axl? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I am surprised that you mention this. I hope that all editors would oppose the inclusion of "gratuitous" depictions of suicide. It is self-evident that "gratuitous" pictures should be avoided everywhere on Wikipedia. That's the definition of "gratuitous". From WP:Images: "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information." Also from the same guideline: "images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner." The existing guidance is clear on the matter.
The first point of debate here is whether The Death of Chatterton helps to inform readers in an encyclopedic manner. In my opinion, it does not.
The second point is this: Is there any possible picture that could inform readers in an encyclopedic manner? In my opinion, there could be such pictures. Axl¤[Talk]09:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I asked because editors have proposed 6 alternative pictures on this page that relate to suicide but which, in my opinion, add nothing to the readers' understanding. That's the kind of thing I had in mind when referring to "gratuitous" depictions. Can I assume you don't support the use of those images in the place of Chatterton? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The question of whether a given picture is "gratuitous" is a matter of opinion. You (Anthonyhcole) might believe that an image is "gratuitous" while Doc James does not. That is a difference of opinion. If an editor proposes an image for an article, it is self-evident that the editor believes that the image is not "gratuitous". Axl¤[Talk]11:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I stopped arguing this point because I've learned that, although emblematic images at the top of articles fail the "improve readers' understanding" test, no one cares. It's just a given now that iconic images at the top of articles are not only okay, but virtually mandatory. I've proposed an update at WT:IUP that would reflect that consensus. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Support - The Good Article and FA criteria both list illustrations as characteristics of great articles. Even sensitive subjects like suicide warrant illustrations: WP:NOTCENSORED and so on. As for the notion that an illustration may prompt a person to commit suicide, I would point out the contrary: if the image were off-putting it may actually dissuade a person from committing suicide. (I assert that there cannot be any valid scientific evidence one way or another to prove such cause-and-effect: no experiment would be ethical, nor would control groups be feasible). In other words, a public domain photo of a traumatic or gruesome suicide in this article may actually actually cause some at-risk persons to avoid suicide. --Noleander (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Support "Should the article on [x] contain an image of [x]" wouldn't even be asked of any other subject. The only reasons to treat this subject as an exception are based in POV. GideonF (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Support. I am not convinced by the argument that the current picture or ones similar to it would contribute to a person's decision of whether to take their life or not. People take their own lives due to extreme psychological or sometimes physical pain. suffering, hopelessness, not because they saw an art drawing of suicide. The article is about suicide, thus we should have a picture of suicide; I support an art drawing, not a real life picture though.Literaturegeek | T@1k?21:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Support. This is an important topic and should get an image. I have seen a number of postmortems on suicides. I think a photograph would be appropriate. Gory stuff should be avoided -- I think the truth about suicide can be told without turning the stomach. Personally, I think the one of R. Budd Dwyer is interesting -- though probably not the best one for the subject. A picture of a jumper might be good. [[:Image:Dddr66.jpg|thumb|100px|R. Budd Dwyer.]]A jumper.Nephron T|C02:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Support Weak support based on the fact that those googling suicide have access to a number of pro-suicide sources, a NPOV article with images (even 'romanticised' images) is comparatively harmless. As an aside, I think it is beyond the remit of an encyclopaedia and its editors to attempt to influence (even in an anti-suicide way) the minds of people contemplating suicide Jebus989✰09:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Support I support the inclusion of an image provided it is an artistic rendition of the concept of suicide without any link to a real person who may have living descendants. If ever images such as an artists sketch of a real person similar to sketches submitted at trial or depicting a trial, showing a victim who once lived, I hope we would not find educational value for such inclusion. My76Strat (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. While I note that Wikipedia is not censored and there is precedent for ignoring advice of scientific bodies regarding keeping out relevant images (see the Rorschach images coverage in the Signpost), I would not feel comfortable ignoring the advice of the experts in this case. I would rather Wikipedia not be seen as helping to romanticise suicide in any way. — Mr. Stradivarius♫14:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
This section isn't about any image in particular, but images of suicide in general. Maybe you meant to put this comment in the "Oppose illustrating the article with The Death of Chatterton" section above? — Mr. Stradivarius♫18:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with Colin (and suicide prevention professionals). If there were illustrative pictures that were not depictions of an actual suicide victim I could accept those. I have a weaker opposition to artistic representations of suicide as suggested. But then again I don't feel it is worth the risk. If a suicidal person wants to look at pictures of good-looking corpses let them find them somewhere else. --MTHarden (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose There is no reason whatsover to include any depiction of a suicide beyond "decoration". Wikipedia is a source of online medical information, for better or worse and no reputable medical resource uses images of death for "decoration" it's tacky, it's cheap, pandering and unprofessional. Nobody is being a simplistic twit and suggesting that looking at the image is going to cause them to kill themsleves, but it does add an unecessary maudlin tone to the article. If it was a pathology article on suicidal injuries, then images depicting depicting those wounds would be in order, because they serve an informative purpose. Three-year-olds know what "dead" looks like, to suggest that an image of a body is necessary to elucidate what "dead" looks like for the viewers is tantamount to saying the article is being read by a bunch of imbeciles. And where does this information come from: "First of all people who are depressed and suicidal will not be reading Wikipedia". Really? Depression is the most debilitating condition, it effects at least 17.6 million in the U.S. alone. Depression does not, as far as I know cause an inability to understand English and use the internet. Depression, whatever it's underlying cause may be is often a precipitaing factor in suicide, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7mike5000 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 29 September 2011
Oppose. I just haven't seen any images that would make a good lead image for this article, and I actually doubt that one exists. The topic is so broad it would be very difficult to illustrate well with a single image. Kaldari (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose The article purports to be an informative, scholarly piece and the pictures do not support that voice, and in fact, take away from that effect.Coaster92 (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, simply because suicide does not have a representative image. Unless I'm wrong, one would either have to have a collage of images which together might be generally representative, or use art which is supposed to be about suicide but is only relevant because it's famous art. One could as easily illustrate with an image of Hell, as that's where suicides are supposed to go, or Godhika perhaps? Be——Critical02:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose using a lead image. I don't think it's in line with how the subject is presented in reliable sources; see e.g. [39] --JN46608:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
I'll make a comment that because it is a free image, there is less of a requirement for having the image help increase the reader's understand than there is for non-free media. It's clearly not flat out decorative or out of place, and it's not non-free where we would be more critical of such inclusion. I've no other comment and whether the image is actually appropriate otherwise, but it's certainly not against IUP. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
NOTCENSORED vs POINT
Citing WP:NOTCENSORED in an image debate should have a sort of Godwin's Law effect. If your only/best argument for keeping an image is to make a stand against censorship, then your argument isn't building an encyclopaedia and could fall into disrupting Wikipedia to make a point territory. That policy section seems to be regarded as some as an excuse to reject all pleas to common sense, reasoned argument or tact. Yes we don't remove images just because some people find it objectionable but we also don't keep them just because some people find them objectionable and so must be protected at all costs. Colin°Talk08:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that any of the supporters have used this argument? If you are, I believe that you are mistaken. If you aren't, your point is irrelevant. Axl¤[Talk]10:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
That policy has been cited numerous times on this page (read also above the RFC, where the merit or otherwise of the policy generated some heat). Perhaps folk think NOT:CENSORED's use of the word "objectionable" means that any objection to the use of an image is of no merit. That anyone saying "I don't think we should use this picture / any picture" is trying to censor Wikipedia rather than perhaps just using good judgment or wisdom. The policy is meant to cover distasteful or offensive images: issues of emotion and cultural sensitivity. Nobody is making such statements about the image. There are rational arguments why this picture is unsuitable and there are rational arguments from experts in the field that any picture should be used with caution. IMO the arguments for illustrating this article with a picture aren't particularly compelling and don't warrant rejecting such expert advice. Since nobody finds the picture objectionable or offensive per se, citing NOT:CENSORED is inappropriate. Colin°Talk11:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors choose to omit images, opinions, and certain facts like everyone else. Citing NOT:CENSORED is a technique used by editors against other editors who take a less liberal (for want of a better word) view towards content inclusion. But those editors will have their own thresholds, opinions on taste and decency like anyone else. Just as that essay cites many cases where WP has stood against censorship and won, there are opposing cases. At the risk of provoking a WP:BEANS effect, some examples include:
We don't illustrate photosensitive epilepsy with a flickering GIF, even though such an image would have high EV. When such edits are removed from epilepsy-related articles, this doesn't provoke cries of NOT:CENSORED or accusations of editors having a moral anti-convulsant POV. Creating such an image gets you blocked.
We don't illustrate toilet with a lead image of me wiping my hairy bum while sitting on one. Surely readers need to know how to use one and an image of a porcelain bowl isn't sufficient.
Many folk here have stated that any alternative image for this article should not be gory. We wouldn't choose to illustrate this with a photo of someone's head half blown off.
The shocking image in the lead of smallpox has never been suggested as a lead image for infectious disease.
Per WP:MEDMOS we don't give drug dosage or titration on drug or disease articles.
We're unlikely to follow the German WP's example and have genitals on the front page. Certain featured pictures and articles will never get front page exposure.
The flickering image is just poor editorial choice. I do not see how any of the rest apply to this situation. Drug doses are not generally notable for our audience.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Professional advice vs amateurs
I'm a big fan of taking advice from professionals who have to deal with these issues as their day job. We can all have our own opinion on the effect of this picture or that picture, or on whether suicidal people might be reading this article. Our opinions might be useful, harmful or of uncertain value -- we have little way of knowing. For example, the suggestion of using a shocking picture to deter people. Often, well meaning measures can have a paradoxical effect and what may deter one person may encourage two others. Note: taking advice is different from being legally pressured into doing something -- as happened with the Rorschach images. Whether or not the professional guidance is based on mere expert opinion or is the result of statistical analysis or even some randomised controlled trial, it is worth more than the opinions of Wikipedians IMO. We should not reject it lightly and certainly not just to make a point. Colin°Talk08:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
That's a fairly hard-line view and one that doesn't address the limitations of evidence-based medicine. I agree it is the gold standard but expert opinion has an essential role to play in medicine and its valuue is far above the opinion of amateurs. If the guidance linked to by Anthony was of debatable value, then it should be possible to find experts who disagree with it. We're arguing over a hypothetical anyway because nobody has shown these guidelines are mere expert opinion, they've only suggested they might be. Colin°Talk10:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Found some evidence "Around 100 studies have been conducted to examine the ‘Werther effect’ – the phenomenon whereby there is an increased rate of completed or attempted suicide following the depiction of an individual’s suicide in the media. These ‘media influence studies’ provide strong evidence for the existence of the Werther effect in the news media, and equivocal evidence for its existence in the entertainment media."[40] Thus it appears that announcing suicides as current events increase rates but I would consider this image entertainment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an educational resource. Current affairs and entertainment overlap education to a degree but I suspect few would consider this article as entertaining. Perhaps an article on suicide in art and literature could be "entertainment" in a sort of dry academic fashion, and would merit this image. So I'm not really sure what that summary has to say for Wikipedia. Still, I think it is good that we're searching for external research, viewpoints and guidelines on the topic and encourage more of this rather than for all of us to fall out arguing with each other. Colin°Talk12:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't follow the logic. The quote you gave surely covered whether the publication was news media or entertainment media, not whether the depiction of suicide was done with words, photographs or art. We're not debating whether commons should host the image, but its particular use as the lead image in this article in this encyclopaedia, which is educational media. Do you think that a "for schools" publication on teenage suicide would use this picture on its cover? Colin°Talk13:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
We have this picture on the cover of this book [41] which would work equally well. History is an important part of any article and historical images should occasionally be used to illustrate the lead of articles. Using a historical image for hypothermia [42] which I feel adds to the piece and do not consider this one much differnt.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
That image has less problems than the supposed arsenic poisoning one, if Anthony's description is correct. And it could be argued that an academic work may not suffer from the Werther effect to the same degree as a widely available and popular educational resources like WP. Wikipedia's lead images are generally crap because we somehow feel compelled to have one yet have a stock photo library that is seriously deficient. A normal publisher would not choose to use many of our lead images.
My stance on the "images in the lead" issue is swayed by what experts have to say on the matter. If we can show that experts are divided or that their guidance isn't relevant to WP (but only to newspapers say) then that argument falls. Colin°Talk15:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I tried looking for evidence to demonstrate whether pictures/artwork depicting suicide have any influence on incidence. I couldn't find any studies investigating this. (However some newspaper/media stories have caused an increased incidence.) Axl¤[Talk]21:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I've looked for hard evidence of an effect of images on suicidal behaviour or ideation and there doesn't seem to be any, one way or the other, because the rigorous studies haven't been done. The evidence concerning the effect of romanticizing is that it may cause readers to identify with the victim. I can't tell you what these guidelines are based on. The word "may" appears repeatedly when discussing them, which leads me to think these restrictions are probably based mostly on expert opinion. The difference between me and James is I'm happy to go with the experts' opinion, especially when depiction adds nothing of value to the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The professionals have their own POV and bias (c.f. the Rorschach debacle), whereas Wikipedia doesn't/musn't (insofar as its ethos is merely to be neutral and informative). And since we're talking about an editorial decision as opposed to an issue of informational accuracy, WP:RS isn't applicable. --Cybercobra(talk)04:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Encyclopaedic value
This particular picture, as Anthonyhcole notes, is not a realistic depicture of suicide. It is romantic art. It is therefore not encyclopaedic for an article on suicide. It would suit an article discussing suicide in literature and art (something, that from a brief scan, this article doesn't cover).
Suicide is not a concept that requires illustration in order to be understood, nor does a picture help in any significant way towards understanding it. Possibly one could argue that seeing a picture of someone after they have hanged themselves aids ones understanding of hanging but most people would consider such a shocking picture voyeuristic rather than educational. Our article on toilet doesn't have someone sitting on one wiping their bum. And it would only deal with one method, so using such a picture for the lead would place undue weight on that. Colin°Talk08:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
One could use this argument for many images such as that found in the lead of pregnancy. In that everyone know what a pregnant person looks like. Images quickly provide visual confirmation of the subject matter of the article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
A "visual confirmation of the subject matter of the article" isn't necessary for many of our articles. The title words "suicide" and "pregnancy" aren't so complex that I need an illustration to know what they mean or that I've found the right article. We don't have a lead image on Murder. Actually, this image doesn't orientate the user in any way as the thumbnail could be of a chap in a drunken stupor. Wikipedia articles get lead images because other articles have them or because of some erroneous thinking about FA requirements. They get particular lead images because they are free rather than because they are good or totally appropriate. Your argument above in support of this image largely consists of opinion as to why it shouldn't be removed. The only positive argument is "It relates to the topic at hand and images in the lead are recommended". However there is no guideline on Wikipedia that recommends images in the lead. Being "related to the topic in hand" isn't a strong enough argument for a lead image, though might be sufficient for further down the article. Colin°Talk12:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I think appropriately chosen images add to articles. Showing an image of a pregnant women is better than leaving the lead blank as is showing a reasonable image of suicide. I think both add to the educational value of the article. A historical image of suicide put it into historical perspective. That this is not a new phenomena. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree on disagreeing. That's absolutely fine. The pregnancy image RFC got unhealthy because folk were determined to change other people's minds (or just insult them), and the WP:NOTCENSORED policy was also deeply unhelpful there. Colin°Talk16:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Anti-Suicide Advocacy and NPOV
This continues the discussion above between myself and Anthony, which was taking up space in the voting section. I don't think the key question is about what the image may or may not do (it may do anything. It may contain a coded message to Al-Qaeda sleeper cells), I think it's about whether Wikipedia cares. Most of the opposition to this image comes from people who, like yourself, have a moral objection to suicide. I'm not here to debate the morality of suicide, it's simply my position that a diversity of opinion exists on the subject and that Wikipedia shouldn't favour one view over the other, per the "Non-negotiable" NPOV policy. Imagine, for a moment, that you do not have any opinion either way on the question of whether being alive is better than being dead. If you did not, would you be making the same arguments you're making now? GideonF (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow. I'm an Epicurean. Neither state, life nor death, is intrinsically "better" than the other in the moral sense, like "more virtuous", that depends on how you live; or in the hedonic sense, like "pleasanter", that depends on how life's treating you. So I have the view that some lives (most) are better than being dead, and others not. Depends. I shall try over the next few days to assume the view that I cannot discern such a difference. Any help you can offer with that would be welcome. Do you see what I'm not getting here? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I really don't see what you are or are not getting at at all, which I'm sure is my fault. Anything you can add to clarify would be a help.GideonF (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking for a good reason to leave trivial content in the article that may tip a person whose judgment is impaired by mental illness toward taking his or her life. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
A bit late for this to matter, but just because someone disagrees with you it doesn't mean their "judgement is impaired by mental illness".GideonF (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
You thought you were late responding. Are you saying mental illness doesn't impair judgment; or the frequently quoted claim that 90% of completed suicides are mentally ill at the time of death is wrong? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The decision by a person to shorten their life is always, always tragic. It may be a rational one or a mad one or a perverted one but ultimately there is tragedy there. Asking does Wikipedia care is like asking if my computer cares. Do editors care? Sure they do. We are humans, not robots.
WP:NPOV applies to articles and editors are expected to follow it. They are not expected to not have a POV. For some subjects, to not have a POV implies you haven't really thought about it. The world is not split into pro- or anti- positions either. Suicide is a complex subject and simplifying the argument to just "moral objection to suicide" isn't helpful. All that matters for NPOV is what the article contains or lacks in terms of balance in proportion. Does the article without a lead image conform more or less to NPOV than one with the lead image? The motive behind the addition or removal of the image is irrelevant wrt NPOV. Only the resulting article matters.
In any sane editing environment, if an editor was writing an article on suicide and a colleague mentioned to them that certain professional bodies suggest that such articles best avoid pictures of suicide, do you think the response would be (a) a shrug and "well, my lead picture wasn't that important" or (b) "I find that hard to believe, what do those guys know anyway" or (c) "I don't give a damn, begone with your censorship and points of view!" -- Colin°Talk18:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I happen to think the decision to go to war is always tragic but I don't, as a result of my belief, edit the Wikipedia article on war because I find its tone to be insufficiently anti-war. To do so would be to impose my POV on the article, which is only there to describe war, not to pass judgement on it, and not to prevent it.
There are professional bodies who suggest that it's best to avoid pictures of people smoking on the basis that it may encourage more people to smoke. If Wikipedia started following this advice for that reason, don't you agree that it would amount to Wikipedia taking an anti-smoking position? And don't you agree that that would be a violation of NPOV?GideonF (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not a great picture for our purposes, it really has little value for the article since the only way we know it's related is through the caption. There's a very low bar for replacing it, but using the argument that "Wikipedia might theoretically kill people because it included a vague image" is moral panic material and we shouldn't get too worked up over this. Sure, we can be cautious, but let's not overreact. SDY (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Romeo and Juliet
@Colin: Would you recommend that Romeo and Juliet be removed from libraries around the world? The book has teenage protagonists that commit suicide, in a very romantic fashion. It makes suicide look positively wonderful. And the play is widely hailed as great literature. Is there a risk that suicidal people will read it and get pushed over the edge? What about suicidal persons watching the play? These are rhetorical questions, of course, the point is we should not overreact because some experts have urged caution. Instead, we should work to find an encyclopedic illustration that does not run afoul of the legitimate professional concerns. --Noleander (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
You confuse me for someone who gives a damn. The "shrug" is the key point. There are reasonable discussion points about expert suggestions and their applicability and about the EV of this image. Both could go either way and I'm fine with that. Everything else is just silly. Colin°Talk21:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Which image to use in the lead
Consensus is against the use of the "Death of Chatterton" and I agree that this it is not an accurate image of the subject matter is not the most appropriate picture for this article. There does seem to be support for a image however. "The Suicide" does not appear to romantize the subject and is a more accurate depiction while still not being gory. Thus I hope it addresses many of the concerns raised.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I would support that new illustration That new illustration is a small (very small) improvement over Chatterton, but I'm not sure it would be worth the trouble to insert it: it is similar in so many ways. I still maintain that an actual photograph of a real suicide would be the most encyclopedic image for this article. But, in my brief searches, I have not yet found such a photo in the public domain. There is a photo above in this section showing a person sitting on a ledge of a building, and I think that is going in the right direction, but without a lot more factual information about the person (who are they? did they commit suicide? how reliable are the sources?) that image is not an improvement. --Noleander (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC) --Noleander (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The ideal photo, which would satisfy most editors I think, would have the following characteristics: (1) someone notable; (2) suicide facts supported by Reliable sources; (3) not too gruesome; (4) not obscene (no nudity); (5) shows the dead body (not before, e.g. before jumping from a building); (6) in the public domain freely available. But that is a tall order. --Noleander (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Interesting list. I don't find (2) or (4) desirable, and I would actually prefer that an image not meet (1). Also at least some above have expressed a dispreference for a photo (rather than an illustration of a different type). While I agree on (6), I don't expect this preference to be widely shared (though I don't think anyone would mind).
Frankly I wouldn't mind using a photo of, say, an actor (surely there is some such depiction?) provided it is realistic. That's just one example of why I don't find (2) important. Another possibility would be a photo of an attempted suicide; while I would find this less good (per your (5)) it may be easier to find.
I agree with many of your thoughts. That list of criteria is not my personal preference, but rather is designed to be the "lowest common denominator" that would satisfy most editors thus reduce drama in WP and help us reach consensus. --Noleander (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure (5, postmortem) is really a good idea, frankly. If it's only an image of suicide because we're telling the reader that it's an image of suicide, that doesn't really depict the subject. I'm going to concur with CRG that (1) isn't desirable, though it isn't necessarily a problem. Honestly, the image in the article isn't great and I'd prefer to replace it, but I haven't seen any proposal that's actually an improvement. Something that shows the history of it (i.e. artistic depictions, maybe even of Greek myth) might be useful to give a reader a sense of it. Another idea to kick out into the pool to consider, though it does involve some WP:NOTCENSORED I think it's unlikely to cause a stir: The suicide of AjaxSDY (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
(undent) Regardless, it does (1) clearly depict suicide witout forcing the concept through captions, (2) provide a sense of the history of the subject. It also directly contradicts the lead, which I'm fixing either way, since "West" is such a vague concept and suicide was fairly acceptable in the Classical era. For the record, I am specifically opposed to a photo of a dead body, which is just voyeuristic and distracting: suicide isn't about bodies, it's about death. The metaphysical is far more important than the physical on this topic: people don't ask "what did they do with the body?" but "why did he kill himself?" SDY (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Leaving aside the proposed risk of reader suicide and whether we care, etc, etc... SDY's comment brings us back to the fact that this subject neither requires a lead image nor is it easy to find one image to lead with. It is a similar topic to murder, which has no lead image and is none the worse for it. Colin°Talk15:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
There isn't consensus that we absolutely must have an image of a suicide in the lead. There was a vote (which is strongly discouraged because they restrict discussion) on "illustrating the article with depictions of suicide". Whether such an image is chosen for the lead, and whether this article should even have any lead image are separate discussions, and one I hope would be made editorially rather than due to some supposed policy or guideline requirement. A healthy situation IMO is that folk accept we are not compelled to have a lead image (it's a "nice to have"), that this is a controversial issue, and that therefore we need a convincing editorial reason to chose a particular one. The worst outcome would be running some sort of popularity contest and picking the one with the most votes. Colin°Talk08:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree we should have some sort of image, but I don't think any of the options that have been presented so far are ideal. Allusions to Shakespeare (e.g. Ophelia) or famous real life victims are useful educationally as part of the culture and history of suicide, much more so than gratuitous "hey here's a picture of a dead guy." The image doesn't even have to be the person dead. Socrates is another example where the manner of death is an important part of the individual's history and we even know his fairly complex opinion of the act. There's even a notable painting of the event, The Death of Socrates. SDY (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The new infobox image, Manet's The Suicide is not relevant to the article, and doesn't advance the reader's understanding in any meaningful way. WP:IMAGE says
Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information.
should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter.
(My bolding.) This policy is moderated by this recently added to WP:IMAGE
Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience (which includes visual learners), images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions (in accordance with the details of this page), rather than deleting them - especially on pages which lack visuals.
This policy does not say "Any picture is better than no picture." Since Edouard Manet, The Suicide is related to the topic but not the article, and does not add to the readers' understanding in any meaningful way, I have deleted it. If someone can defend its inclusion on policy grounds, please do so. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the Manet image is relevant: it depicts a person who committed suicide. As for "providing information" it shows an artist's rendition of what a suicide victim may look like afterwards, and shows that shooting with a handgun is sometimes done. I'm not saying it is a great image for this article, but it is relevant. Also, deleting in the middle of an RfC is not appropriate, especially when there is a poll above ("Should some image be used or not?") is strongly in favor of keeping some image. --Noleander (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
It is relevant to the topic, and I've come round to it being relevant to the article. I was thinking it needs to reference something specific in the article, but now think it meets that criterion, as it is emblematic of the article's entire contents. Can you persuade me on the third point. I'm not convinced it tells the reader anything a 4-year-old television-watcher doesn't already know about suicide. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I was being opaque. 1. Relevant to the topic 2. relevant to the article and 3. Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information and should increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
You are correct: the Manet image is weak on point #3. I can imagine other images that would be far more informative. One could argue that it has some informational value ("suicides sometimes happen alone; in bedrooms; with a handgun") as well as meta-information ("Notable impressionistic painters considered suicide a valid subject"; "there are famous paintings of suicide"). I guess my interpretation of the policies is that images are super important for articles (see FA and GA requirements), and that trumps the fact that an image may be not-very-informative. I guess I endorse that policy you quoted above: "Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions ... rather than deleting them." --Noleander (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Images are often beneficial to an article and encouraged if appropriate ones can be found. But there are no requirements or encouragements anywhere on WP for an article to have a lead image. That the info box template has a image parameter doesn't mean we have to use it. We need to have a stronger reason for picking an image for the lead than that it turned up in a Google image search and we had some white space at the top-right of the article. Colin°Talk18:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, we're certainly making a serious effort. :) But that policy you just cited does not say "a picture that does not conform to policy is preferable to no picture." And I'm pretty sure GA and FA guidelines don't trump WP:IMAGE and WP:IUP policies. I'm not familiar with the GA and FA guidelines but if there is indeed a conflict, the policies and guidelines will need to be reconciled. And any 4- (maybe 6-) year-old television-watcher knows that suicides sometimes happen alone; in bedrooms; with a handgun. And the picture does not say notable impressionistic painters considered suicide a valid subject. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
(undent) I don't think the Manet is a terrible image to use for the article, but we could do better. I'm a little concerned that "educational value" might be construed to mean "blood and guts and gore" which really aren't all that educational. Dead people are messy, not exactly a useful or necessarily on-topic lesson (i.e. the article isn't about anatomy or corpses). What can we provide visually that's actually educational? I've proposed either something from history (e.g. Socrates) or something from literature (e.g. R&J), which both have specific educational value. SDY (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
History and culture are both important elements of a comprehensive article. We should be covering more than the clinical aspects, especially for something that's such a common event in drama and tragedy both real and imagined. SDY (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Excellent point. That reminds me of a recent battle in the Astrology article over some material, and another editor pointed out that 99% of the article focused on the scientific veracity of astrology, but the article had virtually no mention of the huge influence of astrology on society/culture (e.g. daily newspaper astrology columns). I think the gist of the comment was: "Maybe you guys should stop battling over this scientific dispute, and start trying to fill in the missing material". --Noleander (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I would like to see thoughtful erudite coverage of suicide in history and culture. But this had better not turn into a bunch of dudes who've never shown any interest in suicide before, slapping some shit together after a frenetic afternoon of googling, just so you can make some point. Provided you can reassure others that the authority/ies you base the section/s on is/are respected and uncontroversial, you should have no problem. That will justify a picture or two, for sure, as far as Wikipedia policy goes. Remember, images should be inside the major section to which they relate. Manet would still be inappropriate for the infobox here.
As far as looking yourself in the mirror goes, I recommend including no images at all, until we have a better understanding of their potential impact on the vulnerable. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
"But this had better not turn into a bunch of dudes who've never shown any interest in suicide before, slapping some shit together after a frenetic afternoon of googling, just so you can make some point."
I like the image. It doesn't conform to WP:IUP or WP:IMAGE. Images are primarily meant to inform readers and should increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. This image does not. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes and this image informs, it is only your opinion that it does not. Consensus is that we should have an image. We have agreed not to use one that romanticizes the subject matter.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
What does it tell the reader he or she doesn't already know? That is, what does it inform him or her of? How does it increase his or her understanding? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Anthonyhcole, I have come the conclusion that you are here to promote your own fixed agenda, regardless of the consensus reached by the editors as a group. This is evidenced by the contempt that you display to opinions that vary from your own (the quote above and your response) and by your questions to Doc James when his statement is the very answer to the questions the you followed it with. Axl¤[Talk]18:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
What does Manet's The Suicide tell the reader he or she doesn't already know, as prescribed by WP:IMAGE and WP:IUP? It appears to inform the reader of nothing and so does not comply with policy. Local consensus does not trump policy. Contempt? Not at all. I respect you all and have made that very clear in all my dealings with you here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
It does inform the reader of a number of things as mentioned (guns are a common medthod of suicide, the most common in the USA if I remember correct) there is a long history to suicide. This image does comply with policy.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it meets the expectations of those two policies. I think we can find a better image, but that's more of an editorial question. SDY (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Everybody knows guns are a method of suicide. This image does not inform, or increase the understanding of the reader. Saying it does doesn't make it so. Tell me one thing it tells the reader that he or she doesn't already know, if you can. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I have stated a couple of things. You could try to get consensus. Current consensus is that we should have an image. This one here does illustrate suicide. Therefore it does give information. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
7 : 10 does not represent a consensus position. But I'm discussing whether the Manet image conforms to policy. To do that it should improve the readers' understanding, it should inform the reader. Just tell me one thing it tells the reader that he or she doesn't already know. Everybody knows what a man lying in a bed with a gunshot looks like. What use is this picture? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I've had advice from several editors now along the lines of "Yes, images that don't increase the readers' understanding are contrary to WP:IUP but nobody cares." So I'll drop this stick, with regard to this article. To be clear, I won't be pursuing the line that, because Manet's The Suicide is counter to policy, it should be removed. I actually favour emblematic images for leads, provided they don't do harm. I should also point out that I appreciate James' concession with regard to Chatterton. And I agree not enough evidence regarding the effect of images on suicidal behaviour and ideation has been brought to this discussion yet to justify removal of all depictions of suicide. I'd like to keep this request for comment open for a few more weeks to see if such evidence can be found. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I've been thinking about chair for a bit, and have concluded an emblematic image for a topic isn't necessarily a bad thing. I still feel creepy about having depictions of suicide here but have no problem with you holding another view. I've emailed Prof. Keith Hawton'sOxford Centre for Suicide Reasearch asking for any input they may like to offer on the questions under discussion here but also on the article itself. Hopefully they'll take a look. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC):
I deleted the image of Manet's le Suicide because:
It's in the same vein as the Death of Chatterton.
Consensus is for an image not that specific image
Nobody was awarded the exclusive rights to choose the image.
Considering it is a point of contention if an appropriate image can be found then others should be allowed to weigh in
Would you expect to see an image like that hanging on the wall of a mental health clinic? Of course not, you would think the people working their are twisted. Relevance here? The type of people trying to receive help at a mental health clinic i.e. clinically depressed, bipolar, suicidal etc. are the same type of people who seek information on the internet and the first spot in the search engine is Wikipedia. So why be twisted here? For decoration purposes? If it means so much for some people to decorate this page then find an appropriate image and put it up for discussion and can the acrimony and b.s. already. 7mike5000 (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe that the "tables" analogy was a specific reply to Anthonyhcole's statement "Everybody knows what a man lying in a bed with a gunshot looks like. What use is this picture?" Replace "man lying in bed with a gunshot" with "table". Axl¤[Talk]16:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
To User:Jmh649: Just curious how is it that you seem to believe that you somehow have more authority than other users? Is your game plan just to wear people out so they say eff it and you get your way? Comments like this:
"If a better image can be found I would be happy to consider it". How is it that you have to be made "happy"?
"First of all people who are depressed and suicidal will not be reading Wikipedia." No offense this shows a marked lack of knowledge of the subject matter. Major depressive disorder got 102k hits in September[43]. Suicide got 104k hits[44]. What type of people are reading these articles.? Art connoisseurs who appreciate the fine art which decorates some of Wikipedias pages? Or people that are suicidal and depressed? And speaking of art connoisseurs, and again no offense, but how is it that you've appointed yourself Wikipedia's interior decorator? 7mike5000 (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Oh, the humanity, “Can't we just all get along?”
Googling suicide: Surfing for suicide information on the Internet.[45]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost. The argument of supposed "harm" is the same as the one raised for the Rorschach test. It is the argument that while professionals are "safe" to look at these images the general population or certain subsection of it need to be protected from this information. This is plain and simple censorship and paternalism (not the business we are in). Currently reading an excellent book on the topic [47] We do know that 50-70% of physicians are using Wikipedia in clinical practice. People with severe depression typically have "Loss of interest in most or all activities" and decreased activity/catatonia. Thus not typically surfing the net reading academic articles about depression. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I think you should stop already GideonF. I'm concerned that nobody is going to let you join in any reindeer games and then you may feel sad and alienated, which may cause depression which could lead to thoughts of suicide. 7mike5000 (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Mike, I'm not sure why you've decided to make a mockery of this process instead of taking part constructively or what it is you think it's going to achieve, but if you want to do something that actually increases the odds of the article ending up the way you want it to end up then let me give you some advice: your side of the argument was better served when you were letting Anthony represent it.GideonF (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(undent) Dragging this conversation back from the brink... As long as the image doesn't actually appear twice in the same article I don't think re-using it is a problem. There might actually be some logic to having the lead article have the same image as the template. Given that only someone looking very closely at the images would even see that the goblet is from the same painting, I don't think this is a big deal. SDY (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice Gideon. Can I give you some? Enough is enough already. It's not a matter of "increases the odds of the article ending up the way you want it to". That's the way you see it; it's not "my way" it's a matter of doing what is right. What is right in this case is making the article into a reputable encycylopedia article and you don't achieve that by posting images of what, taken out of context appear to be dead cartoon characters, that's besides the termites blowing themselves up, pea aphids, sticky goo, referring to people as organisms and the advertising section for how to kill yourself books.
Your arguments don't hold water, you have referenced lions, cigarettes, and war yet the article is about suicide. The novella that's been written on this page is because two people are hell bent of posting a cartoon of a dead body, not my "anti-suicide pov pushing". I'm the one that posted the chart on circumstances and methods as well as an example of a suicide prevention poster because they are directly relevant to and supported by the text.
Since this little debate began on September 4 at least 3,000 people have killed themselves in the United States alone, so I take the topic pretty seriously. As far as being an advocate it is entirely possible to advocate what is right without interjecting a POV. You do that by writing an encyclopedia article and providing information that is "relevant" and not worrying about decorating. Here is an example from the article on von Willebrand's disease, I added the information on coagulation laboratories and lab errors[48]. What POV am I pushing there? How about this one on pitutary incidentalomas[49] No POV just the facts. So get off it with that. Now someone finds an image that is not contentious yet you have to complain about that too. The time wasted on this Alice in Wonderland black is white debate could have been spent doing something productive for everyone involved. Go do something productive and spare the Dear Abby routine. 7mike5000 (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
^Teasdale TW, Engberg AW, “Suicide after traumatic brain injury: a population study.” J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry (2001; 71: 436-440)
^ Silver JM, Kramer R, Greenwald S, Weissman M, “The Association between head injuries and psychiatric disorders: findings from the New Haven NIMH Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study,” Brain Inj (2001: 15: 935-945)
^Simpson G, Tate R. “Suicidality after traumatic brain injury: demographic, injury and clinical correlates.” Psychological Medicine (2002; 32: 687-98)
^Popovic V, Aimaretti G, Casanueva FF, Ghigo E. “Hypopituitarism following traumatic brain injury.” Growth Hormone and IGF Research (2005; 15: 3: 177-184)
^Schneider HJ, Kreitschmann-Andermahr I, Ghigo E, Stalla GK, Agha A. “Hypothalamopituitary dysfunction following traumatic brain injury and aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. A systematic review.” JAMA (2007; 26:1429-38)
Done Marek.69 talk 22:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Not done: - Wikipedia is not censored. Do you have a factual basis for disputing the biblical references provided at ""The Bible and Suicide". Religioustolerance.org. Retrieved 2009-05-06." (quoted by you as "[98]" above) et al? — Jeff G. ツ 04:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
_in_Dallas.jpg?lang=en)
![[27]](/wiki/File:Edouard_Manet_059.jpg){kind=link}
