Talk:Suicide/Archive 6

RfC: Crisis hotline link

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

---

At the top of the suicide article, should we include a banner with a link to a crisis hotline? I have looked through previous proposals, but none of the discussions had more than a few contributors, and none had RFCs. Ross Hill 16:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Support

Oppose

• No way Absolutely cannot be done without majorly violating NPOV and giving the impression of advocating one hotline over the others, which will open all sorts of cans of worms. We already have List of suicide crisis lines, but a banner is going way over the top. Bad idea all around. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  To be clear, I meant something small and relatively unobtrusive like {{Pp-meta}}, not a huge banner. Ross Hill 17:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  I don't think the size is at all the issue, it's the fundamental and downright dangerous NPOV issues that would be created. Would, say, a Christian hotline be eligible for the banner? What about a Scientologist one? What about the Westboro Baptist Church? Or the Church of Euthanasia, which generally supports suicide as a means of curbing population growth? Would we allow hotlines that report to law enforcement, knowing that in some cases that can make an already bad situation worse? Would we allow a hotline funded wholly or in part by the government, knowing that the government doesn't always hold mainstream views on mental health, and may introduce bias? What about a hotline funded by pharmaceutical companies? Even if we decide that hotline x is safe and free of bias today, who's to say they won't have a funding shift or hire a new director next week and introduce bias? While I acknowledge that some of these examples are hypothetical, issues such as these are why Wikipedia cannot, should not, and must not give out medical or mental-health advice, especially to at-risk persons who may not be thinking clearly. Again, a bad idea. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  How about just providing the List of suicide crisis lines? That remains neutral. Ross Hill 20:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  List of suicide crisis lines could be placed in the See also section. The top of the page is not the appropriate place for it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Clearly we just need a link at the top to the Queen song "Don't try suicide". I mean, if we are going to do feel-good slactivism, we might as well be funny about it. Gigs (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose If I actually believed that doing this would prevent a single person from attempting suicide, I would be ok with bending the rules in this manner. I don't. Gigs puts it very well, and Ross Hill's suggestion is infintely preferable to advocating for particualr hotlines. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is an encyclopedia, not a self-help site. We have links to sites that people seeking help may find useful, but that's as far as it should go. Aside from the NPOV question mentioned above, we run the risk of causing real-world damage to people by pointing them to resources whose reliability we cannot vouch for. Rivertorch (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per beeblebrox, but support Ross Hill's suggestion, especially in a "See Also" Section.Tazerdadog (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry. This is an admirable sentiment, but it would make for a dangerous precedent. --BDD (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Great emotional idea, Bad intellectual one. No. Fiddle Faddle 22:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although Wikipedia would be an undeniably effective avenue for this sort of thing, this is absolutely not Wikipedia's function. We're not building a self-help guide, or a counseling service. We are an encyclopedia, and content in the article space should only be included if it serves the goals of an encyclopedia. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose As unfortunate as I feel for those under suicide consideration, this is an encyclopedia article over the general topic of suicide. The reliability of these websites are also in question, and generally violate the policy for the use of external links and spam. Finally, there are several neutral point of view issues with this proposal, while List of suicide crisis lines is already enough. I highly doubt that people will use Wikipedia as a online helpline, regardless. TBrandley (T • C • B) 01:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I can see that this proposition is well meaning, but it ignores the fact that Wikipedia is an international resource. Even if you restrict yourself to english speaking countries there must be thousands of helplines in the world and we cannot list them all. Even List of suicide crisis lines is woefully incomplete as it only lists two for all of Australia and there are dozens at least. This suggestion is impractical and fraught with POV problems. Djapa Owen (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an encyclopedia. We do discuss these hotlines in this article. There is very little evidence supporting or refuting their us. If there was strong evidence I would be more inclined. But right now no. The next issue if there was support (there isn't) is what number would it be? The link to the crisis hotlines is in the external links sections. Does not need to also go in a "see also" section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Although the banner might not be seen as neutral, I think WP:IAR applies because The Wikimedia Foundation has made their stance on threats of suicide clear at WP:SUICIDE, and the template {{Suicide response}}. The article Suicide is likely a place where people who were feeling suicidal would go. Ross Hill 16:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

And at this article they can find links to List of crisis hotlines and the excellent Open Directory Project page at dmoz.org. If you know of a hotline that all our suicidal readers on seven continents can call toll-free and hear no religion- or ideology-tainted nonsense from the person on the other end of the line and run no risk of unwanted intervention that could result in criminal liability, maybe WP:IAR might apply. Maybe. Rivertorch (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

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

I'd rather not reopen the discussion, but I'd just like to take up the case for, or rather push back on a few of the arguments presented against this.

1. Neutrality. Are we seriously going to argue that if someone is suicidal, that telling them to get help and call some kind of hotline is not neutral? I mean, people who are pro-suicide might have a strong objection to the inclusion of such links. Neutral point of view has a limit: I think it's perfectly acceptable to draw that limit at the death of our readers. We're not neutral point of view on paedophilia—we ban editors who openly reveal themselves to be paedophiles or child molesters. Anyone who writes in good faith for an encyclopedia would seem to me to subscribe to the principle that knowledge and education is generally good. Indeed, the Wikimedia Foundation's mission is "imagine a world where every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge". That accessing and sharing of free knowledge requires the continued existence of human beings. Neutrality can allow for very obvious exceptions, and I think that "hey, if you are suicidal, here, call a number listed on this page" probably counts.
2. Neutrality between providers. This is a solvable problem: have a page in project space, have a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation make a list of suggestions of the best numbers to include.
3. "It's not our job." We're an encyclopedia. Sure. Well, the BBC is a broadcaster. It's not their job to prevent suicides either. It's not the job of journalists. It's not the job of Presidents and business leaders and celebrities to participate in things like It Gets Better. They don't have to do these things, but they are nice things to do. Potentially helping people in a crisis all in exchange for a tiny number of bytes on a webpage? That's a pretty decent thing to do.
   • There is already good practice here: the BBC, for instance. The Samartians suggest that media outlets "Provide contact information for support services, to encourage people at risk to seek help at an earlier stage."
4. "This isn't the sort of thing an encyclopedia should do. You wouldn't find this in Britannica." This is true. But we must recognise the world we are in. There are people who use the Internet who are vulnerable. Internet access is more widespread than access to printed encyclopedias like Britannica. If someone were suicidal in the era of Britannica, Britannica may not be the first place they turn for information about suicide. The Internet accelerates the impulsivity of people who are in crisis situations. As cases like Tyler Clementi show, the Internet is woven into our lives in a way that reference books never were: it comes with us everywhere on smartphones, on tablets, on laptops, in Internet cafes. We share our identities and our lives on the Internet. It's a very different medium from print. With that difference in medium, I think there is a difference in our obligation towards our readers.
5. The slippery slope. One argument that could be levelled against doing this is that it's a slippery slope. If we allow a little note at the bottom of Suicide pointing someone to The Samaritans (or local equivalent thereof), what's to stop us having a little note at the bottom of Abortion linking someone off to Planned Parenthood or their nearest crisis pregnancy center? And then we'd have competing points of view. Same if at the bottom of articles on the ex-gay movement, we link off with an advert for an ex-gay organisation. Professional broadcasters have dealt with this. The BBC very occasionally have a link off to The Samaritans or other support groups. This shouldn't be rocket science to work out. The fact that we are having this discussion now and it's a matter that reasonable people can differ on means that there will be a high bar for other articles. This is as it should be. One simple way to solve this would be to only allow the provision of it where there is a broad consensus in mainstream media sources that such intervention is useful and can be done in a neutral, helpful way.

Wikipedia is a mainstream media outlet now, and we ought to start taking the responsibilities that come with that position. We shouldn't just dismiss this kind of thing out of hand. Anyway, since this discussion has already been closed without the chance for anybody to have a go at defending the policy, this is probably moot. But I wanted to get these thoughts out. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

 note Any one may reopen a withdrawn RfC. Ross Hill 15:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Since my initial reply to the RfC was kind of flip, I'll tackle your points with counterpoints. I don't expect that we'll come to any kind of agreement on the matter, but some things to consider.

1. The issue is that there is a significant minority contingent that believes it's a person's sovereign right to choose whether to live or die. Something like a link at the top of Gun listing anti-gun groups to contact if someone is considering purchasing a gun is POV in the same fashion as a link to anti-suicide groups here. I know that's a little of a straw man, but bear with me in the argument that the two actions would only differ in that there are many more people who believe in the right to bear arms than the right to die.
2. Your argument regarding pedophilia is an important one. The foundation's position against pro-pedophilia advocacy, and its position on suicidal editors are both primarily driven by the same thing: Liability and the fear of bad press. These are not positions the foundation would take in an ideal world. These policies exist to protect the foundation and the rest of the editors and admins, not children or the suicidal. They may have some beneficial side-effects of helping to protect children or suicidal people, but I think it's clear to most that that isn't the reason they exist.
3. Your examples of political advocacy by high profile groups and individuals are far outside the scope of the "big tent" that Wikipedia and WMF represent. The WMF generally only engages in mission-related advocacy such as intellectual property reform and advocacy of free content licenses.
4. Your argument regarding the Internet changing the availability of media could easily be turned around the other way. If someone wants help from a suicide help line or forum, they can find it with extreme ease. If anything the responsibility is lessened due to the great ease with which anti-suicide resources can be located these days.
5. I would argue that it's not so much a slippery slope, but that it's engaging in a lesser form of things that we would otherwise never do, such as in my first example. I believe we could have a link here without necessarily doing all those other things, but in doing so, it would be compromising our normal practices, for a very dubious gain. Gigs (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

We need evidence that this actually helps before we consider doing it. I think the argument regarding slacktivism is an excellent one. If doing something positive is hard it does not mean that we should do something easy just for the sack of doing something. If there are people here interested in bringing this article to FA I would be happy to help out having brought it to GA not too long ago. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Advising people to not kill themselves isn't incompatible with "the sovereign right to choose whether to live or die". You have the right to kill yourself if you like. (Although, as with the right to free speech or freedom of religion, I'd be grateful if people could avoid practicing said rights at rush hour on the London Underground.) Saying "If you've found the issues presented in this article to affect you, feel free to call {whoever}" isn't an infringement of your right to go through with suicide if you really want to. Now, there are probably some people tiny number of people who think that this is an egregious breach of neutrality. I'd agree with them that it is a breach of neutrality, but that it would be one occasion when neutrality can safely be ignored per ignore all rules.

I'd challenge the assertion that Wikipedia's policy to ban editors engaging in pro-paedophilia activities only exists because of a fear of bad press and legal liability. The reason we do so is to protect other editors and because, you know, people raping and sexually assaulting kids is bad and protecting kids from predatory paedophiles is good. The reason that the Foundation and the community tries to protect children from paedophile editors is because paedophiles abusing kids is bad. There is a minority of people who do think to the contrary. And we rightly tell them to go get stuffed.

I probably ought not to have included Obama's participation in It Gets Better. I forgot that telling LGBT teenagers to not kill themselves is considered by some to be "political". That probably obscured the point of the BBC example: nobody accuses the BBC of having an "anti-suicide bias" because it includes mention of The Samaritans or the "BBC Action Line", which they set up for potentially sensitive topics. People accuse the BBC of bias on a lot of things—politics, economics, representation of women and minorities—but the criticism of including a very brief mention of an action line following a programme on a potentially sensitive topic is that they sometimes go over-the-top. Am I going to change the level of trust I have in the BBC's reporting of, say, the Egyptian political situation because they had a programme about suicide that included ten seconds at the end saying "If any of the issues raised in this programme have affected you, please phone {number}"? No. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, at least you can see how it does violate neutrality. So, like Jmh649 and I brought up before, would this really amount to anymore more than feel-good slacktivism? We've established it does have a "cost" in terms of our principles, so it seems that the burden would then be to show that there's an actual value to it. I'm not sure that can be established in any real way. Gigs (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The NPOV concerns go well beyond "the sovereign right to choose whether to live or die". If we were to provide information about any hotline, we'd have to be concerned about who's operating it and what they may be telling the people who make contact. "Don't kill yourself. You will burn in Hell if you do." "If you accept Jesus as your personal Saviour, he will forgive you your sins and you won't have to kill yourself." "You can be cured and made free of the homosexual lifestyle that's making you want to kill yourself." "Send us a self-addressed stamped envelope and $10 shipping and handling, and we'll send you information on Staying Alive By Empowering The Inner You!" This is more than just a NPOV issue; there is the risk of doing real-world damage, of making things far worse—of pushing marginally suicidal people over the edge or of filling their last living moments with guilt and shame or at least of defrauding them. Now, reputable hotlines aren't going to dispense such drivel to callers, but how do we decide what constitutes a reputable hotline? Who will vet this resource before we IAR and put our imprimatur on it by linking it prominently in a major article? And it's not just a question of ensuring that a given hotline doesn't give bad advice; we also should be confident that they give good advice, i.e., that they're effective at persuading people not to kill themselves, and how are we to know that? Who measures the outcomes? Aside from the negative PR, it would be deeply unethical to refer our readers to a resource whose track record is inferior, and we have no way of determining that.

Other concerns are more purely logistical. The English Wikipedia is a global project, and afaik there are no global crisis lines. Even if we somehow could rationally and responsibly select one link per country (a tall order in itself), are we to include links for US, CA, UK, IE, AU, and NZ? We'd better not stop there. And what about expatriates from English-speaking countries? If we tried to cover all the bases here, we could wind up with an article that had 150KB of content before its lead sentence.

And there is a slippery slope. We have other articles dealing with self-harm and harm to others that theoretically might benefit from parallel proposals. Do we have the resources to devote to assessing crisis-intervention hotlines to link in those articles as well? But averting real-world crises isn't what Wikipedia is about. At least not the Wikipedia I've been editing all these years. Yes, we are a "mainstream media outlet" of sorts, but that happened more by accident than design; we are alleged to be first and foremost an encyclopedia. Just because they've made the login page look like Facebook doesn't mean we shouldn't make some effort to remember what we're here for. Ultimately, I'd like to think we're helping make a better world, but it seems to me we should be doing that by presenting all our readers with encyclopedic knowledge, not by offering hit-or-miss remedies to the occasional hypothetical one who mistakenly wanders over here, instead of Google, looking for help.

This seems to me like a feel-good proposal, well intended but impossible to implement safely, rationally, and consistently with our mission. Rivertorch (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Moved here

This text needs better refs [1] There are also a number of erros with it.

"There are several cases that challenge the above definition of suicide. They include a) the act of jumping from the high floor of a burning building, b) the act of a soldier throwing herself or himself over a live hand grenade so as to protect fellow soldiers nearby, c) the act of a terminally ill patient withdrawing from life-sustaining treatment, voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, or ingesting life-ending medication so as to relieve suffering by controlling the dying process, d) arguably the act of ingesting a life-ending substance in conformance with a state execution (e.g., Socrates ingesting hemlock, which was in compliance with an execution order, not an example of suicide). These cases all involve examples of an "act of taking one's own life," except that the end of life in these cases was arguably imminent for the individual. Rather than severely shortening a life that is expected to continue for some time, the individual is controlling the manner of an imminent death."

For example this text "It is often confused with euthanasia" is not supported by this ref [2] Also this bit was a copy violation " which a physician provides a competent, terminally ill patient with a prescription for a lethal dose of medication, upon the patient's request, which the patient intends to use to end his or her own life." as it is word for word the same as the source [3]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 September 2013

"Over 10,000 Japanese civilians committed suicide in the last days of the Battle of Saipan" should be changed to "Over 1,000 Japanese civilians committed suicide in the last days of the Battle of Saipan"

Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saipan#Civilian_casualties 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDUy0uzmaU4&feature=player_detailpage#t=251 3. http://www.strangehistory.net/2012/09/29/suicide-at-saipan-how-many/

Unfortunately, I can not access page 519 of the cited source, but it is pretty clear that the total number of civilian casualties, not suicides, was around 10,000.

95.178.209.93 (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately you can't quote one wikipedia article as justification for changing another, i.e. if that was possible this article Suicide could be used as evidence for changing the number of causalities in Battle of Saipan from 1,000 to 10,000. In fact, the wikipedia article Battle of Saipan states 1,000 but that statement has no verifiable reference(s) to support it. In this case Wikipedia, is not regarded as a WP:Reliable source, neither is You tube. www.strangehistory.net is a blog site of beechcombing and its not clear who that author is. All that is known is what is given at here, so that not regarded as reliable a source.

I'm more than happy to correct an error(s) at wikipedia, but sorry I can't do it on the basis of the three sources given above. A reliable source is going need to be provided first. Pyrotec (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Borderline personality disorder

I would like to make a BPD subsection in this article, especially considering the fact that studies have repeatedly shown that anywhere from 8-10% of patients with BPD complete suicide (here and here) and as many as 73% of them attempt suicide (average of 3.4 attempts per patient (here). The rate of completed suicide and suicide attempts among BPD patients is possibly the highest I've seen among all mental disorders. These rates are higher than what is commonly reported among patients with major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder (I & II), schizophrenia, substance use disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other personality disorders. Any objections to a BPD subsection? --DendroNaja (talk) 04:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that's fine, do you plan to integrate it into risk factors/mental disorders? I think the challenge will be to describe research contrasting intentional self-harm and actual suicidality. I always had the impression that anorexia was the most lethal mental disorder but that doesn't cover the intentional aspect of suicide, so I learned something new. Benutzer41 (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Social Networking Sites

I added some emerging research on uses of social networking sites for prevention and the fact that these sites are increasingly serving as the context for announcing suicidal ideation. I will also add this, with additional detail to suicide prevention main article. Benutzer41 (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

@Benutzer41: This is interesting emerging research, and I'm glad to see it. I have been a denizen of those old fashioned things, internet forums, since pre 1998, and seen at first hand their use in suicide prevention, suicide declaration, and been actively involved in saving a couple of folk through them coupled with very fast internet detective work. My experience is anecdotal, so inadmissible in the article, but I felt it might interest you in this small outline statement. The population which used to use them seems to have migrated to more modern social media. Fiddle Faddle 18:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Fiddle Faddle. I will keep an eye out for admissible sources on these responses to posted suicidal ideation. Good for you for having reached out like that. The research with Facebook is looking into time lapses between posts as an indicator of trouble, not just posted content. I am also interested in the effect of social network posts on survivors, but I couldn't find anything on that.Benutzer41 (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

We still need to use secondary sources to discuss it rather than primary ones per WP:MEDRS. Thus trimmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There are times when one may speak of emerging research in an article and not adhere to the letter of sourcing. Indeed, a primary source is considered to be valid in special cases. To me this is one of those cases. I view this as a special case, and disagree with you. I will not revert your trimming, but, under WP:BRD I feel we need to discuss it. I can say with clarity that I am in favour of its inclusion, modified to ensure it is viewed as a report that the research is emerging, and with the sources restored, but marked as primary. Fiddle Faddle 11:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Every other source in the article is a secondary source. If there are no secondary sources on this issue than it is of questionable notability and probably of undue weight. I guess we could put it in a research section at the end but IMO it should not be here until covered in a secondary source (by the way it might already be covered has anyone looked?)Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This paper touches on it slightly. [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The article (ours) is substantial enough to carry a minor section on research without it being undue weight, I think. While I have a personal view that it is important I understand perfectly that WIkipedia articles need to show it as just emerging onto the radar. THat is what is taking place. Even when covered in RS and a mainstream thing (if ever) this will never be the main focus of the article here, it will just be an interesting side issue.. Fiddle Faddle 23:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes there is room for a small section on research. This section however should still be based on secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it should be based on secondary sources. But there is nothing to give an absolute requirement that it must be. Indeed there is every reason to deploy {{Primary-source-inline}} by any primary source, something which indicates clearly to the reader that we are not satisfied with the quality of referencing, but that this is the best we have achieved so far. I suspect we are not so far apart, you and I. We each require the best possible sourcing for aspects in articles we touch. Fiddle Faddle 10:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Not all the references on this page are secondary sources, e.g., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17606825 sole citation for this statement "While acts of self-harm are not seen as suicide attempts, the presence of self-injurious behavior is related to increased suicide risk.[25]" Also, per WP:MEDREV, reputable primary sources can be used if the content makes clear it is a "single study"; and then "After enough time has passed for a review in the area to be published, the review should be cited in preference to the primary study.". I can rephrase the research to clarify that it is a primary source. Benutzer41 (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for point out that primary source. I have replaced it with a secondary one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's the proposed text:

Suicidal ideation expressed on social networking sites such as Facebook is impacting changing prevention techniques and research. For example, Facebook is collaborating with suicide prevention groups to conduct research interpreting warning signs from postings prior to the suicide.

It's just two sentences, which doesn't strike me as a big section. Neither of the sentences are making biomedical claims. "Suicide-related workers have noticed that people post suicide notes online" is not biomedical information. "Some business is working with some organizations" is not biomedical information. I therefore conclude that MEDRS doesn't apply. These sources are probably adequate for the actual claims being made. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Doc James, I looked at the review you mentioned,[5] which makes a statement about social networking sites that refers to one primary source. However, I found secondary sources describing findings for suicide and the Internet broadly speaking, so I will add a research section. I still think it is appropriate to include the text focusing on social networking sites and I would like to add the "proposed text" above into the research section, if we have consensus. I will check back before I add it. Benutzer41 (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I intend to add additional secondary sources into research section regarding suicide and the internet. There is an existing wiki article called Suicide and the Internet but at a glance, all the references appear to be primary sources. I also propose to move and improve slightly existing content from the "Advocacy" section which fits with the research I found.Benutzer41 (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I have combined the other content you had added as it was already dealt with in the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Addition of unreffed content from sub article

Adding blocks of poorly referenced text such as done in this edit [6] IMO is not appropriate. Especially when it is on the subpage. This article is an overview. Subpages are for greater detail. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we've had this conversation (many times) before. It is not poorly referenced. Each claim can be found in the source, and the sources are from reputable organizations. You are correct that the history subpage should give greater detail, and it does. I have culled the more important facts for the main page. As it is, the history section is very inadequate and incoherent - I'm sure you would agree that it can do with some improvement. By the way, I originally wrote the material, I have not 'duplicated' it.Noodleki (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate ref.[7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This text is without refs <block>By 1879, English law began to distinguish between suicide and homicide, although suicide still resulted in forfeiture of estate. In 1882, the deceased were permitted daylight burial in England and by the mid 20th century, suicide had become legal in much of the western world. The secularisation of society that began during The Enlightenment questioned traditional religious attitudes toward suicide and brought a more modern perspective to the issue. David Hume denied that suicide was a crime as it affected no one and was potentially to the advantage of the individual. In his 1777 Essays on Suicide and the Immortality of the Soul he rhetorically asked, “Why should I prolong a miserable existence, because of some frivolous advantage which the public may perhaps receive from me?” A shift in public opinion at large can also be discerned; The Times in 1786 initiated a spirited debate on the motion “Is suicide an act of courage?”</block> Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not especially well referenced, and I'm not arguing for its re-inclusion without better sources, but I would like to comment on your rationale for the original removal, viz., WP:MEDMOS. For an article that touches on so many areas - medical, philosophical, social - citing WP:MEDMOS seems to imply that the medical aspects trump all other aspects in importance, which is not the case. There used to be a POV fork, Medical views of suicide (now a redirect) that should perhaps be recreated if you want an article that focusses primarily or exclusively on the medical POV.GideonF (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue is one of referencing. Adding large blocks of unreffed text is not appropriate. It is in the subarticle. I stand corrected and should have used WP:V instead as justification. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This for Donne, Hume, Moore and Enlightenment thought, this on the Times, this for 1879 legal shift, this for 1882, and there we have it.Noodleki (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Refs look better. We discuss how it used to be illegal here Suicide#Legislation Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edit duplicates content elsewhere in the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested moves of Suicide templates

Input is appreciated here: Template talk:Suicide#Requested moves. Cheers, Manifestation 15:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Cultural bias

The preamble is highly problematic. Suicide is pathologized and then there are ways outlined to prevent suicide. But this is only a reflection of the attitude in the western culture. Due to the influence of the three monotheistic religions, most importantly Christianity. Where suicide is considered sinful. But compare this e.g. with Seppuku in japanese culture where suicide is viewed as an honorable act. The preamble should be rewritten to reflect a cross-cultural definition of suicide without the pathologizing approach to suicidal inclinations as features of a mental disorder.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.98.11 (talk) 09:12, 7 February 2014‎ (UTC)

Ah not really. Suicide is no longer viewed as Seppuku and that was only in a certain class. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Seppuku may not be the best example, but it's hard to argue the article isn't biased towards a Western/Christian, medicalised view of suicide.GideonF (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Any change / addition being proposed? The article currently reflects the best available English language literature. Suicide in the English word is deemed to be very much a medical issue. It is much less so a legal one now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd move most of the medical POV stuff back to medical views of suicide and re-focus the whole article to provide a broad overview of cultural, philosophical, religious, legal and medical views, drop the overtly-medical language of "risk factors" and "epidemiology" (fine in the medical POV fork, but not here). I know this isn't going to happen, because the pro-life, pro-pathologisation side shouts louder and that's how Wikipedia works.GideonF (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes if you wish to redefine it as a none medical issue you will not be successful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I know, so we end up with a biased article. No point pretending otherwise.GideonF (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not a biased article. It simply reflects the literature. That is what we do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It reflects the literature with undue weight given to the medical literature.GideonF (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

In islam

The article has only one short sentence about suicide in islam.

"Suicide is not allowed in islam."

The literature to this is not clarifying much. Since we read much about suicide attacs by islamists, that should be reason to explain this in more detail. The latest fatwa about missions to mars says, that suicide is forbidden in the koran. In which sure? --Hans Eo (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction on precipitating factors

The section "Substance use" says "Substance abuse is the second most common risk factor for suicide after major depression and bipolar disorder" but the chart captioned "The precipitating circumstances for suicide from 16 American states in 2008" shows "Intimate partner" being the second most common factor after "Mental illness". This apparent contradiction should be resolved or at least explained. -- Beland (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@Beland:

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Fiddle Faddle 19:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Sorry, I don't have time to do that. I'm working on drought and water supply articles today instead. Just leaving this note here in case anyone else is interested or if I circle back around to this article in the future.-- Beland (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't find that figure or chart in the source: Karch, DL; Logan, J; Patel, N; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (CDC) (Aug 26, 2011). "Surveillance for violent deaths—National Violent Death Reporting System, 16 states, 2008". Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries (Washington, D.C. : 2002) 60 (10): 1–49. PMID 21866088.

The source is about violent death, not suicide. It includes some suicides but not others. Suicide is not necessarily violent death. In this report, suicide is defined as a death resulting from the use of force against oneself. By that definition, poison or drowning would not be violent death or suicide.

But unless someone can find the actual source of that chart, it must be removed. --Nbauman (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The one is about 18 US states. The other is more general. And drug misuse is a mental illness. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Addition to Rational Subheading

Proposed change to Rational subheading : As proposed in the classical work Suicide (book), there are three main rationals for suicide, egoistic, anomic, and altruistic. Egoistic Suicide is committed by individual's who feel alone in a world without support and alienated from others in that world. Anomic Suicide is committed by individual's, who after experiencing a major change in their place in society, feel disoriented.

References

Not sure what text you are proposing to be added were? Book is a little old. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Doc James, I'm proposing the addition of that text underneath the subtitle of Rational. I'm an undergrad student and this is for an assignment, so I'm very new to Wikipedia and I'm sorry if I was unclear. I understand that the book is a little old, however it still seems very relevant to me due to its in depth mention in my abnormal psychology textbook along with these other "types' of suicide. I do believe that the addition of the definition of egoistic and anomic suicide could help readers understand more the rational behind why individuals could choose to commit suicide. Thank you for your input. Ermoore (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

1897 is too old. We need to use newer refs. From the last 5-10 years anyway. Egoistic is discussed in other sections and is not deemed to be rational anymore. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay I understand. Thank you for your help with this. 70.171.35.134 (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay added to the psychology section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Tautology

Didn't expect to have to bring this up on the talk page, but if anyone wants to present a defence of of saying "unethical and immoral" (two words which mean the same thing) in preference to saying "unethical" please do so here.GideonF (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

These words are by no means exact synonyms. There are things that are immoral for you, me, to do that are not unethical when we are not bound by a code of ethics. Morality is also subjective. My morality and your morality are not congruent, though they may intersect. Perhaps an individual word should be chosen when one is required which may be neither of the two you mention, and more than one word be used when circumstances dictate it.

I have deliberately not read the article before answering you, preferring a technical answer without the benefit of context. Fiddle Faddle 15:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I did view the usage in context and still very much agree that morality and ethics are certainly not absolute synonyms. Our articles note the distinction (though the sections that do so could use some work), but regardless, the difference is one that is routinely considered in a vast array of social contexts, especially as relates to professional contexts. Morality is the broad term, more apt to refer to widely-applicable, innate, and non-contextual beliefs; it is generally the term utilized in the case of religious standards and other personal ideologies which are applicable in every aspect of life (as used in the sentence "He took 'thou shalt not kill' to be the supreme morale commandment of his faith."). Ethical standards are typically much more narrow, referring to how an individual perceives and applies general codes of conduct applied to a specific social context, often a professional obligation and is defined and utilized explicitly as such in fields such as law, medicine, military service, politics and business. So, for example, "The prosecutor was disbarred for ethical violations after he knowingly suborned perjury." Or, consider this statement to further contrast the two "It was a deep moral challenge for the the doctor to perform abortions, owing to his religion, but in the end he decided he had an ethical obligation to provide his patients with the care they requested." Needless to say, there is a lot of cross-over between the two terms, and in many contexts both terms may apply, but they are not directly analogous concepts and are more commonly used in somewhat mutually exclusive contexts and a person can an ethical obligation that they find morally objectionable, since ethics tend to be more collaborative standards that can conflict with the individuals morals (though of course morals too can be socially constructed). Some people who have never had to commit to a professional code of ethics may not be as familiar with the distinction as others and may use the terms interchangeably, but this does not change their formal and more widespread usage, which is strongly reflected in Wikipedia's sources on the matter. Snow talk 16:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I can see that in certain circumstances a thing may be described as unethical in terms of a professional code of ethics that is only debatably immoral; but professional codes of ethics are outside of the scope of philosophy. In philosophy, "ethics" is that branch of philosophy that concerns itself with morality and the terms "unethical" and "immoral" are synonyms in philosophical vocabulary. And this sentence does appear in the "philosophy" section.GideonF (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem I see with that argument is that philosophy is both a formal field of epistemology which you are referring to and a general catch-all for considering ideological concepts and it is more the latter than the former that is being used in the context of this page. Even putting that aside, I have many, many, many times heard the distinction between ethics and morality explored within a discussion of philosophy in an academic context. It's true that the formal treatment of ethics in philosophy is often called "moral philosophy", but this is largely a matter of historical terminology and philosophers are actually as engaged as any other profession in existence in exploring the nuances between the two terms. I should return for the moment to the actual content being debated though and say, for the record, I don't think it's particularly well written, that sentence, and might be changed to flow a little better; putting aside the question of duality between ethics and morality, the sentence awkwardly subordinates moral considerations as a subordinate class of morality, and it stands out. On the other hand, there just aren't many synonyms, partial or otherwise, that fit in this context, so it might be unavoidable. Snow talk 16:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaving aside the wider question of definitions in other contexts, on which we may well have to agree to disagree, do you think any information is conveyed by "unethical and immoral" in this context that would not be conveyed either word on its own?GideonF (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do, but given the contrast is not as strong as it might be in most contexts, that the difference is not earth-shattering to the general understanding of the topic, and that there are other syntactic and semantic factors to consider, I do think an alteration is in order. What do you think about this:

"Arguments as to acceptability of suicide in moral or social terms range from the position that the act is inherently immoral and unacceptable under any circumstances to the perception of suicide as a sacrosanct right of anyone who believes they have rationally and conscientiously come to the decision to end their own lives, even if they are young and healthy."

Snow talk 17:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with that except that I'd change "the perception of" to "regarding" for stylistic purposes.GideonF (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Except rather than change that segment to "the regarding of suicide" I used "a regard for suicide" as it seemed to read better that way. Nice working with ya! ;) Snow talk 18:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that this may seem as if I'm nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking, but if you really don't like constructing that sentence with a participle I'd rather go back to "a perception of" or recast the whole phrase than have "a regard for". Having a regard for something isn't the same as regarding it. Consider the following two sentences: (1) I regard Boris Johnson as a barefaced rogue; (2) I have a regard for Boris Johnson as a barefaced rogue. (2), unlike (1), suggests that I hold barefaced rogues in general and Boris Johnson in particular in a certain esteem. How about:

"Arguments as to acceptability of suicide in moral or social terms range from the position that the act is inherently immoral and unacceptable under any circumstances to the position that asserts suicide as a natural right of anyone who believes they have rationally and conscientiously come to the decision to end their own lives, even if they are young and healthy."

or

"Arguments as to acceptability of suicide in moral or social terms range from the position that the act is inherently immoral and unacceptable under any circumstances to the position that asserts suicide as a natural right.

GideonF (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the new wording, but replacing "unethical" with "unacceptable under any circumstances" feels like it has offered a stronger interpretation of the stance than what was previously provided. I can see something being immoral and unethical, but still the only acceptable option when faced with a worse choice. If we're ok with that then all is good, but the new phrase isn't the equivalent. - Bilby (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I see your point that it's not an exact equivalent to what was there before, but still, if the point is to delineate the full spectrum of perspectives on the matter via the two most polar positions, I think this works, since there are those who would say suicide is never an acceptable option, regardless of context. That was my thinking, anyway. Snow talk 03:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It does seem like a very strong statement, though. The problem with taking such an extreme deontological position is what you do when there is a major conflict between core principles. If there is, it might still be the case that other principles are considered to be marginally more important, so given a choice between two evils, suicide becomes the only acceptable choice, even if it is morally and ethically wrong. I'll do some reading - I'd be interested to see what Glover has to say about the topic. :) - Bilby (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, while I can't personally fault that assessment, surely there are hardliners out there who hold to positions where they at least believe (without being forced into the moral quandary themselves anyway), that there are no exceptions to the rule and that, as morally unacceptable on principle, the act is wholly unacceptable in practice, regardless of context. That is in fact why I phrased the statement as I did -- "inherently immoral and unacceptable", implying that the two are different (if linked) evaluations and that the most extreme position on that end is that the act is never acceptable. That being said, if your research can turn up a statement that is sourceable, or even just suggest more verifiable phrasing, that would certainly be a superior option for our purposes here. If nothing else it would stop us from chasing our tails in semantic circles. ;) Snow talk 05:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Suicide in the military

Perhaps this article could mention the fact that suicides are nearly twice as prevalent among soldiers and veterans than in the general (male) population? Sources: http://www.usatoday.com/story/nation/2014/04/25/suicide-rates-army-military-pentagon/8060059/ http://www.va.gov/opa/docs/suicide-data-report-2012-final.pdf

I would expect the term "Military suicide" to redirect to something about this fact and not to Suicide attack.

etothei (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd see no issue with being bold and adding something about this to the article, especially as you raised the matter here first. DonIago (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2014

Suicide is forbidden in Islam . "O ye who believe!... [do not] kill yourselves, for truly Allah has been to you Most Merciful. If any do that in rancour and injustice, soon shall We cast him into the Fire..." (Qur'an 4:29-30). 5.108.71.14 (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This is already discussed in the article. DonIago (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Add link to list of suicide crisis lines found on article about Suicide bridge

If you need confidential support see List of suicide crisis lines

Johnraphael (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Have trimmed per previous discussion here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Was discussed here [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a good idea given that the list of hotlines is limited in scope. The article's current mention of crisis hotlines is IMO sufficient. Perhaps we could pipe a few crisis hotline links to the List of Suicide crisis lines? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Suicide rates in men.

Dear Wikipedia editor,

I would be very grateful if you would add a message after the statement that more women attempt suicide than men, briefly saying however that more men do commit suicide every year.

Thank you very much for your time on this delicate manner.

Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.224.56 (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for this. In the second paragraph of the article, there is the following sentence, with a source: "Rates are higher in men than in women, with males three to four times more likely to kill themselves than females." Is there some reason that that's not good enough? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think IP might be referring to the perception that women are more likely to attempt but not die. I remember seeing researcher about that, i.e. women more likely to attempt as a 'cry for help,' and that men are more likely to opt for methods that lower their likelihood to survive an attempt. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Suicide is not martydom

"The focus here is on suicide, the self-inflicted intentional act designed to end one's own life, not on martyrdom, which involves using one's death in a defense of one's homeland by inflicting losses on an enemy" per [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

In secondary peer reviewed journal articles and encyclopedias, "suicide attacks" is a common term. These sources call it a suicide, when suicide bombing kills innocent civilians. Why not include religious views on such acts of suicide, from all sides, in a few sentences? Do you want me to cite secondary and tertiary reviews, per WP:RS? While "martydom" suicide when it is in defense of one's homeland during war may not belong in this article, an NPOV summary of religious views on suicide terrorism that hurts innocent civilians is relevant. Isn't it? Latifa Raafat (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources versus secondary sources

Per WP:RS we should use secondary sources. Thus replaced primary sources with this review [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Gearing and Lizardi paper is as much secondary as the articles in peer reviewed publications that you just deleted: ISBN 978-0415770309, [11], [12], [13]. I have read the Lester paper. The summary here of Lester is incomplete and poorly done. Same for Gearing-Lizardi. Alternate scholarly reviews on suicide in Islam have been published, that differ from Gearing-Lizardi. Please consider [14], for example.

The current section on religious views, presents one POV. It does not include summary of different views from highly cited peer reviewed scholarly publications on suicide in Quran and Hadith. This article is thus taking sides and has an NPOV problem. We should include summary from Gearing-Lizardi as well as others from peer reviewed secondary and tertiary sources. But before I attempt to do so, I await comments.

BTW, for "religious view on suicide", papers from medical journals may not be the best source. Review papers from journals and other WP:RS sources specializing in religion, sociology, anthropology and related fields are more comprehensive, more appropriate source. Latifa Raafat (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It is from 1946...

This is a primary source [15]

This is also a primary source [16]

This one looks good [17] and is a review

Yes happy with reviews from other sources. Please provide and we can discuss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2015

In section 8.1 Legislation, the statement "Physician-assisted suicide is legal in the state of Washington" is misleading and should say "Physician-assisted suicide is legal in the state of Washington for people with terminal diseases" (or any other grammatical arrangement of this you might feel is better = GAB).

The statement that follows it "In Oregon people with terminal diseases may request medications to help end their life" should then probably say "Also in Oregon people with [...]" (GAB) so that of course the statement doesn't sound ignorant of the other and vice versa. Lxxdr (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Committed Suicide vs Died by Suicide

See also: Talk:Suicide § Use_of_the_word_"committed"

Using the word committed to refer to someone who died as a result of suicide is dated, and frankly offensive. Suicide is not a crime that one commits. I have gone through the article and replaced it with things such as 'died by' 'carried out', 'sought/seeking a death by' etc. A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a perennial matter. Perhaps someone will find it on the talk page previously. Do we really have to go through this every few months? Fiddle Faddle 22:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not have a strong opinion one way or the other. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

We had a lengthy discussion of this and consensus was against wholesale removal of "commit".GideonF (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Is the consensus you are citing the one I just read from 2004? I don't think that old consensus should trump new consensus. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: Talk:Suicide/Archive_2#NPOV_effect_of_the_term_.22commit.22_suicide 05:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs)

Maybe try a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps before a rfc I could read some articulated reasoning against my bold? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

This is similar to not changing text from British to American and vis versa with a good reason. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@ACanadianToker: Perhaps you would look through the archives, then? Perhaps you would also look at the multiple meanings of the verb 'to commit'. Of course you can go to an RFC. Of course we can all discuss it again. IT has, however, been done to death. Fiddle Faddle 06:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The consensus I am citing is the current consensus, unchanged since exhaustive discussion in April-May 2013. If you want to try to overturn the consensus that is of course your prerogative. But you are not presenting any new arguments that were not presented and found wanting previously.GideonF (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd certainly not prefer to go through this again so soon, but if other editors feel another lap around the track is merited, I suppose I can copy and paste my previous arguments... :p DonIago (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate a link to the relevent section of the archives. I can't seem to find the one you're all talking about. Thanks, - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Just searching on my name would have turned it up, but here you go. Enjoy! DonIago (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, Doniago. Considering the perennial nature of the issue I brought up I would like to propose the following as a compromise. 1. Replace committed in the lead with carried out. 2. Expand the Definitions section to include discussion of the debate about terminology. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"There is discussion about the appropriateness of the term commit and its use to describe suicide. Those who object to the use of commit argue that it carries with it implications that suicide is a criminal, sinful or morally wrong act. There is growing consensus that it is more appropriate to use "completed suicide," died by suicide or simply "killed him/herself" to describe the act of suicide. Despite this, “committed suicide” or similar descriptions are the most prevalent in both scholarly research and journalism." - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, very nice. Now look up all the other contexts in which the word "Commit" is used. Crime is just one of them. Fiddle Faddle 22:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone who thinks the word "commit" implies criminality doesn't know what the word means and should commit to learning its full definition. DonIago (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of snark and sarcasm on this talk page. It is unhelpful. While dictionary definitions are important its also important to reflect broader sources and discussions - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No snarking at all. Please do not make accusations about other people. The word means many different things. Cherry picking the one you dislike is a great tactic for oratory but does not work here. We have been down this road many times. Suicide is a desperate act, and one commits to it in despair, often. That it was once criminal was based on antique religious sentiments. The world has grown wiser. Fiddle Faddle 16:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that as the definition of 'suicide' consistently refers to the 'intent' to end one's own life, 'suicide' is not an appropriate term for someone who died as a result of a mental illness, succumbing to the effects of that illness rather than any intention on their part. Biographies of those who have struggled with mental health are replete with examples of those who 'fought' their condition and in many cases, lost the fight. Clearly people such as this did not intend to end their own life, and their death should not be attributed to 'suicide'. Following that logic, even 'Died by Suicide' would not be appropriate, but something akin to the manner in which death by a medical condition is reported, such as 'Died of/from <mental illness>/mental health difficulties'. I think it's imperative that perception of mental health be steered away from the misconception that those who suffer from it do so by choice, phrases like 'committed suicide' and 'took their own life' should be discouraged as much as humanly possible. The term 'suicide' should be reserved for those who unquestionably did so by choice, such as suicide attacks used in warfare. 62.31.13.60 (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Not the way the sources use the term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll admit my perspective on this is perhaps at the extreme end of the scale, I guess it depends on how you define 'intent'; by 'intent', I'm referring more to what a person would want if they were of sound mind. I guess 'intent' in the generally accepted definition of suicide refers more to the expected consequences of a person's actions, regardless of what prompted those actions. Anyway, the key point that I'm absolutely certain of, is that someone who dies as a result of mental health problems should NEVER be considered to have chosen to do so. It's frightening how many among the medical profession, even in psychiatry, that assume a person with mental health difficulties can choose to not suffer from the consequences of their condition. 62.31.13.60 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

WHY on earth is this article riddled with "commited suicide", suicide hasn't been a crime for a very long time, so people cannot "commit" suicide. All mental health charities advise against using the work "commit". Please edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete5677 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• n.b. The latest edition of the AP Stylebook proscribes "committed suicide". --BDD (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit with suicide prevention hotline at the top of page?

I understand that Wikipedia is meant as an encyclopedia, and that a note with the Suicide prevention number wouldn't fit the regular style of articles, but considering the subject matter would it be remiss to include it? Not anything flashy or big, just a quick note like what happens on Google when you search suicide, placed right under the title of the page. I just would like some opinions before doing things one way or another. This probably wouldn't be a bad idea for the other languages as well.

The Google note is just this:

Need help? United States:

1 (800) 273-8255

National Suicide Prevention Lifeline

Hours: 24 hours, 7 days a week

Languages: English, Spanish

Website: www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badkarma12 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed. The answer is no. Look at the top of this talk page, at the box with the red border, and then the archives. One such discussion is here: Talk:Suicide/Archive_6#RfC:_Crisis_hotline_link. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Criminally punishable

I It was the left over family that was punished User:Nyttend Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

? Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry corrected. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay; since it's not illegal anymore in Canada, I thought perhaps you were making some sort of weird joke. Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

No simply missed a letter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Bad Math

The article states that "Approximately 0.5% to 1.4% of people die by suicide, a mortality rate of 11.6 per 100,000 persons per year." If it's about 1% of people, shouldn't that be 1,000 people per 100,000? The figure seems WAY off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetreplies (talk • contribs) 10:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's your math which is bad. Imagine 100,000 people all born on the same day. Let's say 1% of them die by suicide, that's 1,000 people. I'll model them incredibly simplistically and say nobody commits suicide in the first 10 years, and nobody lives past 100, and for those 90 years when people do commit suicide, it's evenly spread out. We have 1,000 suicides over 90 years which means a mortality rate of 11.1 per 100,000 persons per year, which is close to the number given. The numbers are fine Wikiditm (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2015

Suicide is often carried out as a result of despair, the cause of which is frequently attributed to a mental disorder such as depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder,[1] alcoholism, or drug abuse

I think this is a disservice and Illegitimate Definition of what could cause someone to commit suicide, no mention of Organized Bullying, or Organized Stalking by a group of people who should be charged with Involuntary Manslaughter Charges. How convenient to label the person who even considers suicide, attempts suicide, or actually goes through with it, " Oh that person was mental, suffered from depression, BiPolar ( some new Bullshit Illness) schizophrenia, alcoholism ( legal drug sold to the worldwide population even though the dangers of consuming alcohol are we'll known, and finally drugs.

I am confident there are 100's of reasons why someone would think " Suicide" perhaps you should list some of them along with your ideas of the subject, since it is as of right now, unfair and one sided. 2602:252:D62:CB80:58D5:5BF7:FD82:64EF (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that you can cite? Wikipedia is not a forum but rather relies on sources.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Have added in bullying along with a citation. Wikiditm (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Misspelled chart

The chart "Fatality rate by suicide method" contains a typo, namely "suffication", and I don't know what to do about this. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 22:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

One would need to edit the picture itself and upload a new version. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect Link to Lithium

The current link to Lithium when described as a preventative measure directs to the page for the element rather than medication. Please change (lithium) to (lithium) in that line.

Done -- ferret (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Consider changing the article's name to "Life Completion" instead of "suicide"

Life completion is a more neutral, more accurate and less bias description of the act of an individual taking their own life. Committing suicide has connotations such as "committing a crime" and have a serious negative slant. We can free this concept from those negative connotations by using the term "life completion" or "life completion event".

Boilingorangejuice (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

This has been rather extensively discussed previously. Take a peek through the archives. Note that "commit" also very commonly has non-negative connotations e.g. "commit to a relationship". Cannolis (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It is called suicide by 99% of people so no we are not changing it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

An ice resurfacer is called a Zomboni by more than 99% of the population but yet we call it an ice resurfacer on wikipedia. Just because the public calls it one thing has nothing to do with giving an action an accurate and correct name. I would like to get more input from the community. Also commit is disproportionately used in a negatively connotated context. Should we rename this article "Life Completion" to make it less biased or should we continue to use the biased culturally accepted term "Suicide"?Boilingorangejuice (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME. Zamboni is a trademarked name. Cannolis (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

"He completed his life with his own hand, a shotgun, and a bottle of scotch"

This is a perennial thing. While consensus can change it has not done so yet, and will not to this ambiguous pseudo title. Fiddle Faddle 23:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

First off, I appreciate everyone's input on the manner. However, I believe a valid analogy is comparing this article to the prostitutes. Notice how we don't call prostitutes prostitutes in the wiki article. We call them sex workers. This is to mitigate derogatory sentiment and to redefine the term in favor of the sex worker. They are not defined by what they do. The same is true of the event of suicide. This isn't one terminal negative event, this is one event out of a myriad events in an individuals life. The term "life completion" encompasses the event of 'suicide' in a more fair and more accurate manner. Suicide, a consensual life event, is feared, misunderstood and condemned at the expense of the decedant's mental health, stress levels and dignity. The reality of the human experience is that humans are forcibly expelled into this world via a non-consensual bloody birth and it is Wikipedias job to provide individuals with a clear, concise and accurate description of life events. I feel strongly that using suicide instead of 'life completion' at worse marginalizes individuals that chose to consensually terminate their life and at best is insensitive to "at risk" communities. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No. Fiddle Faddle 09:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Read through the archives of this talk page. You're not bringing up anything that hasn't been brought up before. Cannolis (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It has been discussed before

I realise it has been discussed before, and after reading those discussions, I'd like to express my opinion that we should have a suicide prevention hat note at the top of this article. The strongest objections I have seen are that it violates our NPOV policy and that there has been no studies on its effectiveness.

If this is an effective method of preventing suicide then I think a hatnote is well within the bounds of IAR even if it does violate our NPOV policy. As far as effectiveness goes, I'm not sure we are going to find any randomised controlled trials on this ever, as those would be highly unethical, and I'm not sure anyone has done any other sort of research on this. From what I read in the previous discussions, it looked like research has not been done on it. That said, from my own personal experience, and I understand that anecdotes are not evidence, this is something that would have helped me when I was suicidal last year.

Anyhow, this comment will likely get archived away with the others, but hopefully somewhere down the line, someone else will see this, and it might inspire them to start the discussion again, until consensus on this matter changes/is shown to have changed. Zell Faze (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The link to the main suicide prevention article is in the suicide prevention section per usual. And we also link to suicide prevention in the third sentence of the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

What you are suggesting would be a severe NPOV violation. Suicide is not a bad or good thing. Wikipedia's goal is to educate people using accurate information. Our goal is not to suggest actions individuals should take based on emotions they are feeling. Next people would be saying to post abortion help links on the unplanned pregnancy page. What you are suggesting is highly political. There is plenty of information to "help" individuals considering a life completion event online that is easily available. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

New discussion about whether "died by suicide" should be avoided

There is discussion around whether the phrase "died by suicide" is euphemistic or not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Does_.22died_by_suicide.22_constitute_a_euphemism.3F DanBCDanBC (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Died by suicide is a simple description of what has occured. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be best to keep the discussion at the link provided above... DonIago (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2016

Add an external link, link to pro suicide site named https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=pl#!forum/alt.suicide.methods Alt.Suicide.Methods. A yeras back that link was on that page. someone deleted it.Skorpiono (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Skorpiono (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: No. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Seminar

Lancet doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00234-2 JFW | T@lk 23:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The person who has completed suicide

I see this on the Suicide (disambiguation) page. It is not appropriate to add it here but I think it would be a good idea to use the noun 'suicide' somewhere in this article as the word for the person who has completed suicide.
--Brenont (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

That link is in the external links section already. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Suicided

It seems to me a section on being "suicided" should exist, if perhaps under a different title but at least have "suicided" as an "also known as". From celebrities to civilians, witnesses to activists - whether by secret agents, criminals, sloppy investigative work, or as the documentary Soaked in Bleach alleges that Kurt Cobain was suicided - murdered and set up to appear like he killed himself. JasonCarswell (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Never heard of the word. Sources like dictionaries? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Google https://www.google.ca/#q=suicided

results that all have the -ED verb form of the word: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/suicided <--- I added a definition + a link (never done that before) http://www.dictionary.com/browse/suicided http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suicide http://www.thefreedictionary.com/suicided

results that describe the -ED verb from of the word as a death made to look like suicide: http://www.yourdictionary.com/suicided http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=suicided https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070530174307AA0MbjM

I've heard it before, but always in the street wise sense of a cover up of an accident, murder, or silencing of a witness. (ie. "Writers who have investigated the assassination of John F. Kennedy have claimed that a large number of witnesses to the event have died in mysterious circumstances" ( from http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKdeaths.htm ) and may have been suicided. (The last part I added.)) I was surprised to discover that "suicided" was actually a word before the cover-up slang. It may be too soon to include the term properly on the main page but if it becomes more prevalent it's easy enough to resurrect. Pun intended. Sorry if I wasted your time. JasonCarswell (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

No strong opinion one way or the other. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd never heard of the word before myself. From this discussion it doesn't sound like there's necessarily enough material to merit a section though, and I think the last thing we'd need (and I'm not saying this was the suggestion) is a list of people whom it's alleged have been suicided (ah, my PC doesn't recognize the word, FWIW). DonIago (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Just read a RationalWiki page that uses this term in reference to Erwin Rommel [18]. Sizeofint (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

"Risk"

No-one talks about the chance of something happening as "risk" if the outcome is good or neutral, it is an obvious POV issue. You could take the position that that's how the sources refer to it, but the sources you're drawing from have a declared anti-suicide POV. Using partisan sources is allowable where they reliably report facts, but that requires the separation of facts from opinions.GideonF (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay so let me get this straight, you are arguing that suicide could be good and therefore we should not use the word risk to describe things that increase the rate of suicide? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I will argue here from the position that suicide should not be declared to be 'good', bad' or 'indifferent' but insisting that we must maintain that suicide is always 'bad' and a tragic outcome is POV and is in the fringe of psychiatry that I call 'the happiness bullies'. In reality, suicide is an outcome that perhaps is better than the alternative (which is worse). Actually, the term 'correlates' could be used as a neutral alternative in the disputed sentence. Fylbecatulous talk 19:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense, this is not a position of a "fringe" — but one of the general populace and medical community. If there is any legitimate debate focus on that, not on generally accepted semantics. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying it could be good, bad or indifferent and it wouldn't be Wikipedia's job to decide which. Now, do you have an argument to the effect that the language is NPOV? Because so far you've just argued that your POV is popular, so the article should reflect it, which isn't a valid argument. If not, the NPOV version stays.GideonF (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

You could try a RfC Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a bizarre discussion and I almost can't believe we are even having it. But if you truly want to change the wording from "risk", what word would you suggest that we use instead? NW (Talk) 16:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

User:NuclearWarfare user wishes to use the word "correlates" and "chance" instead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

"risk" seems more frequently used...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

"Determinants" is the other word for risk factor that's used in the field. However, it feels particularly strange for something that is a "choice". WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Risk is a standard term of use with regard probabilities related to illness, injury, and death. As suicide is a type of death, it's logical use "risk". —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 20:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

We currently use normal language and I support continuing to use normal language. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• "risk" is the standard term. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The NPOV version is written in normal language. Are you seriously suggesting "risk" doesn't imply a judgement about the desirability of suicide?GideonF (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• GideonF is correct that usage of "risk" implies negativity and that this violates WP:NPOV. In various cultures past and present suicide has not been viewed negatively, furthermore under some circumstances in contemporary Western societies it is controversial such as committing suicide during end-of-life care, and in some cases heroic such as falling on a grenade. In my opinion, however, this violation of WP:NPOV is not serious enough to justify using awkward language to circumvent it. More importantly though, the section contains many "non"-risk factors such as "media" and "rationale". Perhaps those sections would be best moved into "Society and Culture" or the section renamed entirely to something else like "Influences". M. A. Bruhn (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

  There are individual risk factors and than there are population risk factors. Media protraial of suicide is definitely a population level risk factor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

  I see, that makes sense. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• NPOV means following the sources, not being "even Steven". Risk factor is the normal term for this in epidemiology, and therefore we should use the normal term. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • See my remarks up the thread about the use of partisan sources.GideonF (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    • First of all, WP:BIASED sources are defined in the relevant guidelines as sometimes being the best possible sources, so "but all the sources are biased against my small-minority POV" is not actually a relevant or valuable argument. Secondly, I said "the normal term for this in epidemiology" rather than something like "the normal term for talking about suicide", and I actually meant what I wrote: This is the normal term for this concept in the entire field of epidemiology, including the parts that don't have anything to do with suicide. Risk factor is the most common term for this concept, regardless of whether you're talking about something that many people perceive as bad, such as cancer or a car wreck, or something that many people perceive as good, such as attending school or getting a job, or something that many people perceive as either, depending upon the circumstances, such as pregnancy. Risk factor is what that concept is called. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
      • The field of epidemiology isn't especially relevant to the subject of suicide and its terminology shouldn't dictate the language use throughout the article, but out of interest, can you show me some examples of epidemiologists using "risk" to refer to good outcomes? The risk of attending school, rather than the risk of not attending; the risk of getting a job, rather than the risk of not getting one?GideonF (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
        • GideonF I understand your stance, but per NPOV the point of view our articles reflect are those in the mainstream literature. And the mainstream literature takes the stance that most of the time suicide is a product of mental illness and is a negative outcome, and discusses risk factors and how to prevent it. Everybody knows that some people consider suicide a rational choice (and any rational person can see that there are some times when it may be a rational choice) but nobody sees it as mundane as going to school. So two things - please actually read NPOV and understand that articles reflect the sources, and second, please stop making unhelpful arguments like comparing suicide to going to school. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
          • First of all, I have read the relevant policies, and by my reading it is you who are understanding them incorrectly. No matter of fact is in dispute. Reliable sources differ about the relationship between mental illness and suicides and the article reflects this. Whether suicide is a positive or negative outcome is not a fact, it is a value judgement. There is no question of anyone's opinion being true or false. Wikipedia doesn't take a position on the rightness or wrongness of actions no matter how closely scholarly opinion approaches unanimity: as WP:NPOV states, 'an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action"'. Secondly, I did not bring up the comparison with going to school. User:WhatamIdoing introduced it as an alleged example of the word "risk" being used in a way that does not imply a judgement about the desirability of the outcome. I merely expressed my scepticism.GideonF (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
            • Thanks for your reply. Nothing you have written shows that you are grappling with the way the mainstream literature treats suicide (as generally a bad outcome). It is true that editors cannot editorialize (we can't say ourselves that genocide is evil or that suicide is a bad outcome) but we do have to reflect the literature. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
              • I think we can safely assume that GideonF is aware that mainstream literature treats suicide as a generally negative outcome. We don't reflect the literature when it violates our other policies and guidelines, for instance in the case of transgender people we describe them based off the gender they identify as and not with what sources describe them as. The most relevant part of WP:NPOV here is this line: "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity." In my opinion the increased clarity from "Risk factors" is sufficient to outweigh the lack of neutrality in this case. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
              • You appear simply to be repeating the same, irrelevant point. You appreciate the difference between an assertion of fact and a value judgement, don't you?GideonF (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• In my opinion, we should follow the example of the reliable sources that are used for the article. The second sentence of the article states a list of "risk factors". Two references are provided: The Lancet and WHO. The abstract of The Lancet's paper states: "Previous self-harm is a major risk factor." WHO asks: "Who is at risk?" – and then details a number of factors. This is conclusive evidence that "risk" is an appropriate term to use here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

"See my remarks up the thread about the use of partisan sources." GideonF, it seems that your argument hinges on the claim that references such as The Lancet and WHO are unreliable in their characterization of these factors as "risks". I strongly disagree. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not a question of reliability, they are perfectly reliable sources for facts, but the desirability or otherwise is a matter of opinion. The way they use language is coloured by their stated biases. They are anti-suicide, and make no pretence to neutrality. Wikipedia, which is neither pro- nor anti-suicide can't use POV language and justify it by saying the sources are POV. Do you believe that "risk" does not imply a judgement about the desirability of suicide?GideonF (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe that using standard terminology implies nothing about the desirability of anything, except our desire as editors for readers to understand what we're saying.

I believe that you need to spend a long time studying the WP:GEVAL section of the NPOV policy. It is simply false to say that Wikipedia is supposed to be neither pro- nor anti- anything. A neutral article is not one that "lets the reader make up his own mind". A neutral article is one that fairly and accurately represents, in due proportion, the views of reliable sources, especially scholarly sources and other recognized experts (NB: not you or me). To massively oversimplify, if 90% of the reliable sources are anti-suicide, then this article achieves "neutrality" when it, too, is 90% anti-suicide – not when it's 50-50. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You're mistaking how NPOV applies to contentious assertions of facts for how it applies to moral and aesthetic judgements. Wikipedia avoids making such judgements altogether.GideonF (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Although I also see some of your logic, I also disagree with changing this to "correlates". The major reliable sources use the term "risk" and therefore Wikipedia should also. I also don't think a value judgement is being placed on the term.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It definitely does place a value judgement on the term. Ask yourself if "Risk factors" would be appropriate for the Homosexuality article? However, if it may be more palatable for GideonF I'd like to explain why I think it is not too significant here. Consider a criminology paper discussing the risk factors for determining if a police officer is going to shoot someone while on duty. The term "risk factor" implies that this is negative outcome, but in this case there is clearly no presumption that the shooting is justified or not. The negatively describes the outcome, and not the decision-making process of the person responsible for the outcome. Furthermore consider this, most people who commit suicide don't do so because they want to die, they do so because they don't want to continue living. The distinction is important. Like a person on death row who chooses the firing squad as their method of execution, they don't actually want to be killed by a firing squad, they are just choosing the least bad option available in their circumstances. The circumstances under which a person commits suicide are generally considered bad, even in an altruistic suicide like jumping on a grenade where the suicide is seen positively, the circumstances that led to it (a live grenade about to go off) are negative. "Risk factors" is predominantly describing these circumstances: struggling with a mental disorder, difficult medical condition, gambling addiction, etc, which I believe most people in these circumstances would agree are negative. Lastly, in contrast to defending suicide as rationale or morally justified, I don't believe it is very sensitive to describe it positively. Someone sacrificing themselves to protect another is seen as heroic, but tragic. People who have ended their lives have probably generally not wanted this last, painful act to be viewed by others as a good thing. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

If you don't think the term "risk" is value-laden, can you show me some examples of it being used with regard to positive or neutral outcomes.GideonF (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, you are substituting editorial judgement for what the bulk of reliable sources say. I won't be responding to you further and I reckon others will soon stop as well. At some point you need to see that there is no consensus for removing the word "risk", and that the consensus to retain "risk" is based in just about every WP content policy - content reflects sources, not the point of view of editors. Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

If that means you're going to leave the discussion to people who understand the question and the relevant policies, thanks.GideonF (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

No, that means I generally WP:SHUN editors who will not drop the stick when their proposals are getting no consensus. That is what others tend to do as well. This is not complicated; what you want to do goes against the overwhelming majority of sources and thus is starkly against all our content policies. All of them. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, off you pop then. People who actually have something to contribute to the discussion can continue it perfectly well without you.GideonF (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

External links re: Hotlines

We had a touch of discussion over at Domestic violence about adding hotlines for a few majority English speaking countries, which ended up fairly in favor. Figured I'd drop this here to see what everyone thought about similar additions on this article. Seems to pretty well satisfy the criteria of "other meaningful, relevant content" that a person reading the article on suicide may be interested in. TimothyJosephWood 23:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hm.. On the other hand, it is not on-mission for the encyclopedia. There is no end to the "public service announcements" people want to make in WP but WP:NOTPROMOTION & WP:NOTHOWTO not to mention issues with WP:GLOBAL with regard to which ones to list... Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd just like to note the existence of List of suicide crisis lines as well as a global directory of suicide hotlines. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

We discuss them in the text of this article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Self harm & suicide attempt

This is an appropriate page and article to ask this question, relating to all suicide and self injury/harm type articles. Given self harm is defined as an act with no intention to kill oneself, why are we including sources indicating self harm stats, and then considering them analogous to suicide attempt stats? Self harm stats are not equal to, and should not be applied to, suicide attempt stats.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

People use the terms loosely and not all use the term self harm to mean that their was no suicide attempt.

Self harm without suicide wish is also a risk factor for suicide and some self harm results in death by mistake. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

We need to be very careful that we don't mix the two up IMO. Self injury, for example cutting ones skin, (with no intent to commit suicide), is very different to attempted suicide, for example poisoning, where intention to actually kill oneself is clear. The medical journal stats are also very different when we look at them. Can you please elaborate your position on this Doc James.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Which content in this article are you specifically referring to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed throughout all of our self harm and suicide related articles that the two distinct behaviors are being inconsistently viewed as being synonymous, including the statistics. Will provide some examples here at the main suicide talk page to discuss, as I see them. Thanks for the response Doc James. Up to you if you want to add any other comments during this discovery process.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Happy to review and try to correct the inconsistencies you find :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Given the reliable sources actually specify self harm (which is defined as "....direct injuring of body tissue, done without suicidal intentions") when providing suicide attempt stats, I would like to to correct our related articles which for some reason, are mixing up attempted suicide stats, with self harm stats. The difference is obviously the intention, as noted in the self harm article definition.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

What part of this article do you see as the issue? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the 4X statistic for females over males. Not sure where that stat came from, but certainly not from the majority of reliable sources, meta-analyses or the WHO. A number of current sources indicate higher rates of self harm in females, but not suicide attempts. It is the intent to kill oneself as discussed above. If I've missed where that stat is cited please show me and lets discuss it if needed.Charlotte135 (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead to be an overview

"Rates of completed suicides are generally higher in men than in women, with males three to four times more likely to kill themselves than females."

We do not need to make that sentence more complicated. We do not need to say "much" as we already say three to four time more likely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Also in China more women appear to complete suicide than men and they represent 1/6th of the world's population.[19] Therefore the word generally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the global data for 2012[20] WHO states 35.6% of suicides occur in females and 64.4% occurs in males. So 1.8 times more common in males globally. Therefore I do not think "much" is justified. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Doc James for discussing here. That appears true in China. However based on my reading of the reliable sources, it seems that in the remaining world, ie. in every other country, or 5/6th of the world's population, males commit suicide in far greater numbers than females, and in some countries, up to 8 times more. Understating these hard stats in our WP suicide article, appears to me to misrepresent what the majority of reliable sources are clearly telling us for the majority of the world's countries, apart from China of course. Can we therefore please compromise on the wording here Doc James?Charlotte135 (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Also "In the Eastern Mediterranean, suicide rates are nearly equivalent between males and females."[21]

And India and China account for more than half of the world's total suicides. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Some good points Doc James. Will look at these studies and the reliable sources again. On a related note, this study you cited [22] states "...diagnosing suicide also includes determining the component of intent, which makes it more difficult to have unequivocal statistical data." That's why I suggested we focus on intent in our self harm and parasuicide articles when including suicide attempt stats. What do you think?

This is a global overview of suicide in the world.[23] We need to be careful to present global stats most prominently in the lead and try to avoid becoming to Western centric. When when quote Western stats we need to state they are Western stats. Yes in Europe and N America suicide is 3 to 4 times more common in males. In China it is more common in females and in much of the rest of the world rates are close in both sexes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

In our List of countries by suicide rate it looks like most countries male/female suicide ratios are similar to or greater than the USA and other western countries. I'm confused by the WHO stats. What do you think?

And in India, the male to female suicide ratio has consistently been about 2:1. So, apart from China, shouldn't we make this clear. That is, that every country apart from China, male to female suicide rates are at least twice as high, and up to 8 times higher? Would "much" higher be a compromise perhaps?Charlotte135 (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Your statement "That is, that every country apart from China, male to female suicide rates are at least twice as high" is simply not true. Male to female ratio in the Eastern Mediterranean is 1.1 and in the Western Pacific it is 1.3. In India it is 1.7.[24]

1.8 times higher is simply not much higher IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James. I was just looking at our List of countries by suicide rate article where 170 countries are listed. Apart from only 4 of those countries listed, I noted the remaining 166 countries out of the 170, clearly showed at least a statistical difference, and in most cases a large difference, and in some countries (eg. Malta, Poland, Ukraine, Romania etc.) a massive difference between male and female suicide rates as high as 10 to 1. Do you think we should somehow make note of this in our main WP suicide article?Charlotte135 (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

We already do. We say "Rates of completed suicides are generally higher in men than in women" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What reliable sources to use

Do we use 2000-2012 stats, or other outdated stats, or do we use reliable sources representing suicide stats for the present time, that is as they are today or as current as possible? I was reading this article for instance, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2015-06/03/content_20894548.htm discussing how female suicides have been declining remarkablly. In fact it is now apparently equal or slightly more males committing suicide in China too. Our current lead suicide WP article includes a 1.8 stat but is based on data globally begun 16 years ago. Current rates are very different. Shouldn't our WP articles reflect what reliable sources say for 2015/16 instead?Charlotte135 (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

2012 is not outdated. We do not use the popular press. The ref we are using is for 2012. Good stats for 2015/2016 do not yet exist. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought the WHO stat of 1.8 is for the full period 2000-2012, not 2012, static.

Quoting from the China Year Book of Health, published by the National Health and Family Planning Commission (not pop press). "In 2003, the suicide rate among women in rural areas was 17.44 per 100,000 females, higher than the figure for men, which was 15.07 per 100,000 males, according to the China Year Book of Health, published by the National Health and Family Planning Commission. In 2012 - the latest figures available from the commission - the rural rate stood at 9.09 per 100,000 for men and 8.05 per 100,000 for women." Should we update our Chinese stats, based on this source. Is the China Year Book of Health, published by the National Health and Family Planning Commission, a reliable source?Charlotte135 (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It is for the year 2012. For females in 2012 we see 67,500 deaths while for males we see 53,200 deaths per [25] and is published by the World Health Organization. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Definition of Suicide

I wish to differentiate between those who engage in a dangerous behaviour and those who explicitly wish to die through the dangerous behaviour. I do not think that the current definition, "Suicide is the act of intentionally causing one's own death", is sufficiently clear as it does not specify the direction of the intention (it could be interpreted as saying that someone who intentionally engages in dangerous behaviour that causes their death, but without the AIM of dying, committed suicide when they did not AIM to die - which would not be Suicide). I'm not sure if a different wording would make the definition less open to interpretive errors. Also, I'm not absolutely sure whether I am in error, in which case I'd apologise. ASavantDude (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

the definition is intentionally causing one's own death. Dangerous behavior is not part of the definition. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I am with Jytdog. That is what intentionally means. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

While I note your valid points here ASavantDude, I also think our opening sentence of the lead, "Suicide is the act of intentionally causing one's own death" covers it pretty well. This definition of suicide, which emphasizes intent to kill oneself, just needs to be consistently applied in all suicide related WP articles IMO.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Is gender a risk factor for suicide

I would like to add a further risk factor, that being gender, into the risk factors section as I have seen in other WP suicide related articles. Any objections.Charlotte135 (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to include statistics in many countries where the ratio is up to 11 males to every one female.Charlotte135 (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Already dealt with under epidemiology so does not need to go under risk factors aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Would it be easier to collapse the section on epidemiology under risk factors, given gender seems to be a major risk factor. It doesn't make sense having one of the major risk factors for suicide to be not included in the risk factors section? That would make it much easier for our readers too. What do you think Doc James. Please elaborate as to exactly why, if you don't agree.Charlotte135 (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

We typically put sex and age in epidemiology and we do this across hundreds of articles. So for consistency we should leave it where it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep this is how we order articles. Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Not supported by majority of sources

This statement and statistic, is not supported by the majority of reliable sources ".......although females attempt suicide four times more often." I would like to correct it. Alternatively could someone provide some sources for this stat. These stats in the sources also include self injury and parasuicide, where there is no intent to kill oneself and is not attempted suicide where intent must be present. It is the self injuries and parasuicides that are higher in females than males.Charlotte135 (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you make an edit request? Showing what you consider incorrect and what you want to change it to? Parasuicide isn't widely accepted, so I suggest you refrain from using that language in your request. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The stat is in the pub med source. Though I think we should probably change the phrasing from using the term "although". That, to me, creates a comparison between the two. The source uses the term "while", but I don't want us to directly copy the source. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The majority of reliable sources, including the WHO, do not support this one in four stat. It is inaccurate and should be removed. Even in the pub med source it is referring to self injury, not attempted suicide. There is no actual intent to kill oneself in self harm or parasuicide. As for parasuicide not being widely accepted" Carl Fredrik....not accepted by who please. It is quite often used in the literature. We need to reflect what the majority of reliable sources say.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You have been asked to provide alternative content with its source; would you please do that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

What the majority of reliable sources say is simply females have higher rates of suicidal behavior which includes self injury and parasuicide. Therefore I propose simply saying that, rather than including a misleading statistic. Further, suicide stats should be worldwide, if used at all, as noted by Doc James.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

What I stated is that the stats in the lead should be global. NOT that all stats in the article should be global.

The reference states "Additionally, while females attempt suicide nearly 4 times more frequently than males" [26]

So how is that stat misleading? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't you at least be saying "4 times more frequently than males in USA? because that is what that single source states. Should we not be global here? Secondly it is misleading because even in the source used it is talking about self injury and parasuicide, not attempted suicide (ie. full intention to kill oneself, but failed).Charlotte135 (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Would it not be easier, given your stat applies to only one single country, to leave the stat out altogether? Or, if you insist leaving it in, making darn sure readers know it applies only to the USA, and no other country, and we then start adding all the other countries rates as well, for a worldwide viewpoint?Charlotte135 (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The United States is a large portion of the English speaking world (appears to be more than half of native speakers per here). And this is English Wikipedia. Have clarified. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

"with its source". Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this the source you are using for 4:1 stat? Chang, B; Gitlin, D; Patel, R (September 2011). "The depressed patient and suicidal patient in the emergency department: evidence-based management and treatment strategies". Emergency medicine practice. 13 (9): 1–23. Charlotte135 (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog and Doc James this study published on the CDC.gov website is one of many sources which contradict the very bold 4 to 1 stat. Crosby AE, Han B, Ortega LAG, Parks SE, Gfoerer J. Suicidal thoughts and behaviors among adults aged ≥18 years-United States, 2008-2009. MMWR Surveillance Summaries 2011;60(no. SS-13). please view here on the CDC.gov website [27]. I quote from the results section. "The prevalence of suicidal thoughts was significantly higher among females than it was among males, but there was no statistically significant difference for suicide planning or suicide attempts." Charlotte135 (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Why would we use a primary source when we are currently using a review?

Added a textbook that says more or less the same [28]

This book by WHO says "rates of non-fatal suicidal behaviour tend to be 2-3 times higher in women than in men" [29] and was looking at a bunch of countries not just the US Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should be misleading readers by using the term suicide attempt (which can be defined by the intention to kill oneself). Can we change this to self injury, parasuicide, suicide ideation. None of which are suicide attempts as there is no intention to kill oneself. Even using the wording "non-fatal suicidal behaviour" seems less misleading to readers. We can't just say females attempt suicide 3-4 times more than males. It's false.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Changed to "However non fatal suicidal behaviors are between two to three times more frequent in females." as a compromise and reflecting what the sources actually say.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

We have a few sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Even though this article has been on my watchlist for years, as have the Suicide attempt and Suicidal ideation articles, I stayed away from it because my brother (who used to edit Wikipedia) had taken an interest in it. And I stayed away from recent discussions on this talk page because Charlotte135 has been involved in them and Charlotte135 and I have butted heads to the point that there was an interaction ban placed on us. I also didn't want Charlotte135 to think that my commenting here means that I am open to Charlotte135 and I discussing matters; I am not. After seeing this and this recent edit, however, I decided that I should note the following: Whether one would rather not cite the "3-4 times more than males" statistic or not, the literature is consistently clear on the fact that women attempt suicide more than men and that men commit suicide more than women. The gap is usually significant (as in big). And I don't just mean literature examining the United States; I mean literature examining suicide on a global scale as well. So we should not simply stick to "rates of non-fatal suicidal behaviour tend to be 2-3 times higher in women than in men" wording. We should be clear that women tend to attempt suicide more than men do. I see no reliable sources stating that men attempt suicide more than women do (at least not when it comes to the matter on a wide scale), and most reliable sources on suicide do not state that the rates for attempting suicide are equal or close to equal among the sexes. Most point to a gender gap. Below are sources demonstrating my point, in order of year. The year aspect shows that this has been consistently reported for years.

Click on this to see the sources.

1. This 2004 Praeger Guide to the Psychology of Gender source, from Greenwood Publishing Group, page 96, states, "The WHO (2003) reports that at sites all over the world, women attempt suicide more frequently than men, and the world rate is 3.5 to 1. However, it is also reported that except in China and parts of India, men commit suicide more frequently than women do. The world rate for suicide completion is 3.5. men to each woman." 2. This 2006 Handbook of Girls' and Women's Psychological Health source, from Oxford University Press, page 130, states, "In most countries, suicide rates are highest in men, those who are divorced or separated, unemployed, poor, and socially isolated (McKenzie et al., 2003). In terms of suicide, women in some cultural groups are at more risk than women in other cultural groups, and men are generally more at risk than women. Paradoxically, then, women are more likely to attempt suicide, but men are much more likely to die by suicide." 3. This 2008 Kaplan & Sadock's Concise Textbook of Clinical Psychiatry source, from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, page 428, states, "Men commit suicide more than four times as often as women, a rate that is stable over all ages. Women, however, are four times more likely to attempt suicide than men." 4. This 2009 Textbook of International Health: Global Health in a Dynamic World source, from Oxford University Press, page 261, states, "Even though women attempt suicide more often than men, the completed suicide rate is 3.5 times higher among men." 5. This 2009 Contemporary Topics in Women's Mental Health: Global perspectives in a changing society source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 122, states, "Relatively few studies have investigated completed suicides in women [12] despite this puzzling phenomenon and the large number of attempted suicides. This is in part due to a focus on mortality by suicide, and since the mortality is highest amongst men, that is where most research is focused. Suicide attempts, however, are approximately 10-20 times as common as completed suicides, and the gender difference, in many countries, is much greater than for completed suicide [13]. It can be said that suicidal morbidity is much higher in women, but also for the whole disease burden for suicidality, if morbidity and mortality are combined. While suicide is a predominantly male phenomenon, suicidality as a whole is predominantly a female phenomenon [12, 14]. Regardless of which of the sexes carries the greater burden, the paramount reason for a deeper understanding of the gender paradox is to increase our arsenal in the battle to prevent attempted and completed suicide." 6. This 2009 Oxford Textbook of Suicidology and Suicide Prevention source, from Pennsylvania State University/OUP Oxford, page 232, states, "In most countries of the world, the sex ratio (male to female) of completed suicides is around 3:1, and at the same time, women attempt suicide approximately three times more often than men." 7. This 2010 Essentials of Abnormal Psychology source, from Cengage Learning, page 246, states, "Although males commit suicide more often than females in most of the world, females attempt suicide at least three times as often (Berman & Jobes, 1991; Kuo et al., 2001)." 8. This 2010 Sociology of Deviant Behavior source, from Cengage Learning, page 311, states, "Suicide occurs more commonly among men than among women in almost all countries. In fact, men's rates generally average three to four times higher than women's, although women attempt suicide more often than men (Canetto and Lester, 1995b)." 9. This 2012 Behavioral Science in Medicine source, from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, page 139, states, "Although women attempt suicide four times more often than men do, men successfully commit suicide three times more often than women do. One reason for this difference is that men tend to use more violent and hence lethal means than women." 10. This 2014 A Sociology Of Mental Health And Illness source, from McGraw-Hill Education (UK), page 48, states, "Although women attempt suicide more frequently then men, the figures for actual suicide are consistently higher for men than women." 11. This 2014 Abnormal Psychology: An Integrative Approach source, from Cengage Learning, page 292, states, "Although males commit suicide more often than females in most of the world (e.g., CDC, 2013), females attempt suicide at least 3 times as often (Berman & Jobes, 1991; Kuo et al., 2001)." 12. This 2016 Deviance and Deviants: A Sociological Approach source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 179, states, "There is a gender paradox in suicide: even though women are more likely than men to have suicidal thoughts and attempt suicide, men are more likely to commit suicide than women."

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22reborn there have been a number of article discussions I would have liked to comment on, but chose to stay well away from, simply because you were there too. So why did you come here? You have clearly missed the point with all of this I think. Regardless, Doc James and I came to a compromise and perhaps you could consider leaving it alone now.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Doc James, Jytdog and CFCF, any opinions on what I stated above? The literature explicitly and consistently states that women attempt suicide more than men do and that men commit suicide more than women do. This is supported by the WHO and CDC, and is a global fact (not just a fact pertaining to the U.S.). Right now, however, the article does not relay the fact that women attempt suicide more than men do. And the "3-4 times more than males" statistic is also well-supported. The first source I noted above states, "The WHO (2003) reports that at sites all over the world, women attempt suicide more frequently than men, and the world rate is 3.5 to 1." So whether or not we use the "3-4 times more than males" statistic, the article should be clear on the fact that women attempt suicide more frequently than men do, not just that they engage in non-fatal suicidal behaviors more than men do. From what I see, this discussion was made because of the view that women engage in self injury and non-fatal suicidal behaviors more often than men do but that whether or not they attempt suicide more often than men do is questionable. As the sources I listed above show, it is not questionable. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22reborn, Doc James and I have compromised on this and it's probably not worth creating a drama over it IMO. Wikipedia is a big place. Please consider leaving this minor point alone. I don't want any conflict with you and wonder why you came to this article, knowing I was heavily involved in this discussion.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

We already have this statement "However non fatal suicidal behavior, including self harm, is between two to four times more frequent in females" in the article. I was not entirely happy with this wording, but compromised Flyer22reborn. Why did you come to this article talk page where you saw I was heavily involved, and where an issue has already been resolved with Doc James and everyone has moved on.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It would be best if you cease speaking to me when I am not speaking to you. I asked Doc James, Jytdog and CFCF a question based on the literature and the fact that I am concerned that it is not being presented in the way that it should be presented in this article regarding the sex differences issue. You changed the text and kept being challenged. You changed the text again and Doc James stated, "We have a few sources." He did not state that he agrees to neglect mentioning the fact that women attempt suicide more than men. This will be my last direct reply to you on the matter. If need be, I will start a WP:RfC on this issue.

I was already at this article, just like I was already at the Suicide attempt article before you edited it. I think I was pretty clear why I commented in this discussion despite not wanting to interact with you and not wanting you thinking that my commenting here means that you should start showing up to discussions I'm involved in. When I see what I consider a problem with an article, I am very likely to comment on the matter. I have no desire to interact with you. If I did, I would not have alerted Doc James to an edit of yours he recently reverted at the Suicide attempt article. That edit you made was problematic because intending to commit suicide is not the same thing as trying to commit suicide. Instead of interacting with you by reverting you at that article, I contacted Doc James to review the edit. In this specific case, however, since you have presented the text in a way that I disagree with and the discussion ceased, I decided to comment. It's that simple. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Why did you suddenly show up at this talk page discussion I was obviously heavily involved in. That's the issue here. And it may very well need to be addressed in future. I do think you have missed the point we were discussing really, to be honest with you. At any rate, it has ended. Everyone's moved on. A compromise was reached. I suggest you do so as well Flyer22reborn. There's lots of articles to edit. WP is a big place. I also hope you don't keep showing up at other articles and talk pages I'm involved in too.Charlotte135 (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The ref supporting the text did say suicide attempts and so did the major textbook. Adjusted to account for both. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Doc James, I thought this was compromised on. I will need to start adding some more journal studies now, that completely overturn this false statistic you are including. It is not suicide attempt it is the self harm, that is without intent, presenting to emergency departments. We cannot mislead our readers like this.Charlotte135 (talk) 09:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Doc James, saying "However suicide attempts and self harm..." is not what the reliable sources say. Also organizations like the CDC and the WHO publications among other reliable sources are using the term suicidal behaviors because self harm (without any intention to kill oneself are being included in the attempt stats) They are trying not to mislead people into believing suiicide attempts with the full intention of killing onself is 4 times higher in women. It's false. We shouldn't be misleading our readers.Charlotte135 (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop trying to use primary sources to refute secondary ones.

We have a number of high quality sources that say "suicide attempts are 4 times higher in women" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Among the major secondary sources many quote different stats or no stats at all, regarding female/male suicide rates. I would like to include these for due weight. What do you think? We just need to present to our readers what the reliable sources say on this issue and many use other stats or no stats for a good reason. Emergency dept stats are not accurate they don't differentiate. Most attempted suicide is self harm with no intent to kill oneself.Charlotte135 (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

We specifically do not include primary sources for "due weight". And what evidence do you have that they include no stats for a good reason? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

No i said other secondary sources which quote other stats, not 4:1 or no stats at all. Surely we need to include what other secondary sources say.Charlotte135 (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Which secondary source do you wish to include? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

There are many Doc James. All quoting different stats and wording. I will save these depending on your response to these questions. Should we state what the WHO states on this. Should we leave the stats out entirely?Charlotte135 (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey Charlotte, by far the easiest way to resolve this, is for you to propose content with sources here on Talk, that you would like to see in the article. Would you please do that? There is no hurry; I still don't understand exactly what you are claiming, nor the basis for your claims, and if you propose sourced content here that will all become very clear. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It was already solved Jytdog. Everyone had moved on to other articles. Compromise was reached! Until your friend Flyer22reborn suddenly showed up here out of nowhere, not before she apparently had started communicating with Doc James undercover, and away from here on talk where it could be transparent, and is all upfront. The WHO and CDC and other reliable sources use suicidal behaviours Jytdog, not attempts and are moving away from quoting any stats at all. My proposal is we leave the statistic out altogether. Seems most logical solution now. As we all know and our readers need to know, most so called attempts are actually self injury, not suicide attempts, where as the OECD.org defines it as "Suicide rates are defined as the deaths deliberately initiated and performed by a person in the full knowledge or expectation of its fatal outcome." https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/suicide-rates.htm. Parasuicide and self injury are not attempts. Never mind, what's the point when the discussions between Doc James and Flyer22reborn and whoever else are not here on talk anyway.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, so there are no content issues left to address. Great. If you have some content issue I look forward to seeing content proposed, with sources. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey Jytdog. I'm happy to remove my off topic stuff as long as we remove all the other off topic stuff from your friend Flyer22reborn too. What do you say Jytdog? Does that seem fair? As far as the content edits here though, I give up. You and your friends win. There's too many of you ganging up and talking about things away from the talk page, and off Wikipedia, like Doc James and Flyer22reborn were doing. Hard for other editors to form a consensus with that off wiki stuff going on, that's all.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

If you have some content or sourcing to discuss I would be happy to hear about it. Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately our readers lose out, because they don't get to read an article reached through proper consensus, and editors discussing things on the talk page, or even on Wikipedia at all for that matter. When Flyer22reborn and Doc James discuss content edits off Wikipedia, where no one else can participate, it really makes it hard for independent editors to work with you all to reach a neutral POV, that's all. Anyway you win! Our readers lose. And remember we already established a compromise days ago until Flyer 22reborn suddenly showed up here and disrupted the consensus established. Everyone had moved on to other articles. It was so disruptive. As I said, remove off topic comments but please be consistent and neutral.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

If you have some content or sourcing to discuss I would be happy to hear about it. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, well I think we should adopt the WHO approach to this and we leave the statistics out altogether. Seems most logical solution now. That's what the WHO has done. The stats are false. I'm okay saying females attempt suicide more often, as a compromise, even though journal based empirical research (only a primary source, I know) has shown this not to be true. What do you think?Charlotte135 (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

as requested many times, please propose specific content with specific sourcing for consideration. Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Rational suicide

Should the section on rational suicide also include reference to "Hobson's Choice" situations. Consider for example The Falling Man and up to 200 others who jumped from the World Trade Centre on 9-11 rather than be burnt or asphyxiated. How would this play with those religions that are fundamentally opposed to suicide? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The existing reference to the Holocaust seems a better fit for the Hobson's choice as the victims mentioned had a chance to think about it. The reference to martyrdom is the only religious theme in the section, so if you've got a good source for a religious viewpoint or debate on the morality of the camp inmate's choices or similar that could be interesting. I doubt that WTC jumpers are widely considered as suicides. Seren_Dept 05:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't. These are genuine questions. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

There's a section at the bottom of Jewish_views_on_suicide that seems related but its sourcing (other than primary) isn't obvious. Holocaust research seems like a good place to find the perspectives you're looking for. There must be lots of analysis of resistance, cooperation, and collaboration, and whether there was any choice at all, and often from a religious perspective. I hope that's helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seren Dept (talk • contribs) 02:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Why was the WHO reference removed

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

---

Doc James Why was this edit based on the WHO source removed? [30]

You are adding text not support by the reference. You added "Pesticide self poisoning is the most common form of completed suicides worldwide, with around 30% of global"

Where does it say this is the "most common"?

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

http://time.com/3270766/pesticide-poisoning-is-the-leading-method-of-suicide/ for the time being. I will locate the WHO sourceCharlotte135 (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You used a source. It was this one [31] and it does not support the text.

Time misrepresents this WHO new release.[32] Not the first time I have seen the popular press make mistakes like this and again why we do NOT use the popular press for medicine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, very sorry. Other very high profile organizations also made this error then! So if TIME made this error, why am I being punished for it? This isn't fair Doc James.Charlotte135 (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You know very well that we all much use high quality sources. And most importantly we must reference the sources we use. That you are using TIME and than putting in place WHO is not at all cool. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Doc JamesNo I certainly don't know very well. If TIME got it wrong why are you blaming me? And I resent your insinuation. The stats are very confusing as you know.

On that note, again I ask, can you please just paste the actual sentence here please Doc James, where the WHO source uses the terminology "suicide attempt" rather than "suicide behaviors" which is the term the WHO and CDC use nowadays, when referring to global not USA stats. I just can't find it in the WHO source you quoted? It would be really helpful, because this is what this is all over. The wording suicide attempt over suicide behaviors was Flyer22reborn's argument too. We established consensus on the term "suicidal behaviors" 4 days ago. We compromised. We all walked away. 3 days later you suddenly changed the wording to suicide attempts again? And started this whole debate up again. And then accused me of edit warring!

So yes, it is very very important you produce the sentence please Doc James, from the WHO, using the words suicide attempt rather than suicide behaviors for global statistics. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Suicide attempt

CDC states suicide attempts more common in women than men."However, women are more likely to express suicidal thoughts and to make nonfatal attempts than men." (2105) and "Women report attempting suicide during their lifetime about three times as often as men"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Doc James Doc James, I hate to say this, again, but the CDC are for USA only, as you very well know. As you also very well know, we are only talking about the WHO source you are using, as it generalizes to global not USA statistics. Flyer22reborn's whole contention was as you know, we use suicide attempt not suicide behaviors for global generalizations. That is what dragged us all back here, after we had all reached consensus through compromise, and then you accuse me of edit warring! We had reached consensus days ago and I compromised. So, again please just provide the actual sentence for global generalizaation purposes. The CDC is why I correctly changed it to USA. And that was not a revert by the way. Nor was it disruptive. It was factually correct.

So, again, just the actual sentence from the WHO source please Doc James, where it uses the words "suicide attempt" not "suicide behaviors" which is what we established consensus on and you suddenly changed 3 days later (without consensus) and without a reliable source it now seems. I know you are very important to Wikipedia and I don't mean to correct you here, so please, just the sentence from the WHO source, so it verifies the Global as you very well know. I just can't find it anywhere. The WHO use "suicidal behaviors" not "suicide attempts" Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You mean <ref>{{cite book|last1=Krug|first1=Etienne G.|title=World Report on Violence and Health|date=2002|publisher=World Health Organization|isbn=9789241545617|page=191|url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=db9OHpk-TksC&pg=PA191|language=en}}</ref><!-- Quote = rates of non-fatal suicidal behaviour tend to be 2-3 times higher in women than in men -->

We must paraphrase so using other terms that mean the same is required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

And this ref from who says "More males commit suicide than females but more females attempt suicide."[33] so the language is used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

A 2015 review "One of the most consistent findings in suicide research is that women make more suicide attempts than men, but men are more likely to die in their attempts than women."[34]

This bit is interesting "One reason for the lack of investment in female suicidal behavior may be that there has been a tendency to view suicidal behavior in women as manipulative and nonserious" and "In most countries, men die by suicide at 2–4 times the rate of women, despite the fact that women make twice as many suicide attempts as men." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Doc James I think we should stick with the WHO source given the source you quoted uses the WHO data. Back to our main point though, you very well know Doc James that non-fatal suicidal behaviour refers to other behaviors like suicide ideation etc. It is not the same as suicide attempts as we all know. So paraphrasing it doesn't make sense. Suicide attempt is clearly defined as intention to commit suicide. We have 2 options now IMO. One, we say USA only, like I said today and you actually reverted Or option 2, we use non-fatal suicidal behaviour like we had correctly used and settled on through consensus, and you changed to suicide attempt without consensus, that is, if we are going to generalize to global stats. Which should we choose please Doc James? However either way, this clearly proves I was neither edit warring, and more importantly my edits have been factual and entirely correct based on our WP policy. I'd like to move on from this nonsense which I'm sure you would too. So which of the 2 is it please?Charlotte135 (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

We have lots of sources that say the same such as this [35] which found a 1.4X higher rates of suicide attempts among females in Europe. You could try a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you just compromise here and we let it go. The WHO uses the term "non-fatal suicidal behaviour" when referring to global stats. Why are you disputing the WHO Doc James? Doesn't make sense. And any other source you produce will simply base their content on the WHO? What do you think. Go back to the consensus, formed compromise we all settled on at talk a week ago, and we let it go. The WHO is pretty reliable IMO. What do you think?Charlotte135 (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

And at any rate we should obviously remove all sources currently in the article pertaining to te point we are discussing, if you are not going to correct the wording. As it stands, readers are being misled Doc James as we now have established. Can you do that please?Charlotte135 (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Doc JamesDoc James, our dispute is not over statistics. It is purely over the terms suicide attempt and non fatal suicidal behaviors. Our dispute is over nothing else. Never has been. I'm perfectly okay with the 2-4 stat as I've said over and over, (so I'm not sure why you are bringing up gender), this has nothing to do with gender as you know. But the WHO does use the wording "non fatal suicidal behaviors." for that statistic to be used in the article for global generalizations. Would a 3rd opinion help here do you think? Alternatively, can you just comment here on my above two questions please and it's resolved. And we can move on. No drama.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2016

Addition of Suicide Prevention Hotline numbers (by location) to the top of the page. It's 1-800-273-8255 in the USA. JGageWright (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

What's changed since Talk:Suicide/Archive_6#RfC:_Crisis_hotline_link or any of the other times this was proposed? —C.Fred (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Misleading statistic?

The statement "Three quarters of suicides globally occur in the developing world" is in my opinion misleading. The WHO fact sheet says "75% of global suicides occur in low- and middle-income countries." I'd suggest that 75% of the worlds population lives in low and middle income countries, so that living in a low or middle income country does not increase the tendency toward suicide. I'd suggest deleting this statement, but I hesitate since it is sourced from the WHO fact sheet. But if the WHO fact sheet presents a statistically invalid argument, we shouldn't repeat it, right? What do you think? Marfinan (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Primary source

"Transgender people have an average attempted suicide rate of 41%."

This is a primary source rather than secondary source. We should be using secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Added details based on reviews here[36] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

How about these?

• Haas et al., "Suicide and Suicide Risk in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations: Review and Recommendations", Journal of Homosexuality.
• Clements-Nolle, Marx & Katz, "Attempted Suicide Among Transgender Persons", Journal of Homosexuality.

Benjamin (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

First one looks good [37] Is the second pubmed indexed? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. Benjamin (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Percentage vs. raw numbers of suicides is wrong in the third paragraph

The first sentence of the third paragraph of this article reads as: "Approximately 0.5% to 1.4% of people die by suicide, about 12 per 100,000 persons per year." Obviously, percentage and raw numbers are at odds. 0.5% to 1.4% of 100,000 is 500 to 1,400 people. But 12 per 100,000 persons is 0.012 %." Please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.204.0.229 (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2017

In the "Psychosocial states" the word "hopelessness" links to a album which has nothing to do with suicide or mental disorders ElementalWord (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Done Thanks for pointing this out

Libertarianism

Libertarianism, which has historical precedent in the Stoics and in Schopenhauer, is strongly associated with the ‘anti-psychiatry’ movement of the last half century. According to that movement, attempts by the state or by the medical profession to interfere with suicidal behavior are essentially coercive attempts to pathologize morally permissible exercises of individual freedom (Szasz 2002). Benjamin (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Template

The template is confusing. It lists as causes what seems like methods. Instead, the causes section should list "being suicidal" or "sicidalness" as the causes of suicide since those are the main causes cited by survivors of suicide.92.6.181.31 (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Causes and methods can be used interchangeably. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Suicide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513011216/http://www.suicideprevention.ca/about-suicide/the-power-of-words/ to http://www.suicideprevention.ca/about-suicide/the-power-of-words/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130427114237/http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/suicide-prevention/save_310_guide_v6.pdf to http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/suicide-prevention/save_310_guide_v6.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2017

CHANGE It appears that while news media has a significant effect; that of the entertainment media is equivocal.[91][92] TO It appears that while news media has a significant effect; that of the entertainment media is equivocal[91][92] with studies showing fictional suicides are related to increases in potential suicidal ideation.<ref>http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2646773<ref> D wiki 54 (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Modify "committed suicide" to "died by suicide" in two spots?

New person here, so forgive any missteps. I noticed in the definitions section that mental health organizations recommend using more neutral language than "committed suicide", but "committed suicide" is used in two other places in the wikipedia article to describe suicide deaths (first paragraph of "History", third paragraph of "Religious Views"). Even if "committed suicide" is still commonly used in journalism/academia, I would suggest moving to more neutral language in those spots. P.S. I didn't see this topic in the archive, but again, newbie Emdroge (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Emdroge:, I would like to see the wording changed also. "Committed suicide" sounds like the victim committed a crime which is why I think it is recommended that "died by suicide" be used instead. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 22:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I would support a change from 'committed suicide' to 'died by suicide.'--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Change in two spots. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe "committed suicide" is still used in the vernacular more often than "died by suicide" (Google returns 13.7 million results for the former versus 399 thousand for the latter), and all "committing" means is that someone dedicated themselves to a course of action. If I commit to getting more sleep, that's hardly a crime. I daresay that people who feel the word choice implies a crime don't really know what the word means.

Additionally, the word "commit" was deemed acceptable after an RfC in 2013. I therefore don't believe we should change it without another RfC to overrule the prior consensus. DonIago (talk) 06:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not care at this point. Died is less controversial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Less controversial according to whom? And if you don't care about a prior consensus, I would suggest that Wikipedia isn't an ideal site for you. DonIago (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(e.c.) My personal preference is generally to honor the wording that (most) mental health organizations recommend, but I'm not sure that doing so here is necessarily going to be considered "neutral". More to the point, are we envisioning this as the beginning of widespread change in related articles? If so, we'll have to get past the fact that "died by suicide" is not commonly used, while "committed suicide" is. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I work at a suicide hotline and we use the term 'suicided' rather than 'committed suicide' for the reasons I mentioned above. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 21:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That RfC was 4 years ago. I supported keeping "commit" at that point in time.

I was the one who brought this article through GA. And am one of its primary contributors.[38]

But sure can return it. User:Emdroge you, it appears, will need a new RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Is a committed Christian a criminal? If an employee demonstrates commitment to his company should he be locked up? When an aircraft is committed to a landing should we prosecute its pilot? Perhaps we should rather castigate those who seek to change the language due to ignorance. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

In the English language a word can have more than one meaning, depending on context. For this reason, what you wrote makes no sense. Since you raised the issue of Christianity, and the general theme of this discussion - the Roman Catholic Church used to declare, that those who lost their lives because of suicide 'committed' a grave sin by 'committing suicide' which denied them access to heaven and also denied them the right to a Catholic burial in a Catholic cemetary. Then came the Protestant Reformation, which sought to discard the 'doctrines of man' with a 'Bible Only/Bible First' viewpoint and a more literal interpretation of scripture, and then the theology grew that only rejection of the Holy Spirit or Jesus Christ condemns one to hell - not necessarily suicide - although most Protestant theologians still viewed most or all cases of suicide as a sin or wrong. Then came secularism and modern medicine, who viewed it through a therapeutic and psychological lens - of course the general view of the wrongness of suicide is still prominent in modern culture, with society and clinicians trying to prevent it in various ways with prominent debate in certain cases, such as euthanasia. But the term 'commit suicide' originates from theological morality issues hundreds or perhaps thousands of years ago. Of course now people say 'commit suicide' without thinking about the origins or original meaning of the term. Commit suicide therefore is an outdated term due to it now no longer being a criminal offense in almost all Western countries and modern thinking; see this section Suicide#Legislation.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Yup it is an old term of dubious origins.. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The case for a sane person's suicide

One may consider to amend the article so that possible sanity of a person who suicides also is presented. You should know d*mn well that there are heavy reasons for the fact that people suicide such that people living under assaults from people without having the proper self-defence. This issue should be amended by the article. See more here: https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2012/09/pro-and-con-arguments-of-assisted.html
"1. Warburton, N., 2004, p. 21. The Basics - Philosophy, 4th ed. Routledge: New York"
"The Problem of Evil. "...of the widespread practice of torture." and "...all examples of moral evil or cruelty: human beings inflicting suffering on other human beings..."" 109.189.66.223 (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS

We already have a section on that Suicide#Rational Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Mind adding the reference, "1. Warburton, N., 2004, p. 21. The Basics - Philosophy, 4th ed. Routledge: New York", after -> "...some people use suicide as a means of escape.[102]"? Making it the 103 as the 102 seems "hidden"? 109.189.66.223 (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Have you considered getting a username? You would be able to do such edits yourself then. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Martin of Sheffield do you have an ISBN for that?

I see this version[39] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Doc James No, I assumed good faith on the part of IP:109.189.66.223. It didn't look like POV pushing or vandalism and didn't change the article in any detail. If you are concerned and think it dubious, please revert, I've got no horse in this race. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Martin of Sheffield just trying to verify the source in question. Lots of versions of the book in question and having trouble finding a 2001 version. Maybe the IP will come back and let us know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. Fount it[40] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for new section: The importance of suicides or The consequences of suicides

For example: A critical look at the number of suicides over 16-17 years (i.e., over 9000 people, Norway) causes me to ask:
1. What degree of corruption creates such a level of suicides? So how much corruption can you expect in Norway with such a level?
2. What is the severity for the rest of the population for this level of suicides? To what extent can "one commit" character killing / character assassination of the population at this level of suicides?
Remember, we are only about 5.2 million people in Norway. (Look up number for your own nation, correspondingly.) Cheers! 82.164.42.11 (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the Criminology, Sociology, Political science, Law or Sociology of Law... 82.164.42.11 (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what the request is? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Gratuitous image?

A picture of a woman with depression who was suicidal

@Doc James: regarding your recent reversion of my deletion of the image in the Definitions section, you asked, "not sure what was wrong with the image?" I thought the image was gratuitous, i.e. it didn't "increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter." Is there something about that image that's informative, especially for the definitions given? If there is, I don't think it's clear and central; maybe there's a clearer way to convey the same information. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

A persons affect is an important part of the assessment of someone who is suicidal. This drawing shows a number of the signs of someone who is depressed or despondent which is a risk for the condition in question.

You are correct that it is not in the best section. I have moved it to the section on mental illness. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that the picture was supposed to illustrate affect. That still doesn't seem clear. Would it be possible to specifically label the signs that you have in mind (ideally with sources)? The article currently says nothing about affect. I was under the impression that you can't tell based on how sad someone looks whether they're suicidal or not, but I can't remember where I read that. A good source might suggest exactly what the article should say or illustrate about this. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Ones affect helps determine if someone is depressed and if someone is depressed that is a risk for suicide. With respect to the markers of depression in appearance will look for sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

"die by" versus "commit"

This article has been using "die by" for more than 6 months without issue. Switching back and forth is not the time now without consensus for one way or the other. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

When even the article itself admits that "the normal verb in scholarly research and journalism for the act of suicide is commit", I don't see how you can justify using other terms. --Khajidha (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

This terminological dispute has been discussed a number of times on Wikipedia; the most recent discussion is now seen at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 197#Use of "died by suicide" at the David Reimer article. The Wikipedia community has repeatedly stated that "committed suicide" is fine. But, yes, whichever terminology we use, we should be consistent with it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Islamic View on Suicide Appears to be Inaccurately Stated

If the Koran opposes suicide, how do we explain the suicide terrorists who crashed into the World Trade Center?John Paul Parks (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you'll find all the Abrahamic religions differentiate between sacrifice for the greater good versus suicide connected with one's own problems (and I know this is a generalised simplification). Whatever one's personal views, the bombers themselves saw the act as a willing sacrifice for the greater good of Allah, Islam and the world, in short they believed it to be martyrdom and thought it praiseworthy. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

"Onset"

Should >70 and 15-30 really be included in the side panel as the age of onset? I'm still new here, so I don't want to remove anything, but suicide isn't the disease - major depression, bipolarity, schizophrenia, etc. are. Matt.syl (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Those are the most common ages in which suicide occurs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)