Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Suicide methods/Archive 6) (bot |
Kingofsumers (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
Line 460: | Line 460: | ||
The fact that no suicide helplines are offered here is appaling to me. This is such a graphic article, with the power to teach vulnerable people how to do suicide. Why not add Samaritans phone or location-based helplines at the top? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.255.235.166|85.255.235.166]] ([[User talk:85.255.235.166#top|talk]]) 16:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
The fact that no suicide helplines are offered here is appaling to me. This is such a graphic article, with the power to teach vulnerable people how to do suicide. Why not add Samaritans phone or location-based helplines at the top? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.255.235.166|85.255.235.166]] ([[User talk:85.255.235.166#top|talk]]) 16:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
: |
:i am a poopy head who wants people to kill themselves - [[User:Boneyard90|Boneyard90]] ([[User talk:Boneyard90|talk]]) 18:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
== Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2020 == |
== Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2020 == |
Revision as of 09:55, 21 December 2020
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hulings1 (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ln168282 (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 16 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Edwarchng, Chung.esther (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Edwarchng, Chung.esther, Mdoherty44. |
Should be not deleted
This encourages people to take kill themselves, the point of Wikipedia is to provide helpful, useful information not to tell them to commit suicide, so blame's on Wikipedia for 20% of the world's deaths!-- Template:Unsigned IP -->— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.177.210 (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Our readers are not mindless infants who need to be protected or shielded from knowledge because of what they might do with it. We don't play kindergarten teacher and we don't censor objective, verifiable, reliable information presented in a neutral point of view...just because it makes some people uncomfortable or because they may use that information to make possibly questionable decisions. You have fundamentally misunderstood the "point" of wikipedia. Check out the five pillars of this project: WP:PILLARS Shabidoo | Talk 00:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- The request is strangely worded (and misplaced), Shabidoo; but your response seems odd. First, I don't know why you are bringing up "mindless infants". Secondly, I checked out the five pillars and was struck by the possible relevance here of the fifth. -- Hoary (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Readers are not mindless infants. They can read the material provided and make their own conclusions about the topic and do what they want with it. Our role is not to protect people but to provide well sourced reliable information. We aren't kindergarten teachers censoring info deemed dangerous to the vulnerable.
- As for the 5th pillar, I'm not at all sure what the 5th pillar has to do with censoring information. You ignore the rules to if they get in the way of making an article better. Not to align the article with an ideology or advocacy nor to deprive information from readers.Shabidoo | Talk 22:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- On "mindless infants" (again!), "kindergarten teachers", and "an ideology or advocacy", Shabidoo, please see Straw man. Anyway, IP-who-posted-the-question, requests for deletion from Wikipedia are commonplace. They're ineffective if made on the article's talk page. If you want to have an article such as this one deleted, this is what you have to do. Note that the process is rather complex, that it requires persuasive reasoning and (normally) citation of policy, that for this article the process has been tried eight times already (here's the eighth), and that a ninth attempt will undoubtedly fail unless it cites facts and factors that haven't already been cited or is hugely more persuasive than any of the preceding eight. (Don't confuse "persuasive" with "impassioned": any sign of passion is likely to doom the attempt.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hory perhaps you should refer to the article Metaphor, might help you figure all this out. Shabidoo | Talk 23:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Very possibly, Shabidoo, I am having trouble figuring all this out, whether because of incompetence in English, senility, retardation, or something else. In the meantime, rather than "metaphor", I'd venture "auxesis". -- Hoary (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hory perhaps you should refer to the article Metaphor, might help you figure all this out. Shabidoo | Talk 23:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- On "mindless infants" (again!), "kindergarten teachers", and "an ideology or advocacy", Shabidoo, please see Straw man. Anyway, IP-who-posted-the-question, requests for deletion from Wikipedia are commonplace. They're ineffective if made on the article's talk page. If you want to have an article such as this one deleted, this is what you have to do. Note that the process is rather complex, that it requires persuasive reasoning and (normally) citation of policy, that for this article the process has been tried eight times already (here's the eighth), and that a ninth attempt will undoubtedly fail unless it cites facts and factors that haven't already been cited or is hugely more persuasive than any of the preceding eight. (Don't confuse "persuasive" with "impassioned": any sign of passion is likely to doom the attempt.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- The request is strangely worded (and misplaced), Shabidoo; but your response seems odd. First, I don't know why you are bringing up "mindless infants". Secondly, I checked out the five pillars and was struck by the possible relevance here of the fifth. -- Hoary (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Why don't we include consequences for ALL of the methods if someone fails to commit suicide as well as documented examples? OfficerAPC (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Still shouldn't be up here, you still shouldn't assist suicide by giving someone a way to do it. I mean, come on. I personally have dealt with the urge and to be honest, I've asked multiple suicidal people and they agree that if they are told how, they would do it because it feels like ur telling them it's ok. Yes, they have a mind of their own but it dont work like normal, filled with sadness, hatred, despair, and death. Our mind is coruppte by what we are told. Think about that. NoReasontodie (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia, not your personal soapbox. As such, it is intended for factual information. There is no evidence that all suicidal peoples have minds that "don't work like normal" and are "filled with hatred, despair, and death". Some people, maybe, many people, possibly, but not all. Some people are in terrible, untreatable pain, due to illness, disease, old age, disability, etc, and they choose to die for very rational reasons. This is not a place to enforce your morality on others.2001:BB6:2860:7F58:4DE5:9571:3323:B3BC (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
RFC: Hatnote at top
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Going to close this one too, as I closed the main Village Pump RFC where I found a consensus to add Suicide prevention to the main Suicide article hatnote, it likely makes sense for me to do this one as well.
Discussion here was not as extensive, nor were the numbers as clear as the Village Pump discussion, but the arguments were similar to the other discussion, with a key difference here, in that the main article already had a hatnote, where this currently has none. Another difference here is that WP:RELATED was not referenced, as far as I can see, in the Village Pump RFC.
I've considered this, among the other opposing arguments in my close, however weighing the discussion here and the rationales given (along with the broader RFC result at VPR), I do find a consensus here for inclusion of a hatnote linking to Suicide prevention (but not to List of suicide crisis lines)
Now, onto implementation. Not all of those supporting an alternative hatnote have been specific in which version of the alternative hatnote should say. From my reading of the discussion in #Alternative hatnote, the version "For information on methods of suicide intervention, please see: Suicide prevention" appears to have the most support from the options given. So in this close, I will implement that option.
However, if further conversation here post-close determines that the hatnote should be differently worded, editors here are free to implement a proposed alternate version. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 16:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Should a neutrally worded hatnote directing users to List of suicide crisis lines be added to this page? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Related discussion(s)
- Talk:List of suicide crisis lines#RfC on List of suicide crisis lines, Not a directory, WP:LSC and Ignore all rules
- Talk:Suicide#Hatnotes
- Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to add suicidal disclaimer at Suicide
In the above section, there are claims made that this hatnote violates Wikipedia's policies. The hatnote reads as thus:
For information on suicide prevention and crises hotlines, please see List of suicide crisis lines.
I obviously disagree as this makes no mention of the reader committing to any specific action. It just provides a list of resources.
Separately, the situation on Talk:Suicide is different, but it may have some bearing on this RFC. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- No. It violates WP:RELATED. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
YesSupport inclusion of a hatnote to "suicide prevention" (Summoned by bot) there is a reasonable chance that this could help someone. It's a violation of RELATED, but IAR if it helps someone not commit suicide. signed, Rosguill talk 18:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC) 16:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- This is exactly what the hatnote is designed to achieve. It's not about providing resources its about activism. Thanks for illustrating the point many users have made countless times. Shabidoo | Talk 23:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- User:Rosguill the best avaliable evidence does not support or refute a benefit of crises lines. Per the Lancet paper "Thus far, the evidence of telephone and internet intervention effectiveness is rather scarce and of low quality. Rapidly increasing utilisation of information and communication technologies in suicide prevention requires research assessing their efficacy" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- I was unaware of this, thanks for pointing it out. signed, Rosguill talk 16:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- User:Rosguill the best avaliable evidence does not support or refute a benefit of crises lines. Per the Lancet paper "Thus far, the evidence of telephone and internet intervention effectiveness is rather scarce and of low quality. Rapidly increasing utilisation of information and communication technologies in suicide prevention requires research assessing their efficacy" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- OBVIOUS NO The hatnote is a clear attempt to sneak around policy under the bogus excuse of "providing resources" when in reality it is a total disclaimer meant to direct suicidal people to suicide hotlines and is not about the convenient navigation to other information. It's already in the see also section. This violates multiple policies, not just WP:RELATED since it isn't at all a hat note directing readers who might be confused or lost per the title of the article but a redirect to stop users from hurting themselves but also WP:ADVOCACY which violates WP:NPOV. Wikipedia doesn't do disclaimers or warnings or prevention in general because drawing the line is impossible and we can go from "simply obvious warning" to very subjective advocacy in no time. That's why this policy is here. In an ideal world there would be a clear disclaimer at the top. Advocacy invites a slippery slope and the community has rejected it for obvious reasons. Shabidoo | Talk 23:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's so interesting to me that holding the opinion that people should avoid killing themselves (which is supported by WP:RS) somehow makes me an anti-suicide advocate. I'm just a Wikipedia editor trying to ensure people get to the right page is all. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- This violates multiple policies. My opinion or your personal interests are irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabidoo (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's generally considered poor form to edit your comments after the fact.[1] For the record, I originally responded to this. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- This violates multiple policies. My opinion or your personal interests are irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabidoo (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- No to "suicide crisis lines" But would support neutrally worded hatnote to "suicide prevention". Evidence for crisis lines is really poor. There is stuff for which there is evidence and we can link to suicide prevention were it is discussed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)
- Support inclusion of hatnote to List of suicide crisis lines. Morally and ethically right to do so regardless of our policies. Maybe crisis lines do have a low success rate and maybe the evidence of their effectiveness is poor but if it helps one person that is enough for me Lyndaship (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- But what if it harms people per this concern raised in a 2007 paper "There were six calls where an ambulance was sent to a caller during a suicide attempt and it may very well be that the callers lives were saved. However, there were ten instances when a caller appeared to be in the process of a suicide attempt and the helper did nothing, and in at least one case the helper encouraged the caller to complete the attempt."
- And what about the opportunity cost if we could have done something better supported by the evidence? Talk:Suicide#What_has_better_evidence Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- In regard to evidence, I think its one of those areas of medicine that will never really have good evidence. If evidence is shown in one study, worldwide generalisability is poor. Theres little evidence in risk assessment for suicide as well. It is common practice to link to crisis lines, despite the lack of evidence, I think we should do the same. --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support I think given the uniqueness of the question, it is very pertinent to pay attention to WP:IAR here. Whilst we're here to make an encyclopaedia, and the link to suicide crisis lines is arguably unencyclopedic from this article, this is definitely an ethically challenging area. I would strongly support for this article inclusion, especially as Wikipedia is not censored and the suicide methods article may have obvious unintended consequences. --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Also I note that WP:IAR is
improving or maintaining Wikipedia
with no mention of Wikipedia being an encyclopaedia. Inclusion clearly violates even WP:HERE and everything else, but in this page I think all are overridden. --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- No As much as it pains me to say it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: Any particular reason? It'd help the closer with assessing consensus. I'll note that we are also workshopping an alternative hatnote below, so you are welcome to review that conversation as well and, if you think there is something worth supporting there, adjusting accordingly. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Many, some of which will cause some offense. One answer would be wp:not, which I feel this violates in an number of ways.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support alternative hatnote from discussion below. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 21:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support main and alt per my comments at VPProp Wug·a·po·des 20:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- No-Violates WP:Related. Display name 99 (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support alternative as discussed below. I'm happy to WP:IAR on this. Jschnur (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Reluctant Oppose based on WP:NDA, WP:RELATED, and WP:DISC. Gimubrc (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Gimubrc: While the original may possibly violate WP:RELATED, do you feel the #Alternative hatnotes really have that problem? They both are worded substantially similar to {{About}}. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I still feel the alternative hatnote has the same problem. I find it implausible that someone who looks up suicide methods would actually have been looking up methods of suicide prevention, so WP:RELATED is still an issue and I therefore remain opposed to this proposal - much as I might sympathize with the good intentions behind it. Gimubrc (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Gimubrc: While the original may possibly violate WP:RELATED, do you feel the #Alternative hatnotes really have that problem? They both are worded substantially similar to {{About}}. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Support as an antidote to the sociopathic nature of this article that should be deleted on public safety grounds. How long before it's invoked in the courts ? Atlantic306 (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: Any possible benefits are negated by the unknown, suppositions, and what-ifs. In an attempt to possibly right great wrongs and clearly (even if denied) playing an activist role, consideration must be given if the overall benefit to Wikipedia (improvements) mandates consideration to ignore policies and guidelines. Comments at Village pump shows this will likely result in opening a 55 gallon drum of worms once we step on the slippery slope. Per some of those comments WP:NDA will all but be rescinded because all worthy causes would then have reasoning to use hatnotes. I agree with Gimubrc that as "much as I might sympathize with the good intentions", the unintended negative consequences are great. The scenario of "what if" is too vague with no reliable evidence of a real problem, so fixing the "problem" would not effectively improve Wikipedia. Wikipedia:FALSEBALANCE is a concern, as well as Wikipedia:RELATED. All one has to do is read a support !vote above that contains "Strong Support as an antidote to the sociopathic nature of this article..." to see the real reasoning for seeking a hatnote is purely Wikipedia:advocacy that does become What Wikipedia is not. Otr500 (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Alternative hatnote
For information on methods of suicide intervention, please see: Suicide prevention § Intervention.
- @Doc James and Rosguill: Would that be a sufficiently worded hatnote? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
How about
For information on methods of suicide prevention, see: suicide prevention.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Seems a little redundant to say suicide prevention twice. We could just do:
For information on suicide intervention methods, please see: Suicide prevention.
- I also like saying please because it's more formal. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- I find the meaning of "suicide intervention methods" a little unclear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Is "methods of suicide intervention?" better? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think "methods of suicide intervention" is the best wording suggested so far. signed, Rosguill talk 19:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- The result would be:
For information on methods of suicide intervention, please see: Suicide prevention.
- Is that a best alternative? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- The result would be:
- I think "methods of suicide intervention" is the best wording suggested so far. signed, Rosguill talk 19:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Is "methods of suicide intervention?" better? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- I find the meaning of "suicide intervention methods" a little unclear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutrality would require the inclusion of a similar note on the suicide prevention article directing users here GideonF (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ah would oppose a hatnote from suicide prevention to here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- WP:FALSEBALANCE –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- If you want it because it's encyclopedically relevant, then the relevance is symmetrical. If you want it because you personally hold anti-suicide beliefs that you want to promote, that would be a violation of WP:SOAPBOX GideonF (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- For the necessary hatnote from here, I think the term "suicide intervention" is clear enough, and seems to be the current term. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Okay thanks User:DGG will support that wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- weak support Whilst I support either hatnote in principle, I dont understand the argument based on weak evidence for crisis lines (this type of evidence is extremely difficult to develop in medicine, and will always have poor generalisability worldwide). Furthermore, if you extending that argument there is no evidence I have heard of to link a suicidal person to how society manages suicidal intervention and prevention. If that suicidal person doesn't have access to those things, such as being in a remote area or low income nation, it could in my limited opinion could also have unintended consequences as well and I would suggest a suicidal prevention expert's input here. But I certainly prefer weak evidence and expert opinion/common practice (ie. to crisis lines) to what might have no evidence. Also if this second hatnote has consensus suicide prevention and suicide intervention needs a far more global viewpoint / rewrite. --[E.3][chat2][me] 19:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Okay thanks User:DGG will support that wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ah would oppose a hatnote from suicide prevention to here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- No-I see no difference. Display name 99 (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose but would weakly support something worded such as
This article is about methods of committing suicide. For information on methods to prevent suicides, see: suicide prevention.
-- Rockstonetalk to me! 20:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)- @Rockstone35: If I understand it right, your position is essentially Wikipedia:Hatnote#Summarize or not? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @MJL: yes. In this case I think the hatnote should summarize the article. It is conceivable that someone going to Suicide Methods really did mean to look up methods of suicide prevention. Summarizing suicide methods clarifies which article they're at. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Rockstone35: If I understand it right, your position is essentially Wikipedia:Hatnote#Summarize or not? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support either this or alternative proposed by User:Rockstone35 as reasonable and better than lacking hatnote. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 03:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as including a hatnote of this kind at all violates WP:RELATED regardless of how it is phrased. This said, if a hatnote is to be implemented, Doc James' version is probably the best one. Gimubrc (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose all of these as well. This is simply not what hatnotes are for. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per user User:Finnusertop. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 11:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Crisis line concerns
- I’m not offering a vote here, as I’m not an editor (obviously), but I want to suggest that those of you who think some version of this hatnote is “Morally and ethically right to do so regardless of our policies.”… might want to reconsider that position.
- These “suicide crisis lines” are often used to pull people into a system that wishes to profit off their distress (no matter how minor):
- “Expected to keep beds full, former admissions workers from three UHS hospitals said they learned how to turn even passing statements that people made during assessments into something that sounded dangerous.”
- And they use various “involuntary commitment” laws such as California’s “5150”, “5250”, and “5350” laws:
- “Under California Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) 5150, an individual can be placed (involuntary) to a locked psychiatric facility, for an evaluation for up to 72 hours …. If, after a 72-hour hold, an individual is deemed to still be a danger to others or themselves, or is gravely disabled, WIC 5250 permits for an individual to be involuntarily held (in a locked psychiatric hospital) for another 14 days. A 5350 hold … is initiated at the end of 5250 / 14-day hold. … (Accessed 2019-08-26)
- … to deprive people (who have committed no crime) of human, civil, and constitutional rights, without due process of (criminal) law. Your own “suicide intervention” page already documents this:
- “Most countries have some form of mental health legislation which allows people expressing suicidal thoughts or intent to be detained involuntarily for psychiatric treatment …”
- Getting caught up in these systems causes significant trauma to people (who are already suffering), and it also leads to increased rates of suicide:
- “ … the postdischarge suicide rate was approximately 100 times the global suicide rate during the first 3 months after discharge and patients admitted with suicidal thoughts or behaviors had rates near 200 times the global rate.”
- Encouraging people to call these “suicide prevention hotlines” is putting them at significant risk of (additional) trauma, and loss of life and liberty.
- So I will suggest that you should not violate your WP:ADVOCACY policy, because your advocacy may well do harm (in addition to not being encyclopedic).
- If you are going to violate that policy, however, you should then consider your WP:NPOV policy, and include information about the risks and consequences of calling these “suicide crisis hotlines,” not just an explicit or implicit endorsement of calling them. --69.122.39.162 (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- IP, does that mean you would prefer the alternative hatnote? It would read
For information on methods of suicide intervention, please see: Suicide prevention.
and not mention crisis lines whatsoever. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)- As mentioned above, any such link would also have to have a reciprocal link from the “suicide prevention” page. (which would bring on all sorts of “are you mad” type accusations, of course…)
- And of all the suggestions, the one from Rockstone (“This article is about….”) strikes me as the most neutral in terms of wording.
- However, as far as I understand the polices and what I’ve seen elsewhere on Wikipedia, that’s still very questionable in terms of advocacy vs. being encyclopedic -- which the reciprocal link makes much more obvious, given people’s natural emotional attachment to this issue.
- The “suicide prevention” page also needs to be expanded to include the views of the likes of Thomas Szasz and his students (that suicide is a right), Michael Foucault (that “prevention” is a form of social control), especially Jerome Motto (as above, that suicide actually can be prevented and in a non-coercive way) and others with dissenting views of the modern practice of psychiatry. I’ve seen “controversies” sections on some Wikipedia pages, so something like that perhaps. But I digress…. --69.122.39.162 (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- We've phased out controversy sections awhile ago (but not every article has gotten rid of them). It's generally preferred to include dissenting viewpoints throughout the article now (if not considered WP:FRINGE; ie published in WP:RS). You're welcome to discuss improvements to that article at Talk:Suicide prevention as you see fit, but I thank you for your participation here! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- IP, does that mean you would prefer the alternative hatnote? It would read
- Just to be clear:
- Admissions assessments in a certain number of for-profit hospitals in the US are different from independent non-profit helplines (or, for that matter, admissions assessments in public hospitals, as is usual in most of the developed world).
- The fact that people discharged after a suicide attempt have a higher suicide rate than average is because your sample is now exclusively of people who have already come to a point where they've attempted suicide. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 01:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Responding to:
- 1. There are various reporting requirements for people “deemed a danger to … themselves” which no doubt vary by jurisdiction, and which may or may not apply to any given crisis line. If you can truly maintain anonymity (which you really can’t on a PTSN phone system) when calling these helplines and already know enough not to take their likely advice to call 911, you might be safe. Might be.
- 2. The sentence I quoted above specifically identifies “…patients admitted with suicidal thoughts or behaviors … “ as having a more elevated risk (200x) than other patients (100x). This indicates that the hospital, its staff, the laws they operate under (and typically endorse), and the experience of losing your liberty are, in fact, responsible for a large fraction of the elevated risk. --69.122.39.162 (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with the IP. We really need evidence around the utility of these numbers. If there was evidence that they decreased the risk of death that would sway my opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know that the decision of whether to post resources should depend entirely upon waiting for a series of comprehensive meta-studies. This strikes me as a case where we want to make a good, interim decision on the basis of suggestive, if incomplete, information. Doc James, you note that the Lancet meta-study just doesn't indicate effectiveness one way or another--they didn't have enough studies to draw a conclusion, since out of the 1797 they initially looked at, and of the 144 they analyzed in the meta-study, only a few dealt with crisis hotlines. Those that did, like the Gould et al study., suggest that the lines do in fact help. But beyond the question of what several future studies and eventual meta-studies might show in the next several years is what we want to do in the meantime. I'd think that the level of evidence currently present suggests that lines are in fact helpful, and if research shows evidence that they aren't a net benefit, that can be revisited and edits made to the page again.
SSiy (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- How can you possibly claim a consensus exists for inclusion?GideonF (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Was a well reasoned close. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- It is blatantly false to claim there is a consensus.GideonF (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- I feel I have outlined my reasons, in conjunction with the other RFC too where I outlined the reasons editors have given to support the hatnote and oppose it in more detail, that I find a consensus to add this hatnote. I am offline for the next 48 hours, but I would ask that if the result of the RFC is disagreed to by either involved editors, or uninvolved editors, to follow standard processes to dispute the close (being a discussion at the Admin Noticeboard) and would discourage, as always, edit warring to implement or revert the outcome of this RFC. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 11:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- You have not begun to explain by what possible criteria 8:6 could possibly be regarded as a consensus.GideonF (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- It seems to me that he's factoring in the larger-scale consensus at the Village Pump RfC in his closure of this one. I'm not a fan of the final decision - I voted against inclusion in both RfCs, and my opinion that the hatnote is inappropriate has not changed - but at the same time, I don't think he's completely off-base taking account of the result of a closely-related discussion as a matter of precedent. Gimubrc (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- The larger VP RFC being factored in is especially problematic considering that
"Another difference here is that WP:RELATED was not referenced, as far as I can see, in the Village Pump RFC."
I typically don't stick my nose to RFCs just to point out very obviously related guidelines we already have. Apparently I should. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- The larger VP RFC being factored in is especially problematic considering that
- It seems to me that he's factoring in the larger-scale consensus at the Village Pump RfC in his closure of this one. I'm not a fan of the final decision - I voted against inclusion in both RfCs, and my opinion that the hatnote is inappropriate has not changed - but at the same time, I don't think he's completely off-base taking account of the result of a closely-related discussion as a matter of precedent. Gimubrc (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- You have not begun to explain by what possible criteria 8:6 could possibly be regarded as a consensus.GideonF (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- I feel I have outlined my reasons, in conjunction with the other RFC too where I outlined the reasons editors have given to support the hatnote and oppose it in more detail, that I find a consensus to add this hatnote. I am offline for the next 48 hours, but I would ask that if the result of the RFC is disagreed to by either involved editors, or uninvolved editors, to follow standard processes to dispute the close (being a discussion at the Admin Noticeboard) and would discourage, as always, edit warring to implement or revert the outcome of this RFC. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 11:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- It is blatantly false to claim there is a consensus.GideonF (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- The RFC conclusion above also ignores the references I posted showing that “suicide prevention” and the way the psychiatric profession handles it are *ACTIVELY HARMFUL*. So not only is the hatnote activism and non-encyclopedic, it is counterproductive to the (presumed) goals of that activism. I would suggest that what you might “want to do in the meantime” is to not risk causing additional harm. (my IP has changed, but I’m 69.122.39.162 above) --24.146.197.26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Was a well reasoned close. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
a missing method
There doesn't seem to be any mention of the method whereby one attaches one or more weather balloons to themself launches themselves into the atmosphere whereby they suffocate from lack of oxygen at high altitude. Which section ought this one to appear under? Rebroad (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- What are the sources for the use of this method? If this is actually used with any kind of regularity it would belong under suffocation; however, if it's something that has only happened once it's probably more suited to List of unusual deaths than to this article.GideonF (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Why were my edits reverted?
Why were my edits re drinking (water and alcohol), jumping from height and being killed by a train removed? It took me a long time to find the sources for them etc, and it's rather frustrating to have done all that work providing useful information for nothing.ACCH (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- See WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- With the possible exception of the paragraph about drinking, I can't see how my edits were relevant to biomedical information. ACCH (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Than see WP:RS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- With the possible exception of the paragraph about drinking, I can't see how my edits were relevant to biomedical information. ACCH (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- See WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Hotline
On this page and all others about suicide at the very top above anything about problems with the page should be something along the lines of “if you or a loved one is having thoughts of suicide or hurting themselves or others please call the suicide hotline at 1-800-273-8255“ Likebeingawesome (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Likebeingawesome: I tried having something less overt than that (See this conversation and this archived request for comment). Consensus was against my moderate proposal linking to List of suicide crisis lines (Remember, there are other people who read Wikipedia outside the United States). It's unlikely that this proposal would go anywhere, and I have already extensively discussed it with other editors here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Concerns
This text was added by User:Jumes347
One can accomplish death by eating, getting bit or take drugs which one is very allergic.[1][2] Death normally occurs within minutes.[3] Outcomes in those with exercise-induced anaphylaxis are typically good, with fewer and less severe episodes as people get older.[4]
References
- ^ Sampson HA, Muñoz-Furlong A, Campbell RL, et al. (February 2006). "Second symposium on the definition and management of anaphylaxis: summary report—Second National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease/Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network symposium". The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 117 (2): 391–7. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2005.12.1303. PMID 16461139.
- ^ Tintinalli, Judith E. (2010). Emergency Medicine: A Comprehensive Study Guide (Emergency Medicine (Tintinalli)). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies. pp. 177–182. ISBN 978-0-07-148480-0.
- ^ Simons, FE; Ardusso, LR; Bilò, MB; El-Gamal, YM; Ledford, DK; Ring, J; Sanchez-Borges, M; Senna, GE; Sheikh, A; Thong, BY; World Allergy, Organization. (February 2011). "World allergy organization guidelines for the assessment and management of anaphylaxis". The World Allergy Organization Journal. 4 (2): 13–37. doi:10.1097/wox.0b013e318211496c. PMC 3500036. PMID 23268454.
- ^ editor, Mariana C. Castells (2010). Anaphylaxis and hypersensitivity reactions. New York: Humana Press. p. 223. ISBN 978-1-60327-950-5. Archived from the original on 2016-12-23.
{{cite book}}
:|last=
has generic name (help)
None of the sources in question mention suicide. Which makes this WP:OR. Jumes please explain? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
fixed, added still more references ;) --Jumes347 (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please see WP:MEDRS. We are not just looking for a 1965 case report. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- i also added: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073812000564 which is a deleted reference. wikipedia shall have this information, do you think not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumes347 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
yeah man, i help wikipedia, if you prefer censorship i can NOthing, i write on other wiki. if you want i give upJumes347 (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Voodoo death
How is this a method of suicide? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
did you read the golden bough? this method happens continuously. mate, at this point you are loosing a contributor, i cannot go against these censorships. i insert other rituals, which i consider encyclopedic and i quit--Jumes347 (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2020
Meep moop boop (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Meep moop boop: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GoingBatty (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Suicide by illness
Although no reports have been released announcing this occurrence, there are fears that someone could potentially purposely get the Coronavirus in order to end their life.[1] A Psychology Today report stated that from a sample of people interviewed, 9.2% considered obtaining the disease intentionally to kill themselves. Out of this same poll 50% were strongly to extremely depressed, and between 45%-65% had thoughts of suicide in the past month related to the disease. Reasons for increase include the lockdown, economic stress, and job loss. Professor Carl Weems, Bethany McCurdy and Mikaela Scozzafava, from Iowa State University and Professor Victor Carrion from Stanford University conducted a study suggesting fifty thousand to possibly even more than one hundred thousand suicides worldwide were connected the current pandemic. Their conclusion is that over 5,100 suicides might happen due to unemployment and more than 35,000 additional suicides due to loneliness/isolation.[2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.247.60.2 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, that might happen, but it would be a dismal method given the very low mortality rate of the Corona virus. Nevertheless, I think the paragraph about "suicide by illness" should be expanded. Other illnesses besides HIV/AIDS could be realistic candidates for some people if they have sufficient mortality rates. 2.207.102.134 (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Text
Not sure why this was removed "People who attempt suicide and survive may experience serious injuries, such as broken bones or brain injury.[3] These injuries can have long-term effects on their health.[3] In the United States approximately 8% of suicide attempts result in death.[4]"
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/opinion/coronavirus-parties-herd-immunity.html
- ^ https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/slightly-blighty/202004/study-some-may-seek-die-suicide-covid-19
- ^ a b "Preventing Suicide |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC". www.cdc.gov. 11 September 2019. Retrieved 2 October 2019.
- ^ Conner, Andrew; Azrael, Deborah; Miller, Matthew (3 December 2019). "Suicide Case-Fatality Rates in the United States, 2007 to 2014". Annals of Internal Medicine. 171: 885. doi:10.7326/M19-1324. PMID 31791066.
Freezing to death
Why is this missing? It's not an outlandish thing. You can imagine someone has himself half a bottle of vodka, two or three sleeping pills, and goes out into the snow to die. In fact, I'm sure it has happened quite a bit (google "suicide by freezing"). 2.207.102.134 (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- We would need a source for this. I seem to remember a famous Artic explorer did this. If you could reply with a source we can consider including, although dying from exposure to the cold is an unusual method, and the page is not expected to be a full list of methods. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Must be deleted immediately
It is encouraging self-harm and will most likely fall into the hands of somebody young and vulnerable. There is no positive reason for this page to exist. Please take this page down to prevent the likelihood of suicide from people who attempt to seek it.
- Please review the prior deletion discussions if you are considering re-nomination, and follow due process. Please remember to sign your posts.--Shantavira|feed me 13:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
One little neutrality issue
Hi all wikipedians who, like me, are interested in the subject of suicide and suicide prevention. I believe that the preventative template at the beginning of the article, that asks readers to see Suicide prevention for information on methods of suicide intervention, is opposing the neutrality of any encyclopedia, not just Wikipedia. I exemplify my reason by saying that, no matter how positive this could be, if you accept it as an exception in this article, then there are tens of hundreds of articles with touchy and sensitive subjects that you need to put such preventative template on top of them. But we don't see such a thing. For example, on top of the article Addiction, you should put: For information on getting sober, see Addiction Intervention. Other subjects as an example include: Masturbation, Robbery, rape, etc. Now, some users might argue that such preventative templates are there in other languages. My answer their management could be different; not to mention that, some rules are fundamental and apply to all wikis, including neutrality. Also again, you cannot find such preventative statements in any encyclopedia other than Wikipedia. Thank you.Poorya0014 (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- I noticed that you changed this without reference to the RFC above, I think this change would require a new RFC.... I have reverted this. PainProf (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think this needs a RfC too Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- With regards to RFC, I disagree with the above RFC, like a few other users who had disagreed. Then yes, we need a new RFC, but the question is how to get users to see this discussion to have their opinion? tnx. Poorya0014 (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Suicide prevention phonenumber the Netherlands
Hi! I noticed that the suicide prevention phonenumber for the Netherlands is marked as "113". This is not correct and has been the reason for the completion of several suicides that could have been prevented, because people tried dialing 113, which does not exist. The correct phone number is 0800-0113. Please change this where mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:983:EDA9:1:E599:A202:1F6A:9B2C (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- I could not find any mention of this on the page except in the photo of the railway crossing. While this is unlikely to be something that would be changed, it appears from the news articles and this site that 113 now works in the Netherlands and has done since early July. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Summarizing the lead
Poorya0014, regarding this? It was a poor summary. Per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to summarize the article. Your addition also had grammar issues.
Propose content in your sandbox so that editors can review and tweak it. I might also bring WP:Med into this.
Please don't WP:Ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- With regards to grammar, you are right and I accept it has language issues that need to be revised by native speakers, as I am not a native speaker. With regards to just putting the summary of the article in the lead, I can say I have seen article leads that have a little bit more information in them than just the summary of what's been said already in the article. With regards to creating a discussion so people can opine, I don't know how to as I am not familiar with the process here in English wiki. Can you please help me? If i just simply write it in the talk page, then that way I don't know how to make that discussion visible to more people or how I can invite them to discuss and reach a consensus. Thanks.Poorya0014 (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I can help. In the meantime, I've contacted WP:Med for help. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Flyer22 Frozen. It was a great help. But is there any other place that we can post the link so users can see and have more visibility? Like for example creating a commenting page somewhere?
My lead
For those who want to discuss my lead as mentioned above, here the lead that I wrote, which was reverted by User:Flyer22 Frozen:
- A suicide method is any means by which a Suicidal person uses to purposely end their own life. Suicide is a phenomena present in the history of humans and different methods have been developed to achieve it. However, choosing some methods or wrongfully enacting any method, could cause long-term, sever, and sometimes, irreversible damages to the body organs such as the brain and bones.[1] In the United States of America, only %8 of suicide attempts lead to death [2] Because of this and for reducing such damages from unsuccessful suicide attemps, some advocates of suicide and pro Right to die groups, by scientifically and statistically examining various methods of suicide, have tried to find a method to help suicidal people, including those who are diagnosed wit a Terminal illness, or any other person who wishes to take their life while mainlining their dignity, have this option to do it in the most humane and easiest way; a way by which they undergo the least amount of pain and suffering. For example, Dr. Philip Nitschke, a pro right to die Australian physician, in his book, The Peaceful Pill Handbook, after reviewing different methods of ending one's life and the legal aspect of it, explains the advantages and disadvantages of each method based on factors such as reliability and peacefulness. According to his estimates and others, such as Derek Humphry, the author of Final Exit, Inert gas asphyxiation by using a Suicide bag is one these easiest and most peaceful methods of ending one's life.[3] Since a person may only want to attract attention, but not really take their life, authors such as Geo Stone, an American pharmacologist, in his book "Suicide and Attempted Suicide"[4], after discussing one's freedom to chose the way of their death, explains different suicide methods and discusses some safe and secure methods to just make this action look like suicide.[5]
- On the other hand attention should be paid to this fact that the Suicidal person, does not necessarily take their life due to mental illness, hopelessness, or any failure in life; but they may commit suicide for goals that they may have in their minds. Apparently, in these situations, the difficulty or easiness of the method of suicide, either is not that important to the person, or on the contrary, the person may intentionally choose the hardest and most painful method to show their opposition to a subject so intensely, or to reach any other subliminal goal that they have in their mind. For example, the Case of the Blue Girl in Iran, Sallekhana or death by starvation in India, and the murder-suicide cases of Kamikaze for fighting the enemy in Japan, are notable for such situations[6].
- ^ "Preventing Suicide |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC". www.cdc.gov. 2019-09-11. Retrieved 2020-02-10.
- ^ Conner,, Andrew;; Deborah;, Azrael,; Matthew, Miller, ((3 December 2019)). "Suicide Case-Fatality Rates in the United States, 2007 to 2014". Annals of Internal Medicine.
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/plastic-bag-gas
- ^ Stone, Geo (1999). Suicide and Attempted Suicide (PDF).
{{cite book}}
:|archive-date=
requires|archive-url=
(help) - ^ http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/further-reading
- ^ Aggarwal, N (2009). "Rethinking suicide bombing". Crisis. 30 (2): 94–7. doi:10.1027/0227-5910.30.2.94. PMID 19525169.
Discussions
With an Agree or Disagree, please indicate if you think we should publish the lead like this or not and please explain your argument and offer your edits.
- Agree Apart from grammar mistakes that could be solved by native users, I believe this lead is well-sourced, neutral and doesn't violate any wiki policy. I have translated this lead from Persian wiki, which was also reverted there and people asked me to discuss it in the talk page before publishing as it is a sensitive topic. Those who opposed this lead had different arguments, which I explain briefly here and how I answered them. However, 2 admins declared that whatever we decide here in English wiki, they will accept as some sort of consensus.
- A The most opposing argument was that adding superlative adjective, such as in "the easiest way of death", to Wikipedia is not encyclopedic. However, my answer is that if the idea is backed up by good sources, then there is no problem. For example, if I argue that Uranium is the heaviest element in the periodic table, based on some strong sources, then I can put it in any encyclopedia. With regards to the fact that using a suicide bag attached to a nitrogen tank to commit suicide, is the easiest and least painful methods of death, it is enough to say that the even some state in U.S. are trying to implement it as a substitute for other methods of capital punishment.
- B Writing about the easiest method of suicide is considered promoting suicide. My answer is that I never said that I believe that inert gas asphyxiation is the easiest method of death and I actually quote from some sources. It is all up to the reader's discretion to decide whatever they want. But just to support my idea even further, Dr. Nischke, who has helped many people take their lives with this method, correctly argues here that when the person knows they have the power to kill themselves with the easiest way, they tend to carry on more than thinking about death. So this is actually helpful, because death is minimized and the person feels in total control and thus, it could be a way of preventing suicide.
- C This is an age-restricted topic and what if a miner, say an 8-year-old kid reads this? My answer is that the job of Wikipedia is not monitoring kids. Parents who are concerned about their kid's online activity, have access to so many solutions to monitor it. In addition, there are numerous other websites that kids could get wrong or harmful info; at least here in wiki, everything is supported by strong sources. Of course, I have that concern myself, but CENSORSHIP has no place in wiki.
Thank you,Poorya0014 (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Poorya0014, forgive me for declining to vote; every wiki has its own ways, and the English Wikipedia prefers plain discussions, especially where the wording of a section is concerned. The grammar problems are, as you say, something we could fix later.
- Overall, I don't feel like this summarizes the article. I think it also has a pro-suicide and pro-parasuicide feel.
- The structure of what you propose is:
- General background
- Random statistic from a single, non-representative country
- Praise for various people who try to make killing yourself easy, humane, dignified, painless, etc.
- Information about a book that gives advice on appropriate methods when your goal is parasuicide
- Information about suicide as a form of political protest, with the implication that they ought to be choosing methods suitable for parasuicide instead.
- I don't think that the US statistic or the motivation of protesters should be included at all, and I'm very doubtful about the rest. I think we could do better than this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- I notice that two months ago, someone blanked most of the old lead, which was well-sourced and summarized some of the article content (e.g. side effects and policy questions that are specific to certain methods). It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking part in the discussion, WhatamIdoing. Forgiveness is not needed. It is your preference and I respect it. The reason I want people to use "agree" or "disagree" is simply to have an idea of the discussion and how many people agree and how many disagree. Contrary to what you mentioned, every wiki works on the same core principals and policies, voting included, in which it doesn't prohibit us from using voting system, it just says it's better to use other methods and just not rely on voting to reach consensus. Here, I briefly answer your responses: With regards to summarizing the article in the lead, I have seen leads that have a little bit more info than just summary of the article, but you can shorten it if you want. With regards to pro suicide, no. Actually, the lead that you reverted back gives me a pro suicide prevention feeling for an article that is supposed to talk about the methods of suicide. However, personally and just FYI, I am pro any right that provides people the most amount of freedom, including right to die and right to live. With regards to random stats from a non representative country, they are not random and well-sourced and in addition, I provided those as an example, nothing more. With regards to parsing people, no. Mentioning a doctors place of work or history of what they have done, is not called parsing. This is just an extra layer of information to support them as a source. With regards to informing about a book with methods of para suicide, I don't see any problem. This article is about methods of suicide and para suicide is part of suicide. With regards to your last bullet point, sorry, but it seems like you have not understood the article or there is a problem with my English, because those are just EXAMPLES and nowhere in the article I meant to say people are ought to choose X method or Y method as a para suicide method. Peoples' motivation for suicide, affects the method they choose, that's they point. I also am going to revert part of what you reverted as I believe it should be put in suicide prevention and this article should only discuss suicide methods. ThanksPoorya0014 (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Disagree but would like to have further discussing and edits to agree on a possible new lead. Checking it meets the manual of style and a grammar check would clearly be needed. I think it is too long for the lead, and opinions on the "easiest" method to use that have only a few sources are not enough for WP:MEDRS - in particular a New York Times article would not qualify as medical information. I would like to discuss further and collaboratively edit before changing the lead. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you Amousey for using the voting method. It makes it easier to have an idea of how many people agree and how many disagree. I agree with both things that you mentioned. It could be long and for that, editors are welcome to shorten it. The second thing you mentioned about the fact that I have not a lot of sources to prove the easiest method, is also right. Definitely more sources are better and make the argument stronger, however, not having a lot of sources doesn't reduce the encyclopedic value of the argument. Actually, my purpose in wiki is just to translate, mostly from Eng to Per, and that's why I'm not that comfortable finding good sources and writing an article from scratch, however, I'm %100 sure those who agree with my lead, can find more sources, and my hope is that in the future, other states in the U.S. and other parts of the world follow what Oklahoma wanted to do about allowing inert gas asphyxiation to become a means of peaceful and humane capital punishment. My hope is we don't see any capital punishment or suicide at all, but till then, at least we can raise peoples awareness of suicide and its related subjects. ThanksPoorya0014 (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Poorya0014 With wanting to translate - that does not automatically mean the points will be accepted. There seem to be a lot of editors watching most pages here, and they may disagree or have stronger references. So please do not take offense when edits are rejected. I think it would be wise to use an online English grammar checker when editing though. The top section (lead) is the last section that should be edited because it should summarise everything else on the page - so put edits under the correct heading first, and then if they are accepted update the lead.
- I don't know if you already do this, but other projects are very much in need of translation help - including https://wikidata.org and https://commons.wikimedia.org - if you are interested. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Amousey: Thanks for letting me know about other projects. Actually, my main goal in Wikipedia was to just translate articles exactly how they are from English into Persian. I rarely want to write in English, as I have neither enough acceptable academic writing expertise, nor am I that interested. If there is an article that I feel has something I'm interested in, from Persian wiki, that could also be informative for English speakers, then I translate. For example I noticed there was no article about suicide in Iran in English and so I created it. Apart from that, I really don't want to bother people here in English wiki.
Now, with regards to this particular article, just because we had a heated discussion in Persian wiki, I decided to translate my lead from there to have a more fair discussion and get familiar with more opinions. I never feel offended, but we are here to contribute together. Even if 100 users are against me here, my voice still should be heard and I should not be put in the corner and receive just punches. Constructive contribution does not mean to just point out mistakes and wrongs, but to help each other to reach an agreement. With regards to the fact that the lead should be a summary of the article, I think I've seen articles that their lead has a little bit more info than just the summary of that article. However, thanks, it's a good method, too. My main point here is to reflect right to die supporters' ideas, including the fact that Inert Gas Asphyxiation is the most peaceful and reliable method of death. Also, I've noticed that this article lead and the hatnote has become an anti suicide propaganda. This article should talk about suicide methods and if anyone disagrees and is against suicide, then that's fine, but they should know that there is already an article for suicide prevention, and if they insist, they can even create an article for Methods of suicide prevention, but it's not possible that they make this article look like suicide prevention. Another example to clarify my point here is that if someone is Atheist, then they cannot edit the argument of God in the articles relating to religion such as Islam or Christianity in a way that those articles reflect Atheism. Thanks.Poorya0014 (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- My feeling is the proposed lead has a strong point of view. Secondly, whilst we are required to maintain a neutral point of view, where opinions are not balanced we do not have to present them as balanced. On this issue I don't feel that there are balanced viewpoints. Some of the viewpoints you are expressing are held in a small minority, therefore per WP:DUE we don't have to give them the same weight or prominence. I don't think that the sources or adherents are reliable enough for this lead, I prefer the sources that you reverted which included two sources in the lancet describing the motivation for this topic academically, as I think those opinions of the subject are important. PainProf (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking part in the discussion PainProf. What you did here is called Wikipedia:revert war. The second part of the lead of the current article is all about preventing suicide, but not about suicide methods. If you would like to talk about suicide prevention methods, you can do so in the related article. On the contrary, this article should be only about suicide methods. With regards to academic sources, for disputed subjects, such as holokaust denial, it is so hard to find academic sources. Pro right to die groups have always been subject of limitation and censorship and thus, there are not much academic studies on the easiest way of death, but there definitely are enough sources to make them appear here in wiki. I am going to create an edit warning and will mention you as I want you to please let this discussion reach some sort of consensus, and then, based on that, we can change the lead. Thanks.Poorya0014 (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, that is not an edit war at least on English Wikipedia, I reverted to the revision by WhatamIdoing, because your change introduced poor grammar and did not have consensus, I purposefully reverted past my own change as I saw that you did not agree with it. PainProf (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- @PainProf: As I mentioned in my talk page, when more than one person reverts what I write, while there is still a discussion going on, this to me looks like that all of them together try to push their ideas to the other person by force and I get this feeling in every Wikipedia, not just English. In my opinion as I mentioned before, the most stable version of an article where there is a heated discussion about it, like this one, should be the one from before all parties edits that does not include any of the parties ideas. The current version reflects you and whatamidoing's idea, which is not fair in any discussion. I think this version is more neutral before we all reach an agreement. Not to mention that the current version is all about suicide prevention which already has its own article. This article should talk about suicide methods and if you are against suicide and would like to suicidal people to have access to information about prevention methods, (which by the way is a very good deed) you can create an article about methods of suicide prevention. Please don't take offence my friend. In spite of the fact that I've been living in an English speaking country for a few years now, it seems like I still haven't learned how to speak in a language that people respect my opinion. You know, as a human the worst thing that could happen to you is that you get treated unequally. So if there is something I can paraphrase or change, please let me know and I'm more than happy to do so.
- PainProf, I liked the sourced content you added, and I've turned it into a section about why studying methods is important. That seems very relevant. If we have the sources for it, then there are non-prevention reasons to study methods. One is to know whether it will work (usually framed around the uncommon terminal-illness suicide situation), and the other is to know what healthcare resources will be needed for survivors (e.g., liver transplants for some poisons). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Good points, but there is already an article for suicide survivors, so if you think that you can gather resources for suicide survivors' help, its a great idea to do so and put it in the corresponding article. This article is about suicide methods. If you are against suicide, that's fine, me too, I also never feel happy to hear that for example in one part of the world, suicide rate is higher and in another, it's lower. Wherever a person takes his/her life, weather he/she is American or Asian, doesn't matter to me; it makes me sad. However, that does not mean that I can oppose the encyclopedia's neutrality, which is its fundamental policy, and start to write things in articles that are not relevant to the main article. I chose U.S's stats due to these 3 reasons: 1- Due to transparency and availability, their stats are more reliable. Also, the fact that U.S has communities from all around the world, it adds to the reliability, in my opinion of course. 2- As far as I know, the U.S is the only country that has proposed to accept killing by inert gases to become a humane way of capital punishment, i.e people now have more freedom for their end of life. So I thought that this could support my idea more than anything else. Now, with regards to the stats only, where I talked about percentage of failed suicides in the U.S, you can omit if you want, but if you omit part about using inert gas asphyxiation as a means of capital punishment in the U.S then I'll lose a strong source. Thanks. Poorya0014 (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking part in the discussion PainProf. What you did here is called Wikipedia:revert war. The second part of the lead of the current article is all about preventing suicide, but not about suicide methods. If you would like to talk about suicide prevention methods, you can do so in the related article. On the contrary, this article should be only about suicide methods. With regards to academic sources, for disputed subjects, such as holokaust denial, it is so hard to find academic sources. Pro right to die groups have always been subject of limitation and censorship and thus, there are not much academic studies on the easiest way of death, but there definitely are enough sources to make them appear here in wiki. I am going to create an edit warning and will mention you as I want you to please let this discussion reach some sort of consensus, and then, based on that, we can change the lead. Thanks.Poorya0014 (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- @PainProf: I think we should first rvert the article back to when it was before our changes so that we first agree upon everything and then we can publish the lead based on our agreement. This lead my frind is about suicide prevention which has its own article already. This article is about suicide methods. It should contain info regarding suicide method. Actually, in my opinion, it should even contain images and how-tos of different methods. I am also strongly against any notice at the beginning for suicide prevention and I've explained my reason above this page. Also, as I mentioned, if there is grammar issues, friends like you could help me solve them. This way, I also learn sth new. Tnx.Poorya0014 (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't do how to/manual articles in any form so I think that would be a non-starter, WhatamIdoing's rationale for restoring is that was the last stable lead. For the hatnote, there has been a request for comment run previously in tandem with one about suicide, so to remove it requires a new one. PainProf (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- How-to content is banned by WP:NOT. Encyclopedic content about a suicide method probably includes:
- a basic description of the method (just enough that the reader knows which method is being discussed),
- some indication of prevalence in different places (e.g., "common", "rare in Europe, but common in developing countries", "12% of attempts in the US", "12% of reported suicides in the US", "usually seen in older men in countries with poor gun control laws"...),
- some indication of the results (e.g., rarely results in death, nearly all survivors regretted jumping halfway down, scars persist for life, resulting poisonous fumes require the evacuation of building to prevent harming others, recovery operations endanger the lives of emergency personnel, rotting corpse likely to be found unexpectedly by innocent hikers...), and
- information about any policy changes that are specific to that method (e.g., fencing around jumping places, keeping guns away from suicidal people, Helium tanks no longer contain pure Helium...).
- If the method has been declared unethical (see: poisonous fumes, endangering lives, frightening the innocent, etc.), then I'd probably include that, too, but I really can't see any need for how-to or step-by-step information. We are not trying to tell people how to use a method; we are trying to educate them on the fact that multiple methods exist, and that each has its own separate considerations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- How-to content is banned by WP:NOT. Encyclopedic content about a suicide method probably includes:
- Good, so how bout talking about the difficulty and easiness of some methods, where there is scientific data for? With regards to how-to, maybe I have to correct myself, because you are right. There is no article that mentions the word how-to in it or at least not that I know of, however, there plenty of articles that have the concept. For example, lethal injection, although nowhere in the article talks about how to, but it kind of describes the process step by step, so then the concept is the same. It doesn't say for example, put the person on bed, then put the needle in his/her arm, then... . But it's written in a way that when a person reads, they understand thoroughly how its' done. That is what I meant by how-to.
- That's absolutely right. So when in the article under suffocation it says: "Suicide by suffocation is the act of inhibiting one's ability to breathe or limiting oxygen uptake while breathing, causing hypoxia and eventually asphyxia. This may involve an exit bag (a plastic bag fixed over the head) or confinement in an enclosed space without oxygen. These attempts involve using depressants to make the user pass out due to the oxygen deprivation before the instinctive panic and the urge to escape due to the hypercapnic alarm response..." This actually informs the person of the process, which is what I'm looking for. What it lacks, however, is that it does not talk about the easiness of this method in comparison to the other methods. In other methods also there is not info about easiness or difficulty or reliability of the method based on the stats that are studied and established. Now with regards to ethics, I don't think if we can push our ethical values to the reader. The reader him/herself will decide which method he/she finds to be ethical. This is very odd to me and it's really my first time I hear that an editor wants to neglect the neutrality of encyclopedia by the use of ethics. It's someone who is against abortion wants to push his/her ideas into the article just because he/she finds it unethical or ethical. The can create an independent article about abortion and ethics and they can gather as much sources as they can and write it there. If they are against abortion, then they can gather sources that proves their idea and put it under =Beliefs against abortion= or if they support it they can write under =Beliefs pro abortion=. But they cannot change the main article ,abortion, based on their ethical value. And by the way, it is also my first time hearing that someone can commit suicide by frightening the innocent. If somebody frightens an innocent person, the innocent person will die, not the one who frightens. I'd be really happy if you can give me an example with source that proves the opposite. Poorya0014 (talk) 06:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with User:PainProf and User:WhatamIdoing about what Wikipedia is not, and most other points. As I said before the easiest method is not being referred to in academic, reliable sources and is very much a matter of opinion that depends on the conditions in the relevant country and the person's situation. I also dislike the assumption that the easiest method refers to one that is the least painful etc rather than simply the most accessible. A choice of method for capital punishment has no relevance here - since that it is suicide. Lethal injection is not used as a suicide mention as far as I have seen - possibly due to laws restricting the sale of such drugs, and a blanket ban on them in some countries eg the UK. Information on assisted suicide belongs on the right to die page. I also feel that the article is overall pro-suicide. - Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I never said that lethal injection should be counted as a suicide method. My point was that if you read the article, you can clearly see that it describes lethal injection's process step by step, which to me is the same concept as a how-to text; though no where in the article they use the word how-to. With regards to the article being pro-suicide, I think exactly the opposite. I think the current version of the article is so against suicide and is not neutral at all. It should neutrally talk about suicide methods, not suicide prevention methods; because that has its own separate article. With regards to suing the word "easiest", Dr. Philip Nitschke, by considering other methods, has concluded that using a plastic bag and a nitrogen tank is the most reliable and most peaceful way of death, which, like other methods, has its own limitations. For example, if the person is suffering from a respiratory problem, this method might not be beneficial for them, but in normal cases, this methods it the best between all other methods. So, this is sources and I did not make it up on my own. Poorya0014 (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Three things:
- I agree with Amousey. "Easiest" could mean many things: least pain, cheapest, most accessible, etc. A method that is "easy" in one place could be difficult in another.
- The point about mentioning ethical problems specific to individual methods is that it's not always obvious, so most people can't just make up their under-informed minds. To give an example, the ethics of inert gas asphyxiation are pretty simple: please leave a suicide note (so nobody gets accused of murdering you), and please arrange for someone to find your corpse before it starts to rot (i.e., before it becomes a health hazard to others). The ethics of blowing up a nuclear power plant or crashing an airplane are even more obvious to most people: mass murder is bad. However, the ethics of jumping off a bridge are not obvious to most people: if you're seen jumping, then your choice of method risks the lives of emergency responders (who are required to fish your broken body out of the water, just in case you survived), and if you're not seen, then you cause all sorts of problems with people wondering where you are, and then there's the chance that parts of your body will wash up on shore later, which (a) is a health hazard to others, and (b) could frighten and disgust innocent people. "Make others sick" is not ethical, right? And "make others risk their lives to retrieve your body" is not ethical either, right? But most people don't know that this is the practical result. They're thinking "I jump off the bridge. The end!" They should be thinking: they'll regret it halfway down (because you're conscious enough to realize that you've just taken an irrevocable action, and you have several seconds to think about it), and now the coast guard is going to have to send out a boat to retrieve their bodies.
- About the overall balance: Wikipedia doesn't say, "Some people believe in a right to die and some people don't, so we will present both equally and let the readers make up their own minds." We also don't say "Some people believe in a Flat Earth and some people don't, so we will present both equally and let the readers make up their own minds". These views are not held equally, so we don't present them equally per policy. Even right-to-die proponents think that many suicides, and most suicide methods, are bad. Right-to-die proponents do not want battered women to kill themselves; they want people to stop abusing them. Right-to-die proponents do not want dumped teenagers to kill themselves; they want the teenagers to live long enough to learn that breaking up is not the end of the world. Right-to-die proponents do not want unemployed men to kill themselves over the shame of being rejected and poor; they want them to have jobs and respect and security. Right-to-die proponents are largely interested in a very narrow set of circumstances: untreatable pain that has already been endured for a long time and has no realistic prospect of recovery (sometimes including psychological pain), and people who are going to die soon anyway. And even when the situation is supported by right-to-die proponents, those same proponents reject nearly all of the methods listed on this page. As a result, WP:NPOV means that this article overall must lean towards prevention instead of promotion.
- WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Three things:
- Just as a kindly suggestion, calling people "under-informed" not only is not friendly, but also violates Wikipedia:civility. Also, I see users mentioning that my suggested lead is pro-suicide, which I think is not that in line with Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Although I don't hesitate to say that I write all my articles with the freedom of circulation of information in mind. In addition, I'm not sure what is the relation of blowing up a nuclear power plant and crashing an airplane with the suicide methods and ethics. Interestingly, In my country Iran, just recently an unfortunate incident happened in which, due to escalated situations and threats that the IRGC felt about 6 flying F35s from U.S.A on the Iranian borders, they shot our own airplane. Also, one of Iran's nuclear sights was the target of Israelis' spy attacks and underwent sever damage due to explosions. Both of these could be 2 examples of what you mentioned and if you prefer, I can courageously talk about the ethics of such incidences. However, if we want to move back to the main relevant discussion, I still repeat my main concern about this article's neutrality that is being violated greatly right now. This article should talk about methods of suicide, but not methods of suicide prevention. I do understand all points about wanting to help preventing suicide, but that has its own way. We cannot change this article's point which is to talk about methods, into an article about prevention. Suicide prevention has its own article. In addition to that article, anyone who is interested in academic articles, can create and article and name it Suicide prevention methods and there I myself will help expanding it. Thanks.Poorya0014 (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Our main point there is that it is impossible to talk about these sources without talking about prevention, all of the academic sources are prevention focused and those are considered the most reliable. I think the point of view of people who study suicide methods is important when discussing them, and indeed its highly encyclopedic. PainProf (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I see that you use the word "ALL" with confidence. Have you really studied ALL academic sources to know that they have a prevention focus? Even if that is true, which is not in my opinion, but that does not mean that an article in encyclopedia should put aside its neutrality. Also, I'm not convinced that only academic sources could be reliable. In addition, no where in wiki's policies state that only academic sources should be used. There are numerous subjects that no academy dares to investigate. Or maybe they don't have enough fund to do so, but does not mean that the subject should be left out from an encyclopedia. With regards to POV, yes, you are right. All of us, when we write an article, have our own purposes and our own belief system, based on which we shape our texts. That does not mean that we want to push our ideas, though. For instance, someone who is interested in cars, they write articles about the cars they like, but that does not show their POV. It is just their choice of interest. When I write about anything here in wiki, my main motivation is to achieve the most amount of freedom of circulation of information and breaking taboos. In suicide prevention, nowadays unlike past, the belief is that talking about suicide not only does not increase its rate, but also helps the suicidal person. If you take a look underneath the so closed RFC above in this page, you'll notice that users have mentioned correctly that this way of suicide prevention, i.e. adding preventative hatnotes or actively talking about suicide prevention in an article that should talk only about suicide methods, is actually counter-defeating your goal. As a good source for this, please listen to Dr. Philip's notation here about the fact that if a suicidal person knows that they are in control, they think less about taking their life. And by the way, just because you are so interested in acadmeic stuff, please study Émile Durkheim's theory on deviance. He believes that it is a sign of a healthy successful society. I consider suicide (in some cases and not all) a deviance and a society without suicide, is either non-existent or if it exists, then it is surely the most constraint and its people are experiencing the least amount of freedom. In addition to all of the things I mentioned to answer you, let me ask you a good question. It is a personal question and I know that in discussions it's better to refrain from asking personal questions, but because the subject of this article is very sensitive and I myself am %100 open to any personal clarification, I ask you. You can reject answering and it is all up to you. I see that you have a preventative approach towards suicide, which is very good, as I myself never ever like anyone to take their lives. I also see that you are interested in academic kind of reliability. You probably know better than me that each year around 1 million people take their lives by suicide in the world and unfortunately, this number is growing, in spite of all efforts to prevent suicide. So, you cannot disagree with the fact that weather me and you want or not, there are people who take their lives, all around the world, right? So, wouldn't you be happy if they leave this world with ease and peace and in a very humane way and with dignity? Or do you want to see them die in agony, with pain and suffering? Sorry for making this a little long, but as my last statement let me quot one of my high school teacher's saying, which is very valid till today, at least for me. He said: "Always be good and do good deeds and never do any bad deed, but if you ever want to do something bad, at least do it in a good manner." He gave us an example of a thief that breaks into a home to steal stuff. If the person just steals stuff and comes out without hurting people, the person has done a bad deed, but has done it in a good manner. However, if the person breaks into a home, rapes and kills people and steals stuff and then comes out, then person has both done a bad deed and in a bad manner. In some cases, suicide is a bad option, but because we know that the person does that for sure (in the U.S 13 individuals out of every 100,000 individuals, take their lives each year) at least let them do it in a good manner. Hopefully due to the efforts of pro right to die groups, nowadays we know much more about a peaceful and reliable death than 50 years ago; one that doesn't leave the person with a sever disability if it fails, one that doctor's themselves approve to be the least painful and one that can easily be accessed in many parts of the world. If we don't include information about such a method in this article, which is totally relevant and legitimate, then those people who are certain about taking their lives, will choose other methods that are for sure more painful and less reliable. Once again, this also has prevention inside it hidden, because as I mentioned, once the person feels in control, the probability of them killing themselves greatly decreases. Thanks.Poorya0014 (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think the points of physician assisted suicide are distinct, I'm not overly sure that there is a pain free or risk free method without the contribution of a doctor. The importance of study of suicide methods with the goal of prevention is supported by high quality evidence. Suicide methods and the means of restriction are subject to substantial academic discourse and its presence in the article is therefore justified. Methods to restrict access and the academic pursuit of understanding are relevant to this article. Means restriction is supported by the World Health Organisation, substantial reviews in high quality academic journals including by systematic meta-analysis. Wikipedia doesn't allow descriptive guides of this kind, and in this situation we see an exceptionally strong reason for this rule. High quality evidence supports that knowledge of new methods of suicide and excessive descriptions may increase their use. Given, that many suicide attempts in the context of mental health crises are impulsive, in this case I would argue there is absolutely a public health imperative to uphold Wikipedia's rule against giving excessive methodological details or How-To guides. Regardless of the rates of those with terminal illnesses this represents a very small proportion of the total number per year, the greater proportion of those are those with suffering an acute mental health crisis. High quality evidence from academic studies supports this position and I think equally high quality evidence would be required to refute it. PainProf (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- I would really appreciate if you could answer that personal question as it could clarify many things. Of course there is no obligation at all and it is just a friendly question. OK. Actually, the whole point of the efforts that Dr. Philip and other right to die advocates like him do is to empower people to finish their life on their own without assistance from anyone and they never have argued that there is a %100 pain-free or risk-free method. Using a suicide bag with inert gas is the most peaceful and most reliable method, but only if the person does the process correctly. For example, Dr. Philip understood that after the success of this method using Baloon Tanks with 95% helium and 5% oxygen, the company increased their oxygen levels from just 5% in each tank to about 25% which renders their product useless for this purpose. Therefore, Dr. Philip created a company called Max Dog Brewing and replaced helium with nitrogen which is even more available than helium. With regards to what you call "high quality", can you please provide me with just 1 (one) not even more, academic source that has studied "SUICIDE METHODS" from an academic perspective? I'm emphasizing: an academic source that has studied suicide methods, but not suicide prevention methods, coz that is totally irrelevant to our discussion. With regards to descriptive and how-to kind of language, which you believe wiki shouldn't do, can you please read lethal injection#Procedure and then tell me what exactly does it do? Doesn't it explain the procedure in a descriptive language? I think it does, although no where in the article it says how-to. With regards to what described as: "...many suicide attempts in the context of mental health crises are impulsive...", can you please provide a source for that? As I'm not sure really if its true or not. With regards to those who suffer from an acute mental illness, I believe that if they reach a point where they decide that they want to take their lives on their own, due to the fact that maybe their treatment did not work, who am I to force them no to do so. I look at that, the way I look at severe physical problem or terminal illness. I even want to go one step further and say that even a totally healthy person, without any mental or physical issue, if they desire that they want to finish their life, they should have access to both preventative sources and non-preventative sources. I mean if they for instance search for suicide help, they should find sources and if they search for suicide methods, they should be able to find it. Here in wiki, even broader, we should not decide for people. Anyone should have enough freedom to decide for themselves. Now don't get me wrong. If someone comes to me and tells me about the fact that they have suicidal ideation, I will definitely help the person find suicide prevention help resources, but if that person asks me about suicide methods, I never say "I will never tell you", but I say, "I don't know, but you can search for it." This way, I respect the person's freedom and according to Dr. Philip, just because the person feels in control, the probability of the person taking their life decreases. So that is a preventative measure. However, again I repeat my point that this article should remain neutral if wiki is an encyclopedia. But if wiki's admins decide that they want to turn it into a tribune to preach people what to do and what not to do, then I really get disappointed at editing. I also repeat that if you believe that wiki needs an article about suicide prevention methods, you are more than welcome to create it, as I'm not still convinced why we should put prevention methods in suicide methods. To me its like someone wants to combine Texas with Nevada, on the basis that both belong to U.S.A. You see, each subject should have its own topic. Talking about Texas in the article of Nevada is irrelevant, no matter how many academic sources relate these 2 together. (Also I forgot to say that governments used to think about addiction prevention the way you think about suicide prevention. But nowadays most governments even provide healthy equipment such as sterilized injectors to the addicted population, because they have figured out with a lot of try and error that this is the best way of controlling the issue. What I am doing here is kind of like that. I'm trying to provide information as I believe that is the best preventative measure.) Thanks.Poorya0014 (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't do how to/manual articles in any form so I think that would be a non-starter, WhatamIdoing's rationale for restoring is that was the last stable lead. For the hatnote, there has been a request for comment run previously in tandem with one about suicide, so to remove it requires a new one. PainProf (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think that's accurate. Medical evidence supported needle exchange programs. Medical evidence also supports means restriction, the study of means being an encyclopaedic topic. Regardless a lot of medical focus is also on restricting exposure to drugs that cause addiction. For instance the changes in opioid prescribing practices. Population data supports for instance reducing the pack size of over the counter drugs, restricting access to firearms. As noted in the Lancet article many suicides are impulsive and means restriction may reduce suicides at that level whilst it may lead to substitution often that substitution is with a less lethal method and overall rates fall. Besides this is not preaching. This is explaining how and why suicide methods are studied. This seems to be of interest to the reliable sources. I'm not sure that what you are saying is based off medical evidence rather it seems to be your personal opinion. Your personal opinion is welcome! But it does not trump high quality medical sources. Its possible you could even find high quality sources that disagree with this approach or provide contrary evidence about the study of suicide methods. I would support including that material too. PainProf (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- I worry that we won't ever agree on this. One thing I suggest we could do is include some neutral statements in Wikiprojects to try to gain broader consensus. The original question of the lead seems unresolved. PainProf (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- I highly encourage you to study Drug liberalization#Portugal and Drug policy of Portugal. Means restriction belongs to past. A human is capable of finding and doing what he/she wants and no one can restrict anything %100. What you are saying is like pushing ashes and dirt under carpet instead of dealing with them directly. Anything that becomes a taboo or banned, people look for it more. A suicidal person who is determined, will for sure find information on the Internet, even if they don't find it here in wiki, but because at least there is some sort of importance giving to the sources, it is more reliable if they find here. In Arabic there is a famous proverb that goes: "الانسان حریص بما منع" which means "Human becomes greedy to what he/she is banned from". Which part of what I said is without a source? For sure all of us first determine our motivation and then will find sources to prove our statement. I think you also do the same thing. You first shape your mind about suicide prevention and then, will find any sources that prove your statement. Most of my lead is written based on sources already existing in wiki, particularly about inert gas asphyxiation. Actually, I learned about it the first time in wiki and then, just because wiki is among top most visited sites in Iran, I decided to translate them. So if you take a look at articles with the topic of suicide, I've translated most them into Persian myself. With regards to agreeing, we need more participants. It's not fair if there are only participants affirming your opinion. There should be a balance of both. It is clear that when 4 people disagree with 1 person, those 4 people will push their idea. So I agree that we need more participants and a user has already created a section linking to this discussion in wiki med project. But the thing is, maybe people are not that interested in these discussions or they are kind of hesitating to opine on this topic. Even in Persian wiki I am facing the same kind of situation. If you take a look at here under "نظرخواهی" you'll see that I even have pinged users that I knew, but no one has been willing to opine. With regards to the original question of the lead, I presented 2 simple opinions:1- There should be no preventative hatnote as it violates neutrality and 2- the lead should talk about the easiest most peaceful method of suicide. Also, again I'm repeating that I also share your concern of preventing, but each article has its own topic. Anything relating to suicide prevention should either be written in its corresponding article or should be put in a new article, if there are enough sources. The part that you wrote as the current lead and the academic section is all about suicide prevention which should be moved to its corresponding article. Thanks.Poorya0014 (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Means restriction does not belong to the past. I would encourage you to look at what happened to the teenage suicide rate in the UK when they limited the number of pills someone could buy in a single trip to the chemist's. Apparently, by the time the the kids have to walk to a second store to get the rest of the pills, they're not interested in killing themselves today any longer.
- For your above questions about the academic literature, PMID 8553417 compares the suicide methods chosen by different groups. This paper says that impulsive attempts have different methods than planned attempts. This paper reports a change in suicide methods and overall rates of suicide among young women when Japan restricted access to one previously common suicide method. I particularly want to draw your attention to sentences like the one in this paper, which says "This paper analyzes how specific drugs are associated with method of suicide, a critical topic because drug use bears on the etiology of suicide and may lead to policies aimed at deterring suicide." In other words, one of the reasons for studying methods is to know how to prevent suicide. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks @WhatamIdoing: for incorporating politeness. Plz ping me so I know that the discussion is moving on and can take part. Ok, you might be right about the fact that taking away a particular method, could possibly reduce the number of suicides with that particular method in short-term due to lack of accessibility. However, I should emphasize on 2 things: First, it is good for just a short period of time as I mentioned and after a while, people will find other substitute methods that could be even more dramatic. For example, suicide by rice tablet was and somehow is so prevalent in Iran. This pesticide is used for killing insects in rice. The government has put in place restrictions for selling it to individuals under 18 and there are campaigns to eventually prohibit the use of such pesticide. This one I agree, because death by it is very painful, however, in those areas where this substance is scares, people kill themselves with city gas. This brings me to my second point: restricting a particular method, has absolutely nothing to do with the total number of suicides, at all. The reason I said that means restriction doesn't work is because it is just possible for few number of methods and it works for just a short period. You see, couple of months after the revolution in Iran, they banned consumption of alcoholic beverages to prevent people from drinking. Due to strict rules, in the first couple of months, it worked and even those who had such drinks in their home, brought them out and abolished them. But guess what? only a few years after that, according to unofficial stats, each year Iranians consume over 200 Million square litters of non-standard alcoholic drinks which have created a lot of disaster such as people getting blind or even dying due to drinks being non-standard. I think the same prohibition was put in place in the U.S in 1920s or 1930s, I'm not sure. Means restriction always makes things worse. The best prevention methods is to tackle the underlying reasons. Let me finish by asking a simple question. You know that each year unfortunately more and more people take their own lives. This "HAPPENS", weather we want it or not. Now the question is, now that we know it happens, for the time being, which one is better: watching people die with agony and pain and suffering, that in some case could even last for couple of hours, or, reducing their pain and sufferings and at least make this process for them as fast as possible, now that they themselves want to go?? Tnx.Poorya0014 (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, we need to talk about two things here. method substitution is not guaranteed. Did you see
- Means restriction does not make things worse. That's a myth, and it's wrong. Means restriction can cause "a substantial decrease in overall suicides". That's an exact quotation, word for word, from a peer-reviewed scientific journal article. Method substitution is not guaranteed, especially for what the research calls "low-intent" suicides. Also, means restriction often results in people using a less lethal method, so they don't die.
- It's not Wikipedia's job to help people choose more comfortable methods of killing themselves. It is definitely not our job to assume that someone who attempts suicide "wants to go". Most suicide attempts do not involve a high degree of intent. They involve a failed test at school, or the effects of a treatable medical condition. So I could ask you: Why do you want people to die an "easy" death when we know that most of them don't really want to die today?
- WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Just 1 article cannot be generalized to the whole. Also, I'm not sure using less lethal methods necessarily end up in not dying. In most cases, less lethal methods could cause more painful outcomes than death and may add a severe prolonged physical problem to the person's already harsh mental issues.
- It is also not wikipedia's job to tell people what is right and what is wrong. That's the base of my argument. They should have free info to choose themselves. Also, please do not put words into my mouth. I never assumed that people who attempt suicide necessarily want to die. On the contrary, I said let's give free info to those who actually will die by suicide, so that they have a peaceful and less painful death. Each year, nearly 1 million die by suicide and apparently, in spite of all the efforts to reduce this number, it grows each year. I believe it is even more than that because most cultures consider suicide as a taboo and thus, the reports are not that reliable. Failing at school or a medical condition, are just 2 of so many factors involved in suicide omission, but not the most. For example, if a woman cannot find a husband or a sexual partner from opposite sex, due to being queer or not feeling attraction towards men, she might think about suicide. And to answer your last question, it is a fallacy that you take something as a fact and then shape your idea based on it. I never want people die easy or hard. I actually believe in individual's freedom. What I want is that those 1 million people who are determined to die by taking their lives and will eventually commit suicide, have access to free information about methods, including the easiness and difficulty of each method. Today, according to Dr. Nischk, if the suicidal person has access to information and means of suicide and thus feels in total control, the chances of him/her taking their life by suicide reduces dramatically. Just so you know, this method of suicide prevention is so novel and works better than means restriction. Tnx. Poorya0014 (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, we need to talk about two things here. method substitution is not guaranteed. Did you see
Hi, @Flyer22 Frozen: I know you don't like to be pinged, but it's been a while that we have created discussions about this matter here in this page and in wiki med projects, but apparently, not so many people are willing to take part and the way some users have edited the article right now, has even more ruined the article's neutrality. If one reads the beginning of the article right now, he/she will think it is about suicide prevention, but not suicide methods. So what is your opinion? What else can I do if disagree with the fairness of the discussion? Tnx.Poorya0014 (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nothing is ruined. My advice is that you listen to editors who are more experienced than you are. Try to understand what they are stating about how Wikipedia works. As for editors who are less experienced than you are, or have about the same experience, it is also worth hearing them out. But regardless of editors' personal feelings on the topic, we have policies and guidelines to follow. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- When someone attacks me personally in a discussion, I get happy as I know the person cannot tackle my argument, so he/she will try to use Ad hominem. First, I am not sure based on which criteria you categorize peoples' experience levels? Second, even if I am less experienced, that does not mean that my argument is wrong or I should keep silent, just because other people in the discussion have higher voices. Third, accusing me of not understanding how wiki works requires you to prove that I really don't understand how it works. Because you know, otherwise, anyone who reads this may think that just because you cannot answer my main argument, you try to stick to fallacies to hold your position. The fact that I am complaining about this article's neutrality that's being ruined, makes you think I don't understand how wiki works? As far as I know, neutrality is the most fundamental rule of any encyclopedia, because otherwise, without it, that encyclopedia becomes nothing but a tribune for a special group of people. Attacking me personally just deviates the main topic of this discussion. My argument is that this article should only be about suicide methods, but not prevention methods. When we write articles, we should based it on facts not our personal biases. A person who searches "suicide methods" here in wiki or google, wants to know about methods, period. If he/she wants to know about prevention methods, he/she will search "suicide prevention methods". tnx. Poorya0014 (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Your Life Matters
There is Help Need Help? Contact a suicide hotline if you need someone to talk to. If you have a friend in need of help, please encourage that person to contact a suicide hotline as well.
- Worldwide In general, if you're outside the US, numbers for your country are here: Help a friend - Befrienders Worldwide. You can also e-mail jo@samaritans.org to talk to someone or go to http://www.samaritans.org/how-we... to speak with someone.
- United States Call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255). Para español, llame al 1-888-628-9454.
- Canada Locate a crisis centre in your area and at The Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention (link to: https://suicideprevention.ca/nee...). For youth under 20, you can call the Kids Help Phone at 1-800-668-6868.
- India Visit AASRA or call their 24/7 helpline at +91-22-27546669 or +91-22-27546667. You can also e-mail aasrahelpline@yahoo.com.
- UK 116 123 (to reach the Samaritans in the UK) - France (33) 01 46 21 46 46 - Australia 13 11 14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul1243 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Concern over related templates
Editors may wish to watch the related templates for suicide due to what may be point of view pushing involving incorrect descriptions, which was happening a few weeks ago. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Academic perspective
A lot of the information in this article comes from an academic perspective, I feel it needs a section describing the rationale for the study of suicide methods from an academic perspective. I also think 'academifying' this article is a good way to balance uncensored from the legitimate concerns about the page. I think in essence at the moment simply providing the methods without an academic context violates POV too much the other way. PainProf (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
US statistics
I've been looking at the article with an eye towards the "random" selection of statistics from the US, and it's pervasive. We should be trying to reduce or replace US statistics with numbers for large regions. Asia's suicide rates are higher, but the word Asia does not appear in this article once. We should not be prioritizing American statistics over the rest of the world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Deletion of this article
Articles for deletion/Suicide methods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suicide_methods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suicide_methods_(2nd_nomination)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suicide_methods_(3rd_nomination)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suicide_methods_(4th_nomination)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suicide_methods_(5th_nomination)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suicide_methods_(6th_nomination)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suicide_methods_(7th_nomination)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suicide_methods_(8th_nomination) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likeboas (talk • contribs)
Rules
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_disclaimers_in_articles
Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.
Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view) or the laws of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted). However, because most edits are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may be visible to readers, for a time, before being detected and removed.
Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The Wikipedia:Offensive material guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive.
Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likeboas (talk • contribs)
Argument
Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view) or the laws of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted). However, because most edits are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may be visible to readers, for a time, before being detected and removed.
This article should be deleted because:
- violate Wikipedia policies (neutral point of view)
- violate the laws of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted)
This article encourages suicide.
The promotion of suicide is also prohibited under US law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likeboas (talk • contribs)
- Sorry is this a general discussion or do you want to nominate for deletion. I think it's unlikely to pass though I understand and agree with many of your points. I don't think there is a US law that prohibits discussion of suicide methods. One way that week are trying to improve this article is to write it from a more academic perspective. The field of study of suicide methods aims to identify and restrict the access to the method itself or change legislation to make it more difficult which is an important topic. If you still want to nominate for deletion I can help you but I would probably vote for r retain or abstain. PainProf (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- @PainProf: Yes. Thank you very much. Please help me nominate this malicious article for removal and poll. I do not know the process. Tell me how I should do it. I will also prepare strong reasons and arguments for this. I collect both US and Wikipedia laws that oppose this article. Even if it is not completely deleted, it can be summarized so that it is only very short in the introduction and in less than ten lines. It is really not right to teach dangerous practices in great detail. thank you so much.Likeboas (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- For what its worth I don't think this will be deleted. I have been surprised before, but history would suggest this will remain. I would focus more on improving. We have some gems like
Jumping from height is the act of jumping from high altitudes
. There is a lot of tidying up and trimming (especially of uncited and poorly formed sentences) that can be done and moving away from the list-like format to a more scholarly presentation and maybe even a name change could be beneficial. Not quite what you are after, but a more realistic outcome. AIRcorn (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- For what its worth I don't think this will be deleted. I have been surprised before, but history would suggest this will remain. I would focus more on improving. We have some gems like
Why not show suicide helplines?
The fact that no suicide helplines are offered here is appaling to me. This is such a graphic article, with the power to teach vulnerable people how to do suicide. Why not add Samaritans phone or location-based helplines at the top? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.235.166 (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- i am a poopy head who wants people to kill themselves - Boneyard90 (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2020
www.wozz.nl is a dead link (rev 84) 85.147.79.17 (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seagull123 Φ 17:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)