Jump to content

Talk:Suicide: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Evidence: Comments on possible contributions to efforts minimizing suicide getting chosen.
Allowing only medical sources for Suicide would compare effectively to allowing only medical sources for Dance. While different substances have a statistical correlation with suicide rates, correlation does not mean causation. Considering some might have a genetic predisposition to dance as a form of communication (since modern science considers grammar genetic), surely statistical correlations between dance and certain diseases exist.
Line 21: Line 21:
|topic = NatSci
|topic = NatSci
}}
}}
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
{{Vital article|level=3|topic=Society|class=GA}}
{{Vital article|level=3|topic=Society|class=GA}}
{{annual readership}}
{{annual readership}}

Revision as of 16:35, 26 October 2018

Good articleSuicide has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 25, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 2, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Template:Vital article


RfC: Neutrality Challenged

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

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

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

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

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

Yes we generally give greater weight to the major points of view per WP:FRINGE. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has its own article on euthanasia. It would be beneficial to minimize this practise in any society. In any case, neutral, well-written and sourced contributions are welcome to this article or any other...--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think right to die, when health professionals have determined the prognosis is hopeless and level of suffering is severe, meets the criteria of being FRINGE. I think it is a major POV, even if it is not the dominant POV.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • RfC comment. I came here because I saw the RfC notice. I did a quick read of the page. I do not think that the page pushes the POV of suicide prevention. However, I do think that the right to die concept is a significant one, that should get more coverage here than it currently does. It would be WP:DUE in my opinion to have a section about it as well as a mention of it in the lead section. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/vote: Agree with tryptofish, that we should have coverage of the right to die. This article should quite rightly push a strong POV of suicide prevention because that is the dominant view in what reliable sources say, however there are certain severely distressing treatment resistant disorders and diseases, both mental and physical, that raise issues of whether suicide/right to die is justified in exceptional circumstances. For example, someone diagnosed with early stage dementia might seek assisted suicide or kill themselves themself. I am sure there are lots of reliable sources covering right to die issues in relation to suicide.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We present the major POVs We have a section on rational suicide which links to right to die already. It is not a major POV but as a minor POV is present. A RfC does not necessitate a tag. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That section doesn’t really say much, it should be expanded with a mention in the lede. Not sure if right to die is a minority POV, I suggest it is a major POV - it is certainly part of the mainstream debate and a sizable minority POV at minimum, even if it is not the dominant view.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading the page, I don't think it pushes a POV of prevention, but much like the users above I think the prose should spend at least a sentence if not a section explaining and linking to the (general) 'right to die' viewpoint that people have a right to choose suicide. Currently, the only links I spotted to that important and relevant concept are in a sentence discussing the Hindu view (which is inadequate because the right to die is not Hindu-specific) and the box of peripheral links at the very bottom of the article. I do sympathize with the OP's point that the infobox is a bit weird, e.g. speaking of "usual [age of] onset" just sounds weird (would we put such an infobox in the article on Murder and speak of its "usual onset"?); perhaps there should be a separate, less stridently-introduced discussion about replacing or removing the infobox. -sche (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is good as is since it is a general fyi article about suicide, not a political/politicized or morality page Like Kieronoldham has mentioned, political stuff like right to die, euthanasia, etc already have their own pages. This article's scope is general information about suicide, not a political proclamation about whether or not people should or can commit suicide. It clearly shows social, demographical, legislative, and historical information about suicide. I would suggest "see also" and "main page" tags for readers to be able to go to the politicized suicide pages on wikipedia. But mentioning political aspects of suicide shoould not be prominet in the article or lead. Perhaps a small mention would be enough. Prevention of suicide is certainly a major aspect of general information on suicide. Actually most discourse on suicide does naturally touch on prevention in some way because of the immediate damage that it does to family and friends and of course the individual. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Suicide is used politically sometimes, and it is sometimes used to end one's life in the event of terminal illness. Per WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources..." Terroristic suicide is a significant phenomenon (though I think it's safe to say here that we all disagree with it). Right to die is a significant phenomenon as well, having resulted in nationwide debate in the US and other countries. I think the RfC original commenter is a little over the top, but the topics definitely do need more coverage. I don't think anyone is going to let it turn into a "political proclamation about whether or not people should... commit suicide" as you say. I do agree with keeping the suicide prevention bits; they are important in the discussion of suicide as an epidemiological phenomenon, which is the main viewpoint the topic is (and should be) discussed from. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 13:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that some mention of the political/legal aspects are already in the article and may be expanded a bit further, but this page is about suicide in general. In no way should the political aspects dominate the article's scope or lead since suicide is not a political or legal thing in itself. Suicide is a social, individual, mental, historical phenomenon. No one commits suicide based on legal or political grounds (i.e. whether the right to die even exists or whatever), they commit suicide over family, mental health, friends, individual economics, etc. Terrorist suicide falls well within the scope of the article. The focus of the article overall is about what influences suicide, not what politicians and judges allow by law. Having said that "right to die", "euthanasia", rational suicide, all fall within the scope of the article since they discuss reasons for suicide. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Suicide prevention constitutes a legal/political aspect that in no way should dominate the article's scope. OP 06:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • To clarify and exhibit my point, as OP, here is the full first paragraph minus the first sentence:
    "Depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, personality disorders, and substance abuse — including alcoholism and the use of benzodiazepines — are risk factors.[2][4][7] Some suicides are impulsive acts due to stress such as from financial difficulties, troubles with relationships, or bullying.[2][8] Those who have previously attempted suicide are at a higher risk for future attempts.[2] Suicide prevention efforts include limiting access to methods of suicide — such as firearms, drugs, and poisons; treating mental disorders and substance misuse; proper media reporting of suicide; and improving economic conditions.[2] Even though crisis hotlines are common, there is little evidence for their effectiveness.[9]"
    That is not talking about Suicide in the abstract. That is a caricature and one imposing belief Suicide is somehow not a choice. "Risk" implies involuntariness. The first quoted sentence convolutes describing dysphoria by instead listing dysphoric character archetypes.
    "Dysphoria often motivates suicide." would carry as much meaning without inundating the reader with archetypes assigned to those experiencing dysphoria by the current mental health establishment.
    I'll try to avoid saying any else on the matter.
    08:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Most sources seem to treat suicide as a public health issue, similar to heart disease or lung cancer, and the article does well to generally discuss it in that context. However, I think this article could be improved by adding more material from other perspectives, or just reorganizing a bit. For example, I'm not sure why "Rational Suicide" is discussed in a subsection under "Risk Factors". That seems a little strange, maybe that should get a heading of its own and be expanded with more material on euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the right to die. Perhaps a sentence or two could be added to the lead mentioning this as well. Suicide-as-public-health-issue appears to be the dominant perspective among reliable sources, but it's not the only one. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I don't completely agree with our initial anonymous commenter, I think that others in this RfC have made good points about the lack of coverage of the right to die movement and rational motivations to end one's life. As of now, we only have a short subsection under the Risk factors section called "Rational suicide" that doesn't even mention terminal illness. The phrase "right to die" is not actually used once in the article, even though it's the most common way to refer to rational suicide. The right to die movement and the practice of rational suicide, especially in instances of terminal illness, are key topics in suicide. Right now, it gets two sentences in a paragraph under legislation, only mentioning the legal issues involved. The lead only really covers suicide from an epidemiological and mental health perspective (not a cultural, political, or right to die perspective). We definitely do need some work done here. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 13:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like others above I find it strange that the concept of right to die is only mentioned briefly in a subsection under risk factors. That makes no sense. It needs to be its own section and expanded on to include terminal illnesses. Also a mention in the lead is due. Not sure how it can be described as a fringe view either. AIRcorn (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was it fringe to the edo period Japanese or the ancient Aztecs?
What do modern historians of those periods say about the views of people then?
How have those views changed through history?
Are you sure, Doctor, that you aren't just speaking on behalf of the loudest minority at the moment?
2600:1702:1740:2CA0:6472:2168:F2D4:EBD5 (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what was Shakespeare's take on suicide and was that also fringe?
What about Edgar Allen Poe?
2600:1702:1740:2CA0:6472:2168:F2D4:EBD5 (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC isn't about topics.
It's about morals.
How no article should give any weight to any moral, except when attributing it. OP 2600:1702:1740:2CA0:A89E:867B:D7AE:6C9 (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not about morals. Also, I know what you stated in the edit history, but your account is already tied to this discussion. And it is important that you at least keep your IP signature, like with your "12:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)" time stamp. A time stamp by itself is not enough (outside of the initial RfC post). If it weren't important that editors, including IPs, sign their username, none of us would bother with it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the IP signature, I can understand on principle, yet, while the edit history shows that and an IPv6 changes frequently enough that keeping track isn't really practical, simply signing as OP or "Anonymous [whatever]" would not only help with tracking the conversation but also impose just a little bit the conscious reality how that user doesn't want their identity exposed [kinda like writing "please don't cheat" on an exam, has more affect than you might at first imagine]. Signing without IP contrib/talk links, wouldn't inhibit normal naughty behavior checking, if mediawiki incorporated some sort of "git-blame"-esque feature, just saying. Thinking about that, I cognitize what you mean, since some one only has to do a phrase-find search in the version history to find a section creator. "Git-blame" would do marvels for wikipedia in my opinion in many more ways.
  • I agree, and suicide prevention is a moral.
Morals don't belong on wikipedia without attribution.
Moral expression doesn't belong in any information syntax on wikipedia.
(i.e. if "facts" clump together in a certain way, supporting a certain interpretation missing other POV'es, wikipedia editors should separate those facts enough to fit other notable POV'es.)
The article currently gives no weight to POV about romantic suicide.
Considering Doctor James (Flyer22 Reborn) mentioned "romanticizing suicide" before I did, I suspect that at least unconsciously some editors here know that romantic suicide is notable POV. And, I don't believe Doctor James has fully cognitized how what they said about having a lede image which doesn't romanticize suicide is POV pushing.
2600:1702:1740:2CA0:6472:2168:F2D4:EBD5 (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maproom, I don't understand your argument. Suicidal thoughts and suicide fall under health issues. Christianity does not, except for something like Christianity and violence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming bacteria falls under "health issues" presumes the bacteria's existence causes immoral harm, likewise under the same logic claiming a "thought" falls under "health issues" presumes the thought's existence causes immoral harm. @Flyer22 Reborn, do you notice how one statement could have more POV than the other?
2600:1702:1740:2CA0:6472:2168:F2D4:EBD5 (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bacteria does fall under health issues. See that article's "Pathogens" section. It's why that article is tagged (on its talk page) as being within WP:Med's scope. Of course...not all bacteria is bad, but some of it is. I do not understand your immoral harm argument regarding bacteria. Suicidal thoughts are a health issue for reasons that many health professionals note. Suicidal thoughts can significantly impact one's health, and the vast majority of people with suicidal thoughts do not want to die. For some, if they do not get treatment for those thoughts, they just might take their life. And although my personal life does not matter in this discussion, I state that not only because of my knowledge of the suicide literature, but also because I have have suffered (yes, suffered) from suicidal thoughts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the key point was distinguishing almost factual almost absolute morality such as "killing intelligent life is immoral" or "killing pathogens is moral", from very POV relative morality such as "certain thoughts are immoral" or "suicide is immoral".
Presuming a moral stance on murder or pestilence, isn't so POV as presuming a moral stance on immoral thoughts or suicide.
By presuming suicide is "an issue" as fact, wikipedia supports the stance considering "suicide is immoral" as fact.
2600:1702:1740:2CA0:58EB:2A32:D88B:DDEF (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can't agree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to Flyer22 Reborn. A decision to kill yourself may be entirely rational: you believe that every day will bring more suffering (for you) than joy (for you and your friends and family). It may be the result of social conditioning: the society in which you live expects suicide for someone in the circumstances in which you find yourself, e.g. sati. Or it may be the result of a disease which has derailed your thought processes. The use of the infobox ignores the first two possibilities, and implies that all suicides are caused by disease.
Ok, maybe the Christianity comparison was a stretch. My idea was that if someone believes in the literal truth of the virgin birth, resurrection, Trinity, etc., then their thought processes are deranged (though admittedly in a generally harmless way). I wouldn't actually want "Infobox medical condition" in the Christianity article, that would be PoV; but P of a more reasonable V than using it here. Maproom (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the obvious argument in favor of a medical infobox here and against a medical infobox for Christianity is that most reliable sources describe suicide as a medical problem while very few reliable sources describe Christianity as a medical problem. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Red Rock Canyon, exactly (although I'm not aware of any valid medical sources that treat religious beliefs in and of themselves as a mental disorder). Maproom, I can't get on board with your rationale regarding the infobox. I also think you are defining disease broadly (see the Terminology section for the Disease article). In any case, health authorities usually do not attribute suicide to a disease, unless defining "disease" to mean "mental illness" (such as major depressive disorder). There are often health issues before suicide is committed; those are more often mental than physical. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are often health issues before suicide is committed, because health issues can make someone's life not worth living. I don't accept that that justifies the use of
Sometimes there are health issues before suicide is committed, because those health issues are what made someone's life not worth living. I don't accept that that justifies the use of a medical infobox. The use of the infobox implies that people only kill themselves because they are mentally ill. That is unwarranted (and insulting). I'm happy to drop the "Christianity" comparison, and I apologise to the Christians I have insulted. Maproom (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Nietzsche, I support religion as a source for morality, creativity, and neurodiversity.
  • That said, I find your comparison worthy for illustrating how the word "health" inherently expresses POV, because calling religion a "health issue" I believe should remind many about that once popular atheist meme.
2600:1702:1740:2CA0:58EB:2A32:D88B:DDEF (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maproom, again, agree to disagree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyer22 Reborn: Would you oppose leaving the pov-check banner up for a few days, to see if that invites more input?
From my POV, many reader who have felt suicidal might hesitate to give input on this topic, if not explicitly invited to.
2600:1702:1740:2CA0:58EB:2A32:D88B:DDEF (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has so far established that the POV tag is not needed. Editors suggested more "right to die" material be added, but most are clear that the article is adhering to the literature on suicide. I do not support the tag being added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree the POV tag should not be added, in my view. I also feel it is correct to label suicide as a medical condition, even though some forms of suicide do not require a medical intervention (suicide bomber is a military/police and legal issue and because psychiatrists and doctors cannot detain/prevent someone without a treatable mental illness from deciding to end their life e.g., someone suffering from chronic treatment resistant physical pain). I believe it is correct to label suicide as a medical condition in the infobox because preventing most cases of suicide is a medical matter because preventing suicide and searching for ways to better treat and prevent the causes of suicide to reduce the rate of suicide is indeed a major focus of medical care. The fact that a small percent of suicides do not fall under the medical banner is irrelevant to the infobox defining this as a medical condition as the article body can touch on complex matters such as suicide bombers. The right to die issue is still a medical matter because the patient will require input from the doctor about the prognosis of there physical or neurological or psychiatric disorder, e.g., if prognosis of relief of severe suffering is poor or hopeless versus good and whether they will deteriorate further. I also agree with the general POV of this article except that some more weight should be given to the right to die issue and feel it deserves a couple of lines in the lead section.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you might have seen, Doc added more with this edit. You want more than that in the article? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Literaturegeek: You are just repeating over and over that you consider suicide an issue, just specifying differently nuanced situations, but I'll express this one situation that's not nuanced at all. Someone merely has to find a form of abuse which isn't illegal, to make someone's existence intolerable. All they must do to do that, is discover a form of abuse, no one's ever studied before. Please understand you can't judge for people whether they get to live... or die. Some aspects about life don't deserve such nuanced, like consent. How simple: you shouldn't force someone to live just like you shouldn't force them to love you.
2600:1702:1740:2CA0:450:E55F:7906:6074 (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyer22 Reborn: I already said once: requiring consensus to invite more perspectives defines a Catch-22.
No one except Doctor James has suggested this discussion doesn't need any more perspectives.
2600:1702:1740:2CA0:450:E55F:7906:6074 (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Besides what Flyer22 Reborn has already written above, I fully support Doc James on this and agree with every comment he has made in this thread. In my considered opinion, 2600:1702:1740:2CA0... is here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)--Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer, yes, I am happy with Doc James's content addition, I don't think at present there is anything more to add. What does need to be added is a sentence or two summarising that section in the lead. IP editor: people, usually, but not always, can substantially improve from trauma, affects of abuse, with support of friends and family or health professionals. Same goes for mental illness - many can be treated and relief obtained. Many people who survive a suicide attempt very often, at a later date, regret trying to kill themselves and go on to lead happy productive lives. So, yes definitely suicide should be sought to be medically prevented, sometimes even against the will of the suicidal individual - because at times of crisis people can make poor judgements regarding suicide. There are of course a small number of people who do not fall neatly into this positive picture. I guess what I am trying to say is we need to simply represent significant academic viewpoints, such as right to die and rational suicide, per WP:DUEWEIGHT as this is not a black and white issue. Guy Macon, I wouldn't worry, the IP editors view on this subject is FRINGE at best and attracts no support from other commenters and I don't imagine any sources are available to source such an extreme and strange viewpoint.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Literature Geek, We could debate the nuances about how mechanisms meant to help people can get abused to conduct abuse by proxy, but we shouldn't hold such a debate on wikipedia. I'd gladly discuss this by email or over https://riot.im/. I made points above about due-weight which were not responded to. Please avoid cherrypicking.
2600:1702:1740:2CA0:F99B:B7E5:77EC:4A9E (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Macon. Can you explain how an article about Suicide which treats suicide as an issue doesn't try to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? Because you have just accused me of what I accused others about by making this RfC for making this RfC. Does trying to stop editors from "righting great wrongs" count as "righting a great wrong"? My argument you directly responded to which has no formatting nor any emphasis, because that comment has little relevance to what I believe this RfC should discuss, responded directly to an editors bias to try and get them to stop. By trying to tell an editor I disagree with their "great wrong" suddenly I'm trying to "right a great wrong". Guy Macon, please respond to my well formatted and much more concise points above, if you want to contribute to this RfC in a meaningful way.
2600:1702:1740:2CA0:F99B:B7E5:77EC:4A9E (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, IP editor, is that you are not providing reliable sources to support your claim that suicide is not or should not be seen to be a medical topic.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
https://apjjf.org/-Jenny-Chan/3408/article.html
To be, or not to be
https://www.ekoreajournal.net/issue/view_pop.htm?Idx=2918
http://revistas.unam.mx/index.php/ecn/article/viewFile/9302/8680
https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/10414473
"attitudes toward suicide circa 1600 were perceived by Shakespeare and incorporated into his plays" . . . "Overall, the action of taking one's life is presented in a neutral or even favorable light, and the audience is left with a mingling of pity and admiration for the victim, not reproach."
https://archive.org/details/AlbertCamusTheMythOfSisyphus
https://prudentia.lbr.auckland.ac.nz/index.php/prudentia/article/download/99/88
https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=769753342985994;res=IELHSS
https://www.brown.edu/academics/philosophy/sites/brown.edu.academics.philosophy/files/uploads/DutyToDie.pdf
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Things_Japanese/Harakiri
https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/handle/11343/35861
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Apology_(Plato)
2600:1702:1740:2CA0:F99B:B7E5:77EC:4A9E (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wow, 1600 Shakespeare and you think that we should redefine medical opinion based on a hundreds years old play script!? I am not sure you are WP:COMPETENT to be editing Wikipedia. I am not seeing support for your case in the other references. It is possible one or two of your sources could be used to briefly summarise historical attitudes towards suicide as an interesting factoid for our readers but in no ways do those sources have any relevance to the overall general POV of this article and whether it should be redefined as not a medical topic as you wish to happen.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The topic defines a historical, anthropological, and cultural phenomenon.
Stop acting irrational.
2600:1702:1740:2CA0:9945:4A56:2463:A59E (talk) 08:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've read the article and I kind of agree with the IP. I don't think there's much that needs to be done, but IMO we should probably change the infobox and some of the headings. We're framing the whole subject as a mental health issue, when that's only a subset of the wider sociological topic. For example I doubt that even modern psychiatry takes steps to prevent soldiers from sacrificing themselves for their comrades on the battlefield, let alone e.g. preventing people from joining the military (war veterans have higher suicide rates). Hence I think it's somewhat inappropriate to put altruistic suicides under "risk factors". I recognise and agree that we have a moral duty here besides providing accurate information, but frankly I'd have to add a {{cn}} to the idea that making this a mental health article helps. Daß Wölf 02:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC) (arrived via WP:RFC/A)[reply]
I want to state clearly, I also agree with a moral imperative besides simply accurate information. I believe in creating a civilization where as few people want to die as possible. Merely preventing instances of suicide doesn't accomplish that, and in fact actually accomplishes the opposite because unknown abusers get enabled by successful suicide prevention. By encouraging wilfully defiant suicide as a society, we make a statement to all the unknown abusers out there that we won't accept their behavior and we will go to whatever extreme to rob them of any satisfaction torturing others.
Before we stoop to coercive or forceful measures to keep someone alive, we must make their life worth living as a prerequisite.
Disclaimer: That POV has no relevance to my claims about the article.
same IP person 75.39.102.200 (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that our society still has a much stronger focus on prevention of the act rather than actual quality of life. I disagree that we should cause deaths just to prove this point. Daß Wölf 20:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not to prove a point but to prevent further victimization and to deprive unknown abusers of victims.
2600:1702:1740:2CA0:E999:AB0B:FB6E:FCC2 (talk) 06:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Getting killed in war; is not generally suicide. But when people are pressured to get them self killed such as in a kamikaze that sort of fits under a cause / risk factor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I meant acts like falling on a grenade to save other nearby soldiers on your side. Oftentimes someone in the group is bound to do it, and it does prevent further deaths, but it still is a willful act of killing oneself and thus IMO falls under the scope of this page. Daß Wölf 20:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

to add

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

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

Lede image

Initial Proposal

Alt 1 US Army general discussing the Army's Health Promotion, Risk Reduction, and Suicide Prevention Report
Alt 2 Sign and call box
Alt 3 Suicide prevention fence
Alt 4 Male–Female ratios of suicide rates in 2015. Data by World Health Organization (rev. April 2017): global average 1.7 : 1 is used as a reference (men were 70% more likely than women to die by suicide). Below, male (left) and female (right) age-standardized suicide mortality rates per 100,000 individuals used to derive the above ratios.

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

Answer

I have restored the prior image. A picture of US Army general giving a power point presentation is not as good IMO as the prior image. Suicide is not primarily a US nor an army issue.
The prior image is a fairly famous artistic depiction of suicide. It also does not romanticize the topic so not sure what you felt was the issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: I think that research and/or prevention should be highlighted in the lede, instead of an artistic representation of a single incident. I disagree with using the artistic image as the lede (although it would be appropriate for a section on "suicide depictions in art") and I am in favor of replacing it. I'm open to suggestion about what image would be better for the replacement. --Pine✉
@Pine: suicide prevention presents POV and should only receive due-weight in the lede, not "highlight"-ing.
2600:1702:1740:2CA0:6472:2168:F2D4:EBD5 (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the Answer

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

POV accusation

@Pine I pretty sure your only have a problem with the lede image, because the lede has a neutral lede image. I'm pretty sure you only want to deliberately make a non-neutral lede image, to push the suicide prevention POV.
same IP person 75.39.102.200 (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions about what makes suitable lede image

A US army official giving a power point is not a good depiction of either research or prevention. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: What would you suggest as a replacement for the current image? --Pine✉ 04:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Redone Proposal

Answer

The current (Manet) image is a good, illustrative image IMO, certainly better than the other two images proposed. -sche (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Showing a picture of a method without evidence is not the best. And a picture one does not need to explain is better IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I agree with you on those points, Doc James. I found a good quality image of a suicide prevention fence which would meet the first criterion (evidence in favor) but probably not the second (requiring no explanation). How about this image, on which someone seems to have spent considerable time? I haven't checked the data but if it's accurate then I think that it could be a good lede image for the article. --Pine✉ 05:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Next Redone Proposal

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

Answer

Hatnote on mental health resources

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

Pinging JSutherland (WMF) to request WMF input. --Pine✉ 06:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also am in favour per Pine. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, but I would not suggest anybody else even look at all those previous discussions. I just wasted time doing that and they are much too adversarial, outdated and wearisome. This should fall under our just do it, now policy. Full speed ahead with the Hatnote on mental health resources, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there was evidence of benefit I would be more inclined to support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: can you provide refs to relevant studies? Thanks, --Pine✉ 04:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There not many reviews on the topic at this point... Will do some searching to see if anything has changed since last I looked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

That said, I would

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

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

I am concerned about maintaining the privacy of sensitive health information, but I think that the resources that WMF mentions are offered for the purpose of offering assistance of people who voluntarily seek it. There may be more private options available, but I don't think that it should be WMF's job to audit the privacy practices of every resource which they reference. In the absence of better options (my guess is that WMF would be eager to hear of better options if you know of any) I think that offering the options which WMF considers to be reasonable is better than offering nothing. I agree that WMF wouldn't want to promote an option as being secure or reliable if WMF has not reviewed it carefully, but that's different from listing available resources that WMF knows and thinks are worth mentioning as possible choices for people who may want to ask for help. I imagine that WMF Legal assessed the risks carefully before making that list public. --Pine✉ 04:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, we'll probably fundamentally disagree on whether calling a suicide hotline necessitates a health issue, because we'll disagree on whether we'll believe suicide a health issue inherently. I don't believe we need to agree on that. I'll also posit that while you'll talk about mental health, I will talk about existential health. That's an unimportant neologism, for this discussion. I don't believe we'll need to agree on the terms we personally chose either.
Sensitive information won't make someone vulnerable, rather the metadata about where that person calls from and who they call will make them vulnerable. That's not a security concern enforced by any law any where, as far as I know. A clever attacker doesn't need to know the details about why someone feels suicidal so much as the simple indication that target does feel suicidal or vulnerable. Collecting metadata like that does not require any very prohibitively costly equipment, only a skill set and common equipment[1][2].


So the WMF, doesn't do much except organize volunteers and hire staff for tasks no immediate volunteers can accomplish or learn to accomplish, not unlike the Linux foundation. Mediawiki and by extension every WMF supported wiki, forms an open source project[3] which relies on volunteers with many diverse specialties and experience levels to contribute in different ways, not unlike Linux.
The point to an open source project, often means radical transparency from which novices can learn new skills by study logs as well as asking questions. Generally, anyone with interest can do a security audit on mediawiki and fix exploits, because mediawiki has free as in freedom source code with an open source developer community to accept patches.
Most suicide hotlines don't have that, so, if wikipedia lists in suicide hotlines not as a typical almanac article but instead as a supplementary resource extending from wikipedia and someone gets hurt due to poor not-openly-auditable infosec, I would call that negligence on the part of wikipedia. Wikipedia shouldn't audit the security practices, however should only "officially" endorse organizations with at least equally open-and-auditable infosec as wikipedia (i.e. the https implementation).
same IP person 75.39.102.200 (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the ideal of protecting someone's privacy if that person is in need of medical services and wants to contact medical professionals to request those services. I also agree that it would be good to be careful about which services someone endorses. I'm not understanding what your objection is to listing available services in a way that doesn't make promises about privacy protection, so perhaps you could clarify that point. --Pine✉ 19:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: I certainly don't consider a suicide hotline a medical service. I don't believe medical services should take as strong a role in responding to abuse, dysphoria, or potential suicide. I think investigative teams should take the most initiative.
Listing that as an almanac, perhaps as "List of suicide-specific information hotlines".
The text could read:
For immediate information from external sources, see: List of suicide-specific information hotlines.
The same hatnote could appear on other articles, too.
Besides WP:NPOV, my main issue with moralizing language goes as follows: by preventing suicide as a first priority then investigating, we create a situation where in game theory an abusers must only avoid judication to gain a satisfying life causing abuse ;; with society permitting suicide, an abuser must also find ways to restrain their victims or find new victims, thusly making their activities more obvious to an investigating or conscientious society.
That way we discover the unknown or unwitting abusers among us, so we can respond in a deeply ethical hopefully non-criminalizing way.
2600:1702:1740:2CA0:E999:AB0B:FB6E:FCC2 (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Here we have a 2016 review article in Lancet Psychiatry that says hotlines are of unclear benefit.[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Calling 911 is what would bring police and EMS in North America. Best evidence is removing guns and potential toxins like opioids. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are public health measures that evidence supports as described in the article that you liked from Pubmed. I was thinking more about someone who is in crisis or would benefit from non-emergency assistance and might be viewing the Wikipedia article, in which case encouraging that person to call emergency services or ask for a non-emergency referral to a professional would be (I think) the best options. Admittedly, both emergency an non-emergency mental health resources are difficult to obtain for many people around the world including many people in North America, but I think that we should do what we can to encourage people who need help to reach out to professional resources that may be available. --Pine✉ 19:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pine: you do realize you're POV pushing, correct?
If you want to WP:IAR, then at least respond to my moral concerns first before you continue suggesting what kind of text to put in the mainspace WP:SOAPBOX which you're proposing.
2600:1702:1740:2CA0:D019:9F33:3E90:585A (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that you have concerns about the proposal, but please assume good faith even if we disagree. The assumption of good faith is not absolute, but I think that there's plenty of evidence that other people who are currently active on this talk page, including me, have good intentions here and are trying to benefit the readers of this article. --Pine✉ 19:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I didn't mean to speak so rudely, the issue affects me considerably. I happen to have been in positions in life to know about too much abuse by proxy and abuse by authorities* from the "mental health" establishment, which I believe needs renaming "existential health" (since we should chase after healthy existences, not mythical healthy minds}.
  • either unwitting, incognizant, or rarely wilfull.
(unhealthy desires, thoughts, etc don't exist given a healthy context.
No one deserves the expectation to conform to their life's context.
They may do so if they choose to do so without duress.}
2600:1702:1740:2CA0:E999:AB0B:FB6E:FCC2 (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it's a good point that bad interventions can be a problem. I read secondhand of one that sounded like medical malpractice. Also, Doc James made a point that calling for emergency services might result in a response from police that does more harm than good. However, my guess is that on average, adding information about emergency services would do more good than harm. We can't control the actions of others including emergency services workers who make bad decisions, but I'm hoping that we can be a net positive influence by providing information that would, on average, be beneficial to our readers. --Pine✉ 06:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pine: I agree, though I believe one can make contributions even exclusively from an information science perspective elsewhere before wikipedia to help. For example, a programmer adapting full-stack VOIP "libre" software like tox [5] or matrix // riot [6] [7] for a suicide hotline context.
Also, someone organizing a directory hotline that employs investigative rigor both in completionism of the directory list and in testimony of each hotline's processes. Though, that might require linguistic developments to proceed first, since little grammar exists to effectively describe the ways separate thinking beings shape each other.
same IP person 2600:1700:8680:E900:F408:6B7B:5A66:7A4E (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better ref needed for this

"In 2018 it was reported that some psychiatrists have had dramatic success in suicide prevention by the use of ketamine. Dr. Sanjay Gupta of CNN and others are reporting that "..recent scientific studies have shown ( ketamine to have )significant promise with treatment-resistant depression and suicidal ideation".[8]"

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

This references a Columbia University study which was also reported in the American Journal of psychiatry. Would these refs work? Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a primary source. Strange why they compared it to midazolam (which may cause depression) rather than placebo. Not a sufficient source. We would want a review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: I've noticed most psychiatric drug studies compare to already approved drugs rather than placebo, perhaps because placebo tends to get uncomfortably successful results especially double-blind. As far as I can tell, double-blind psychiatric drug test practically never happen.
Many studies get labelled double-blind placebo trials, but most only involve combination drug trials with drug+placebo against drug1+drug2.
75.39.102.200 (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Doc. I see what you mean. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teens and Cyberbullying

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

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

@Kelley.dewolfe: You forgot to sign your post with ~~~~, so I manually signed for you. Also, citations require a title while certain typo'es will break dates showing error. Fixed all that for ya : D
Anyways, as a netizen I don't disagree about the cyberbullying effect. Nor do the statistics seem unbelieve-able. The source seems like a P.S.A. not a rigorous disclosure. Statistics tend to have caveats about them, so a source for a statistic should in addition to having general reliability (like the C.D.C. does}, the source should also explain how the statistics were found which that P.S.A. does not. More than likely the C.D.C. put out a corresponding study that if someone could find they could cite. This whole paragraph just gives general advice since you seem new.
I don't feel sure I can read your intention with the section you wrote here. I can't know if you want this paragraph/section somewhere or if you just came here to WP:ADVOCATE to fellow Wikipedia authors? If the former, then the section title would seem fine so long as you lower case "cyber", but the content seems worded also like a P.S.A. violating wikipedia's neutrality. At no point should wikipedia express "shoulds, musts, with help 'es, or please do'es". The first statistic without context has no relevance to suicide as a topic and just encourages an uncited association between cyberbully and the internet platforms the cited demographic expresses theirselves from. The second statistic misleads with an unfairly large number nuanced by that you mean "of harassment"... that number seems at first impression to tell us how many teens get cyberbullied, but actually doesn't.
Personally, I don't understand why we only should talk about "teens" and cyberbullying, not just cyberbullying in general. While youth makes more vulnerable, I view this as an issue about netizens not getting bubbled in enough, or in deeply enough ethical ways. Not by silly AI algorithms secretly tweaking search results. I digress. The topic specified to teens only seems to have a weak association with suicide, where bullying in general could get talked about as well as addiction or depression. Without more detailed sources strengthening the connection between Suicide and Cyberbullying, then I fear a section like this would broaden the article's scope beyond what any group of editors could maintain.
If you just came here to WP:ADVOCATE, then just follow that link ; }
2600:1702:1740:2CA0:74FE:D254:C062:3186 (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Suicide rising across the US". Centers For Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved 27 September 2018.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suicide&oldid=865854521"