Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:19, 25 September 2018

	Suicide 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 Date Process Result May 25, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 2, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Suicide. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death: Suicide Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Suicide task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine: Translation / Psychiatry Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Sylvester Brown, Jr. (April 19, 2005). "Start of spring draws more than just beautiful weather". St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Note: The question of adding a crisis hotline number to this article has been discussed. Please review previous discussions before bringing it up again. See Talk:Suicide/crisis hotline link

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

book -- in new translation (may be relevant for improving history section)

Farewell to the World: A History of Suicide by Marzio Barbagli, translated by Lucinda Byatt, 2015, Polity Press Jodi.a.schneider (talk)

Elimination of Two Culturally-Biased Statements.

I found these statements in the introductory section:

"During the samurai era in Japan, a form of suicide known as seppuku (harakiri) was respected as a means of making up for failure or as a form of protest. Sati, a practice outlawed by the British Raj, expected the Indian widow to kill herself on her husband's funeral fire, either willingly or under pressure from her family and society."

In every Western, English-speaking society, when a soldier throws himself on a grenade to save his comrades, or a government security agent leaps in front of a gunman to save the country's executive, even though each man performed an act that he knew would and that did kill him, we do not consider either man to have committed suicide, because each man's motive was to ensure that a greater good was not destroyed, so we honor his motive and commemorate his death. If seppuku is a morally obligatory form of moral repair or a praiseworthy form of moral opposition, if sati is a morally or socially obligatory expression of wifely loyalty, then neither act can count as suicide—and certainly if somebody forces a woman to perform an act that they know and she knows will kill her, she cannot be said to have performed the same sort of act as Virginia Woolf or Sylvia Plath willingly committed.

I have eliminated the statements. Anyone who reverts that edit should cite evidence from the Japanese and the Indians themselves concerning their terms for an act of intentional self-killing that persons commit only when they are in what according to their customs and values is practical or emotional or spiritual extremity or when in their medical traditions their doctors would describe the person who commits the act as not enjoying what they in their tradition consider to be sanity. Anyone who reverts the edit should also know that, since the Indians approved of sati, the fact that the British Raj outlawed it is irrelevant, and that the proper term is "funeral pyre," not "funeral fire."Wordwright (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Your reasoning is flawed and I do not agree with your deletion of content. Killing yourself for a justified reason is still suicide. For example, if someone justifiably feels by killing themselves for the greater good of relieving their family of the burden of their illness or financial difficulties, that person still died by suicide if they initiated their own death. Jihadists conducting what in Islam is perceived as martyrdom operations, for the 'greater good' of muslims and to 'fight in the way Allah,' are still called suicide bombers or suicide operations by most experts because they technically killed themselves. Suicide is defined as the act of killing yourself - morality, greater good, selfless or selfishness is irrelevant in this definition. Read a couple of dictionaries and how they define it if you disbelieve me. Anyway, we go with what reliable sources say, not what editors personally think. Changing fire to pyre I think I am okay with.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Which ref says killing oneself for a justified reason is not suicide? Suicide is occasionally done to make a statement and is still suicide. One is not trying to die when they jump on a grenade to save others. When one does suppuku one is trying to die. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Gross Anti-'Right-to-Die' bias.

The grammar of the entire article strips a whole layer of meaning usually used in english to separate when individuals have agency or when an act is forced upon them. Suicide specifically means voluntary and intentional death, therefore the article shouldn't be written as though individuals have no involvement. Even if the POV exists that individuals may be possessed by an aberrant force within their brain separate from their sense of self which compels suicide, the article should dryly state that point of view exists and do so with due weight. The article should not be written excluding any other possibility, which, if I may be so bold as to say, is absurd to imply no one can in sober state of mind still desire to die---Existence can be terrible, an individual can adopt and value views which drive them to be hated or treated as aberrant or as poison, I know what that feels like personally and I know what it looks like to witness occur in others, there is no "cure" because that is no illness and if there must be a sickness then it is with the society that simultaneously rejects someone fundamentally as they are yet also will not allow that person freedom to be left alone.

edit: also poster of RfC 2600:1702:1740:2CA0:A89E:867B:D7AE:6C9 (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

What specific changes would you wish to see made? DonIago (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Change of Formulation

I suggest a change of the formulation of "In extenuating situations where continuing to live would be intolerable, some people use suicide as a means of escape" to "In extenuating situations where continuing to live would be intolerable, some people use suicide and pay the highest price, death!" as more ethical than an implicit notion ("to escape") to stopping people to die as people rather than a twisted person, a monster. 82.164.42.11 (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

"pay the highest price, death!" is hardly encyclopedic language. DonIago (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Ehh... is "escape to death" supposed to be any more encyclopedic language? Why would you insist on having "escape" in there for, either way? 82.164.42.11 (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall having insisted on anything, myself, but I'll assume you were asking rhetorically. :p What would you suggest as more encyclopedic language? DonIago (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Neutrality Challenged

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Maths, science, and technology Society, sports, and culture Misplaced Pages style and naming When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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)

Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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. Some suicides are impulsive acts due to stress such as from financial difficulties, troubles with relationships, or bullying. Those who have previously attempted suicide are at a higher risk for future attempts. 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. Even though crisis hotlines are common, there is little evidence for their effectiveness."

  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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • Okay I see it was its own section but recently made a subsection without any edit summary here. AIRcorn (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
    • It has been a subsection of "risk factors" for a long time. The article follows WP:MEDMOS with respect to layout. Rational suicide is one risk factor / cause for suicide. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Suicide treated as an issue presents POV. Suicide prevention as an ideology (whether correct or incorrect) presents a moral issue not a medical issue. Why doesn't the article use Template:Suicide sidebar? OP 2600:1702:1740:2CA0:389E:3C9A:B3D7:6713 (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
        • That POV that "suicide is not an issue" is fringe. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Comment: There may be some room for "right to die" material in the article, but I agree with Doc James that we shouldn't give undue weight to that topic in this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

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)

Misplaced Pages 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)

• 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 " 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 . 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 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)

• Like many above, I agree that the article is generally fine. I also agree that we could reasonably have a section with more coverage on 'right to die' and related info. Alsee (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Added further details on "right to die" and "assisted suicide". These concepts, while related, are often dealt with separately but agree should be mentioned here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with challenging IP. The article makes its non-neutral POV clear right at the start, by using "Infobox medical condition". We don't use that infobox in Christianity, though it would make more sense there than here. Maproom (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Can't agree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Maproom, again, agree to disagree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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/Things_Japanese/Harakiri

https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/handle/11343/35861

https://en.wikisource.org/Apology_(Plato)

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:F99B:B7E5:77EC:4A9E (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

to add

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

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

Lede image

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@Doc James: What would you suggest as a replacement for the current image? --Pine 04:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@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)

• 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)

• I am proposing the Alt 2 image for consideration. --Pine 04:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

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)

Pinging JSutherland (WMF) to request WMF input. --Pine 06:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• This does address the issue of localization. Evidence for these hotlines however is poor. As we have had previous RfC about this, would need another before adopting it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, I would personally agree that an RfC seems a good idea. Of course, we're unlikely to stand in the way if the community wishes to make the Meta-Wiki page more visible. :) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I also am in favour per Pine. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Link to subpage that contains links to previous discussions on the topic. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

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)

If there was evidence of benefit I would be more inclined to support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Doc James: can you provide refs to relevant studies? Thanks, --Pine 04:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

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)

@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..

Misplaced Pages 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.

Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

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 may require any prohibitively costly equipment, only a skill set and common equipment.

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 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. Misplaced Pages 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).

75.39.102.200 (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

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"."

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

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)

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)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Natural sciences good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Death articles
• Top-importance Death articles
• GA-Class Suicide articles
• Top-importance Suicide articles
• Suicide articles
• GA-Class Crime-related articles
• High-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• GA-Class medicine articles
• Top-importance medicine articles
• GA-Class WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force articles
• Top-importance WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force articles
• WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force articles
• GA-Class psychiatry articles
• Top-importance psychiatry articles
• Psychiatry task force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• GA-Class psychology articles
• Top-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment