Talk:Suicide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
To-do list for Suicide: edit · history · watch · refresh

Add suggestions here...

  • Impact of suicide (on family friends, etc) - Added, but please expand!
  • Organize external links
  • Small subheading summarising 'suicide methods' with link to daughter article etc
  • add content to "mental illness"
  • add content to "cultural views"
  • add content to "religious views"
  • sort information in "terminology"
  • mention suicide (book), the various types of suicide, and Durkheim
  • add citations throughout
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
News This article has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details.

The citation is in: Sylvester Brown, Jr. (April 19, 2005). "Start of spring draws more than just beautiful weather". St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

See


Contents

[edit] Treatment Section

Treatment
Treatment is directed at the underlying causes of suicidal thinking. Clinical depression is the major treatable cause, with alcohol or drug abuse being the next major categories. Other psychiatric disorders associated with suicidal thinking include bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, Borderline personality disorder, Gender identity disorder and anorexia nervosa. Suicidal thoughts provoked by crises will generally settle with time and counseling. For a person with strong or at least definitive family or community ties, urgently providing information about who else would be hurt and the loss that they would feel can sometimes be effective. For a person suffering poor self-esteem, citing valuable and productive aspects of their life can be helpful. Sometimes provoking simple curiosity about the victim's own future can be helpful.

This section seems to go into a bit of detail, without any refrence. The lack of reference is what primarily concerns me. The article seems already NPOV but, I would like any kind reference for the statements like "Clinical depression is the major treatable cause, with alcohol or drug abuse being the next major categories. Other psychiatric disorders associated with suicidal thinking include bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, Borderline personality disorder, Gender identity disorder and anorexia nervosa.". Anybody else have a view/reference? -- ×××jijin+machina | Chat Me!××× -- 23:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Another thing I did to remove some of the POV "feel" to the article was to move "for and against" to a sub heading of "Treatment" which got a heading of it's own. Now treatment needs to be edited to reflect that fact, which I am currently working on, please post on my talk page if you have an edited version. Thanks. -- ×××jijin+machina | Chat Me!××× -- 23:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV - This is becoming a clearly anti-suicide article

An encylopedic entry about suicide is not a place to present arguments for suicide that contravene basic ethics and values of our society. It is as if there were an article on . murder that were to justify or rationalize murder or serial killing. A reference or section on doctor assisted euthanasia might be appropriate as a type of suicide, but aiding or abetting or encouraging suicide in the U.S. and Canada and most of the world is considered criminal. Any reference to supporters of suicide should not be given an equal place in this article but should be viewed as an aberrant viewpoint. Anti-suicide! You bet.. It should be that... Completed suicide is a tragedy as most victims are ill, and part of their illness is that tragic impulse act. Beyond doctor assisted suicide for terminally ill people, or those facing a debilitating illness, suicide is a tragedy of unfathomable proportions. Szimonsays

Is it really appropriate to have a section about arguments against suicide on the main page, and have the arguments for suicide (or pro-choice, at least) hidden on a different page? Shouldn't these two sides be presented side-by-side?

I think it's the inherently delicate issue of this subject. Certainly there are philosophical arguments for suicide. From an encyclopedic stand point I see how a pro-choice stance should be presented to balance things out. A personal stand point is a different issue. --Dysepsion 20:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there an article or section on the voluntary euthanasia movement? I can't find it, and IMO it's needed. Andrewa 23:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Agree. voluntary euthanasia, there should be a short bit about it. I am actually POV against the org, but it does serve a NPOV. - jijin|machina 21:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Added a whole section about Pro-Choice and Pro-Euthanasia -- ×××jijin+machina | Chat Me!××× -- 03:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article about suicide. It should be about the definition of suicide, types of suicide, history of suicide, suicide in society, etc. There should be no opinions at all in this article. There can be a separate page called "Arguments for and against Euthanasia", but that sort of thing does not belong in an encyclopedic article under the name "Suicide".--LocrialTheSequel 04:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The external link section is rather heavy on anti-suicide groups too. --Mucus 04:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I just read this article and was startled at how pro-suicide it seemed, actually. I agree it needs to stick to facts about suicide--too much time spent on how family, friends, etc. fail to understand--and there's a corresponding non-neutral suggestion that those who commit attempt have a more accurate view of the subject than others. Focusing on facts would prevent a bias in either direction--and would have been more useful in finding the facts and figures that were my, and I suspect others', reason for looking up this article in the first place.

[edit] Reorganisation

This article is reaching the 32K limit. Approximately a third of the article is about religious views and pro choice views. How would people feel about these and maybe the philosophical views being put into an article titled "Suicide, religious and other views", "Suicide, religious and philosophical views") or something similar with a link in the Suicide article? I think the legal views (which I would rename as legal aspects) should remain in the main article, as should the history which could be expanded. The discussion of murder/suicide would benefit from being in or next to the legal aspects and needs a little work. The list of famous suicides should probably just be a link without any examples since the list itself is comprehensive. Suicides in the military is begging for a separate article status, again with a link.

The role of depression as a factor and indeed the entire aspect of the treatable nature of suicidal ideation does not currently receive much coverage. It would be good to add some statistics on this.

The section headed "Attempted Suicide" is problematic. It goes on to discuss the newer terminologies but sticks to the heading choice in the rest of the text. My vote would be to replace this with "Parasuicide or deliberate self harm", both of which are used in the literature by those working in the field.

The section "Suicide Prevention" has nothing about treating the underlying causes and has a POV quality about it. It also does not address significant national campaigns and strategies aimed at suicide prevention. The subject is a huge one and once started would probably end up being a stand alone article.

Please comment on the above and/or have a go at any of it. I intend to commence work on this in the near future. --CloudSurfer 06:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed, those are all great ideas... I would name the "Suicide, religious and other views", "Suicide, religious and philosophical views" to Philosophical Views of Suicide (the stub to be called Philosophical Views (Suicide)) this would make a much better title.
As far as "Attempted Suicide" goes, I prefer to use this, but your suggestion of "Parasuicide" is fine with me as well. But this needs stubbed.
"Suicide Prevention" needs stubbed, and spoken about at length to come to a conclusion of what is and is not POV in this topic.
I also suggest that "Suicide in History" may need to be stubbed and the current views should take precedent in the main article. This is just a suggestion.
Also, a good idea would be to provide current, as can be found, basic statistics on the subject for the countries the english page serves. Like for US, UK, Canada, IRL, etc. jijin|machina 19:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • In the Attempted Suicide/Parasuicide section, I tried to clear up the difference between "attempted suicide" and "suicidal gestures", while leaving in that it's often hard to tell the difference. I hope this make it more than a discussion of newer terminologies.

[edit] 100 percent

What is meant by

"It is probable that the incidence of suicide is widely under-reported due to both religious and social pressures, possibly by as much as 100% in some areas."

? In other words, zero incidence of suicide is reported in these areas? Sounds unlikely to me, but if it's true it should be reworded to something more direct such as "resulting in no record of suicide whatsoever in some areas." --Chinasaur 10:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I imagine that is what they mean: that none is reported. It doesn't seem impossible that there are societies in which it is entirely hushed (or as near as damnit). But it would be good if the person that added that point could clarify. --bodnotbod 09:02, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Reorganize now

This page really should be reorganized, and possibly split into different pages. Also, in the interest of helping those who may be at risk, we have an obligation to put information on suicide prevention near the very top of the page...no matter the importance of the educational/informational purpose of Wiki, the #1 obligation is human life, which, after all, is more important than mere factual knowledge.

The page needs internal integration (such as cultural/historical views) and serious attention by a knowledgeable party. Thanks. ~ Dpr 02:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  • I agree, i've done a little to work on this for the moment, reordered some of the groups. I think the history and choice issues should be outlined in the main article individual links created for each of the topics, they could certianly be articles all their own. I'll try to flesh out the treatment and prevention areas, perhaps pulling info from the AMA. Cobalty 14:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Against, adding only "Please don't commit suicide! Click here for more info.", this would be POV. When did wikipedia become a place to sway people one way or the other? If the link to suicide prevention is placed at/near the top, there should be another for a NPOV pro-choice look at suicide or even a support group external link. People need to be informed to make a choice from rational people who have been in the same position they find themselves in.
As a suicidal person, anytime a link is provided that only begs a suicidal to "save her life", I ignore it as this is not something I care about at the time. However, what I do care about is finding somebody that I know has been where I am, just to ask what logic they took to get where they are now. As well as what position they still take on suicide. I look for information from both sides of the argument to make probably the most important decision of my life.
It's hard to explain, but the best way to look at it is; a suicidal person is looking at suicide as a purchase. A big/life-changing one, very similar to choosing a home builder. When you are looking for home builders you want the good info, which you can easily get directly from the company, but you also want any negative experiences others have had to build on their collective experience. That is very much like what a suicidal person is thinking, normally the only things they can find on the topic is the negative about suicide (like the positive from the home builder), but what they really want is a place to read/hear collective sets of experiences with their thinking on suicide. That way they can make their own choice on the topic. After all, it is their body.
I will be watching this and I will debate people on this topic. But I do not think the page needs to be "reorganized". Possibly broken up into stubs, but as it stands now it close to NPOV. (edited previous user's comments to make it better mark up and easier to read) jijin|machina 17:49, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmmm, you have a point. I do understand that this is an encylopedia article and is thus needed to be unbiased. However, I am looking at this from the point of view of our reader. Someone who is researching suicide is likely either dealing with the issue or researching it, and likely from a suicide as a condition point of view. Personally I support someone's right to suicide, but I don't see how someone like, oh, a battered wife would be served by saying it's a noble thing to do. I guess there are actually two articles here, one that talks about suicide as a medical emergency and another about suicide as a choice. I'm starting to ramble, anyone else have any insight to this? Cobalty 17:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Noted, and I also think that suicide should not be glorified. The point I was trying to make, excuse me if it was not clear, is to send them to a pro-life support group, and a pro-choice support group. Do this near the top, maybe even in a disclaimer box like the POV warning, saying something like "If you are suicidal, please contact a mental health professional immediately. This article only attempts to document the history of, potential future, and major sub-topics regarding suicide. It is not an attempt to dictate what should be considered right and wrong.". Those people who are actively suicidal, that is making plans to commit suicide, should be pointed toward two communities on the topic that are on the "opposing" sides. This should be done for abortion as well, but sadly that topic is pretty locked in discussion. Again, I am completely for breaking this up into stubs if that is an option. Then, a separate discussion can take place for each sub-topic. So things like the history of suicide get their own due effort. jijin|machina 19:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I can understand both points of view, and would just like to comment that I think a clear link to the assisted suicide (euthanasia) page should be added to that list. catseyes 02:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


PROGRESS UPDATE: I have begun the process of reorganization by adding the following new articles to wikipedia:

  • suicide treatment
  • suicide prevention
  • suicide and evolution
  • Suicide methodology (as redirect to suicide methods)
  • Parasuicide
  • Suicide in History
  • suicide and the law
  • suicide and religion
  • suicide and culture

I will try to come back and work on summarizing the sections in the article itself and referencing the secondary articles for more info. Possible structure, See Main article: Article, a persistent side box across all categories, or both. Cobalty 08:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Add more cross-references to enable a more clearer view on "Suicide"

Namely, add a cross-reference to biology:apoptosis.

In fact, each day 50 to 70 million cells take on suicide, unnoticed by the human that is made up of these suicidal cells...

Second, a link to martyrdom or martyr and ritual suicide would also be very apropriate here.

Thanks!


  • Came across this article looking for various ways to commit suicide. I don't need a prevention article, I need an unbiased informative article. -Kilo


sorry if posting in the wrong place, but shouldnt the word 'generally' be 'statistically' in the following sentence: Generally, those with a history of such attempts are almost 23 times more likely to eventually end their own lives than those without

It may have been quoted from another source, but how can that be a general statement?

[edit] Bias?

A user removed "Northern hemisphere" from the epidemiology section in a para. relating to suicide in December/Christmas season...but this is not bias because Christmas/December is winter *only* in the Northern Hemisphere...environmental and thus, perhaps, socio-psychological conditions are different in the SOuthern Hemisphere. ~ Dpr 13:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No discussion on the effect on suvivors

Perhaps some material (or a new topic) on the effect of suicide on family and friends - thoughts?

Rflynn1000 14:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, a section on "Social Effects of Suicide" would be good. ~ Dpr 07:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Percentages

The current article gives numbers of what I think are suicides / population in several societies. Also interesting would be the rate of suicides / (total deaths in the period). --Error 21:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

Is this not POV? To be considered suicide, the death must be a central component and intention of the act, not just a certain consequence; hence, suicide bombing is considered a kind of bombing rather than a kind of suicide, and martyrdom usually escapes religious or legal proscription. There are only legal consequences when there is death and proof of intent. ~ Dpr 07:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide notes

Persons attempting or dying by suicide sometimes leave a suicide note--this is certainly relevant, but does it have to be in the head section of the article? ~ Dpr 07:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

Given the benefits of minimizing article length, can we strive to omit superfluous words? The etymology is important, but given that Wikipedia isn't Wiktionary, maybe we could take out "sui caedere" and simply say that the word "suicide" is from the Latin. Just a thought. ~ Dpr 07:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing, re: Islam POV

With regards to the part that mentions the Islamic point of view, the following is indicated: "According to the Sunnah (life and way of the Prophet Muhammad), any person who dies by suicide and shows no regret for his wrongdoing will spend an eternity in hell" {emphasis my own}. How can one show regret for suicide? Isn't that part of the reason as to why suicide is considered so heinous, that it removes all possibility of repentance? Just my $0.02 (canadian). --GNU4Eva 04:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know for sure what the above means but it is possibly for someone to regret a 'suicide' IMHO. It isn't that uncommon that someone may not be immedietly killed but may not survive the injuries. In the past for example, I would guess if you properly cut your wrists you'd probably be pretty much screwed but you would be consicious for few minutes at least. Nowadays, with modern communications and medical provided your conscious you could probably call for help and be saved if you were conscious. However there are still ways you would survive initially but still end up dying. Panadol takers don't usually die immedietly AFAIK but their liver is often destroyed so they will die eventually. Self-immolation may be stopped and the person may be taken to hospital and may even be conscious for a while but may not survive. I remember a story from a teacher about a student who drank weed killer. Not surprisingly, he didn't die immedietly but there was little that could be done (I believe his stomach etc were fried) so he did die eventually but he was conscious in hospital for a fair while (and indeed I believe he regretted it). All in all I think, there are a variety of ways someone can effectively die froma suicide but have a chance to regret it. However potentially it is possible for someone to repent after death in the Muslim faith in any case Nil Einne 21:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding links to how to commit suicide pages?

Do we really need to add links to pages that tell you exactly how you can and should commit suicide? An anon added a link, I removed it, he added it back and told me that there are other links about the same topic. I'm tempted to just remove them all, there are too many external links anyways, but rather decided to ask for some other opinions on this. So, why should we link to such pages? Shouldn't we rather link to pages that actually try to help suicidal people instead of sites that are encouraging them? --Conti|✉ July 4, 2005 01:13 (UTC)

As I see it, this would violate Wikipedia's principle of NPOV. The article is informal and neutral, and contains as such both "positive" and "negative" views on suicide (although mainly the latter). Logically, the same principle of neutrality must also apply to the list of references. Your suggestion implies turning the article into a support page, which obviously has no place in a (neutral) encyclopedia. – 83.108.3.189 4 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)
The following view on the issue--which is surely shared by a large number of people, and also opposed by an equally large if not greater number of people--may be one which conflicts with the very essence of Wikipedia's vision and its construction of NPOV.
No matter how encyclopedic we aim to be, there must be limits drawn on actions which have the potential to seriously encourage suicide. Such a severe course of action, traumatic to so many people, cannot be permitted to be seriously encouraged by any work or writer(s). Philosophic and cultural arguments in favor of suicide are one thing, but the line must be drawn--in this digital, impulsive, unthinking, instant-gratification age, radicalist age--against links which could promote impulsive suicide choices. If my view is articulated unclearly/ambiguously, please ask for any necessary refinements. ~ Dpr 4 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)
providing accurate and nonbiased information is a good thing. however, i doubt that wikipedia wants to include information such as how to successfully plot a murder, mix up a poison, build an atomic bomb, or engineer a biological weapon. in the same vein, i dont think that providing nonbiased information means providing easy access to a how-to guide that has the potential for triggering grave harm. suicide attempts are often impulsive acts, and by making it effortless to get a good idea of how to make an attempt as lethal as possible, we run the risk of contributing to unnecessary loss of life. surely this goes beyond the idea of NPOV! adam black 2005 July 5 01:52 (UTC)
I fully agree with adam black; this is an encyclopedia and I know of no other (professional) encyclopedias that wouldteach how to commit suicide. As far as I know, aiding suicide is still illegal in 98% of the world... --GNU4Eva 6 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)
I strongly concur with both Adam Black and Dpr. It would sicken me in the heart to learn this the project we were working on—one of the greatest repositories of human knowledge ever conceived—were used to bring harm to others. NPOV is trivial in comparison, and I can't see how it can be argued otherwise. --Ardonik.talk()* July 7, 2005 08:04 (UTC)
Reality check: Nothing you can do can prevent a person who really wants to kill themselves from killing themselves. Very little you can do can make a non-suicidal person want to kill themselves. To help someone commit suicide is illegal in most juristictions, true. Florida included, probably. Still.. I somehow doubt having a link that describes suicide methods is enough to be held to the legal standard of aiding in a suicide. Wikipedia is broad (I've never seen a professional encyclopedia have as much on BDSM or the CIA, either) and as as far as I can tell, NPOV is held highly. I hate to play the slippery slope card, but if NPOV trivial here, where is next? Where would we get off ignoring something "absolute and non-negotiable"?
Sometimes just knowing how to kill oneself is enough to make one feel secure enough not to kill oneself. Just a thought. AmyBeth 00:32:42, 2005-08-05 (UTC)
I suggest you review your understanding of legalities. If it was not illegal to provide detailed information on how to kill oneself, then why is it that the alt.suicide.holiday newsgroup was banned? I find that in this article and several others that may be controversial, people seem to confuse the idea of a free-for-all war between the "fors" and the "againsts" constitutes a neutral provision of information. Providing information on "suicide" and information on "how to commit suicide" are not actually the same thing. One can provide a great deal of information on suicide, such as the states of mind of attempters, common demographic statistics, cultural views, outcome for survivors, stigmatization of attempters, treatment by emergency responders, and so on, without going into any detail on how one may go about it. We have treated many of those topics I just mentioned in this article. I feel that the inclusion of methods for attempting to be inappropriate even by the standards of logical organization. The "suicide prevention" section has its own article. Move the "arguments for suicide, and ways and means" stuff to its own section, and see how long it lasts without outcry. If you don't think you can be held legally responsible for someone's attempt or completion of suicide, wait till the first teenager does so and his mother finds a link to wikipedia's article in his favourites. You underestimate the tendency of people who experience a loss to blame anyone and everyone they come in contact with. Also, many suicide attempts are unsuccessful precisely because people do NOT have an accurate idea of what constitutes a lethal action. If inescapably lethal attempts become the norm among all attempters, many lives could be lost through an impulse that would have been relatively brief if not for the ease of achieving lethality. --adam black 00:01, 2005 August 8 (UTC)
While I agree that WikiPedia should not be telling people how to commit suicide, I must quibble with your point re: alt.suicide.holiday. Newsgroups are an entirely open system - I can start my own newsgroup, but ISPs decide whether to carry it. Individual ISPs may have stopped carrying the newsgroup, but no legal action was (or even can be, at least in the US) taken.— ceejayoz ★ 00:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
We aren't providing information on how to commit suicide but there are some links which have this information. These sites are not, as far as I know, illegal in the US. (If you can inform me otherwise, I invite you to do so.) I am very uncomfortable with the active suppression of such points of view. Truthfully, yes, I think methods and means in and of themselves are probably unencyclopedic, but that because wikipedia is not a how-to. However, I see nothing wrong with providing links for both pro-life and pro-choice, as it were. (I've never seen one that was pro-suicide. If you would like to show me, please do.) Is wikipedia about informing the world or saving it? Who are we to provide only one side of the available information? Please go lighter on the pathos. I see this as an ethical issue. --AmyBeth 04:18:32, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
I don't have anything against "pro-choice" links, but I completely disagree to suicide how-to's, like they were linked here for a while. Yes, this is an ethical issue, with the same arguments we could also link to "how to kill someone" pages on murder, just to show "the other side", too. NPOV is not the only thing we should think of while writing an encyclopedia. Just my humble opinion. --Conti|✉ 17:48, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
True, but killing others is illegal while killing oneself is not. It's not socially accepted, no, but it's not illegal.--AmyBeth 07:57:46, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
Many links may contain both general information about suicide (history, consequences, ethical discussions, etc.) as well as information on how to do it. Must we eliminate the link entirely simply because it contains information on how to do it. Sure, we can avoid linking it with a title like, "If you want to know how to kill yourself click here!", but we could still link to it with a title suggestive of the other general information it contains. Also note that a person who wants to make a non-lethal suicdal gesture may find such links useful as a warning on what not to do (and maybe to do the things that say "don't do this it won't work"), so they don't end up actually dying. And, considering how easy it is for a suicidal attempt to end in permanent, severe injury, is it really so terrible if the links happen to provide information on how to avoid this?
I don't mean to offend or be insensitive, just to ask people to consider a different perspective. “The thought of suicide is a powerful solace: by means of it one gets through many a bad night” Nietzsche. Hard to believe, but to some people the option is a comfort. Besides, if someone is unable to find out how to kill themselves, regardless of this article, I would be surprised if they're intelligent enough to pull it off. Google 'suicide methods' and you'll see what I mean. I am not saying we have to detail all the methods, but some information or links would make the article more complete. Some people may want to know the methods so they can help prevent suicides. How far should we go in preventing suicide, should we take away a potential suicide's freedom and lock them up so that we force them to continue living in their misery? At the moment, my personal feeling is that we should discourage and make some attempts to prevent suicide, but if the suicide tells me they are suffering and really want to end their misery, well who am I make them suffer? Maybe we are being kind and humane in helping that person learn the best way to kill themselves? I hope someone would help me if I were suffering. Very touchy subject, I just wanted to offer another perspective for consideration. --Jim 23:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The links would be better placed on suicide methods—that said, I think a detailed how-to on committing suicide is in fact the single most effective way to convince people not to do it. In my experience this is definitely the case. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 00:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sociological study of suicide

The sociological study of suicide rates (as disinguished from acts) has been a major concern of sociologists since the 1700s--that is, before sociology existed as a recognized field. For much of that time suicide rates were a topic of what was called "moral statistics," an enterprise which examined such government-supplied statistics as were available--rates of birth, death, and murder, for example. Emile Durkheim, one of the classic sociologists, carried out a major study of suicide rates, and there have been many studies of them in sociology since. The present long article needs a section on this; several major sections now in it are far less important.

[edit] Sources?

Is there a source for this?

"While the police do not usually have the authority to stop the suicide attempt itself, in the US and some other jurisdictions killing oneself is technically homicide"

I don't have a source off-hand to prove the point one way or the other, but it is my understanding that in (I think) all but two states the act of suicide is no longer considered a crime. Also in almost every jurisdiction I can think of in the US at least, police routinely intervene in attempted suicides in progress in public places.

Salty Kid talk]] 04:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Socrates

Article Socrates states, "He [Socrates] was found guilty as charged, and sentenced to death by drinking hemlock." He did not commit suicide. Unless, that is, all acts of martyrdom such as Patrick Henry's and St. Stephen's (New Testament) are to be called suicides also. If this is true, why is a painting of Socrates displayed on this article? If I'm mistaken, please tell me. --Dpr 03:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Socrates#Socrates--suicide? Septentrionalis 04:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Socrates did not commit suicide. He carried out his duty to the city of Athens as the law, and the law as Gods, (see Crito,) require. He did not antagonize the jury that sentenced him, but offered his judgment of the sentence he deserved according to the value he judged his role to Athens served. To become confused about suicide being any and all actions that one plays a role in toward the death of one's body is to miss the complete context and intention. To say this is suicide is like claiming Jesus Christ did not properly defend himself to Pontius Pilate, or that he willingly carried the cross, rather than being dead weight like a protester, is tantamount to suicide. - BeyondBeyond 28 September 2005

[edit] Hurting loved ones

Commiting Suicide is supremely depressing to the ones that loved you. It may Taint their mental state or quality, make them Severely depressed, suffer from anxiety, or do the same thing that killing yourself does. After doing the heinous crime that you commit apon yourself, your loved ones ask themselves if they were good enough, if they did something to make you hurt. They have this thought creep them for the rest of their lives.

Thanks for the input, but, the talk pages for articles are not message boards on the subject in general. They are for discussing the article and changes made to it. :-) -WikiFiend90 05:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movies dealing with suicide?

Maybe there can be a section about movies that have suicide as a main theme, sort of like the suicide songs section. It would need to be very organized though.

[edit] Suicide to escape punishment

How are we so sure the suicides in the Dunblane and Columbine High School massacres were to escape punishment? It doesn't seem unlikely that there might be other reasons.

[edit] Suicide in literature

Does anyone think a Sucide in Literature page ought to be created, fit in the larger scheme of the page series? Thanks --Dpr 08:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposed section exists now, but what about spoilers? Slac speak up! 20:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Is there any ongoing POV dispute? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I have issues with a lot of the language in the article. — Phil Welch 16:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Please propose a substantive, cited correction. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

When I have time I'm going to revise the article towards NPOV, assuming you don't start another edit war. — Phil Welch 16:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Assuming that you do not include religious or social perspectives on suicide in a section regarding medical perspectives on suicide, I will not revert them. Additionally, it takes 2 to edit war. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This article seems neutral to me. Unless Phil explains himself I don't see why we should not remove the NPOV warning. Also it would be nice to make the First Aid sectin more visible. After all it's something everyone should know. Bragador 16:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You can remove it if you want, just keep in mind that as soon as I have time I'm going to come fix all the neutrality problems and if anyone resists it's just going back up again. — Phil Welch 17:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

there is what you are looking for

[edit] add some statistics?

It seems to me it might be a good idea to reference some of the basic suicide statistics or at least link to them on this page. For instance, I've heard that over 1 million people commit suicide every year worldwide, which certainly helps demonstrate the magnitude of the problem. I'll have to check my facts but several years ago I read that people in the mental health field had the highest percentage of suicides. Mostly psychologist and psychiatrists if I remember correctly. If true this would of course be quite ironic since they are supposed to be the experts at preventing suicide. If someone else were knowledgeable in this area perhaps it would be better if they added what they deemed appropriate. If not I'll take a stab at it :) --Jim 23:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed the link to Epidemiology and Methodology of Suicide in the article and that seems to address most of my concerns. I still think the one million suicides a year should be mentioned in the main article so people will know how prevalent it is. In reference to methods mentioned above I also found the link to the Suicide methods article, so it looks like that too has been addressed for the moment. --Jim 00:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] suicide for honor

Doesn't this deserve a section with its own subarticle for itself? I mean, that is what a major component, but not the majority component, of suicides are. -- Natalinasmpf 03:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide as a duty? Response to the above: a Psychological aside

I think there might be something to that. I've talked with ppl that have committed suicide who believed themselves so dispicable that their suicide could be the only act of integrity, or honor, they could perform. Sad it is, the pain that some souls carry.

A little tangental idea here as well: In posts I've read in my research on the causes of pedophilia, people who flame pedophiles frequently call for them to kill themselves. I'm wondering if such an idea should also deserve some attention, as it is a festering sore in the "collective unconscious" (for lack of a better term). It's in the back of many people's minds that pedophiles should kill themselves simply because of the potential for danger: sort of like it's their duty to do it (though many would deny them the "honor" that such an act would unquestionably deserve, sacrificing one's life to protect the good of others). Still, these ideas are all quite ludicrous; rediculous beyond outrage. However they are there, and as distasteful as they are, perhaps a look should be given to such things.

Bringing these things into the open and trying to make a dialogue often brings accusation of being a ped oneself (good grief!). There are unconscious currents involve issues like suicide that havent come into light totally as yet, almost unknown or taboo, that may be obvious and common knowledge in 20 years.

Perhaps this isn't the right forum for this, I'm kind of think/writing out loud. But I'm interested in the ideas people have that seem taboo or un-PC or at least mildly taboo to speak of. I think Wikipedia is a good forum for informing people of things that are rather "unconscious" as it can refer to little known scholarship. It might just help lance and heal a wound that would otherwise fester and explode in some awful manner, such as at columbine.

Hope there's something useful here. If not, just move on and let it slide up the queue. --DanielCD 03:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] see also section

The see also section is getting fairly large and unorganized. Should it be in alphabetical order? Also, maybe some of the terms can be moved into the actual suicide article? Gflores Talk 19:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Only humans suicide?

To quote the article:

"It should be noted that by the stricter definition, acts of suicide are only committed by human beings; no other healthy organism capable of reproducing that is currently known of, aside from Homo sapiens, terminates its life with the central intention being its own death."

Many believe dolphins do conciously end their own life, making this a false statement or at least a questionable one. Some articles to back this up:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/whales/interviews/obarry2.html

"And it wasn't until Cathy died of suicide, what I would say, and I say that word with great trepidation and the lack of - I don't know what else to call it. But you probably know that dolphins and whales are not automatic air breathers. Every breath they take is a conscious effort. So they can end their life whenever they want to and that's what Cathy did. She chose to not take that next breath and you have to call that suicide, self-induced asphyxiation..."

http://www.lcanimal.org/cmpgn/cmpgn_006.htm

"Stress-related deaths are common. Some animals even commit suicide by crashing into the side of the tank repeatedly, therein shattering their skulls."

http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=63

"Jacques Cousteau and his son, Jean-Michel, vowed never to capture marine mammals again after witnessing one captured dolphin kill himself by deliberately crashing into the side of his tank again and again."

And I'd say both O'Barry and Cousteau can be considered to be reliable first hand experts.

BabyNuke, I'm the one who included this statement in the article. It seems that dolphins do take their own life in periods of great stress. Although it could be argued that they are no longer "healthy" at this point, this does seem to make the point I was trying to make somewhat invalid (that only humans get emotionally depressed enough to resort to suicide -- though humans separated from society involuntarily may resort to the same action but it wouldn't be called depression). I'm not entirely convinced though that the statement should be removed, rather is there a way to amend it somehow since the dolphin case could be considered a special one? They are considered to be very intelligent animals and maybe they will do anything to get out of captivity...
Strangely though, I didn't see any note of this behavior on the Dolphin page. Before removing the statement or modifying this page, I think this info should be added to that page ... Wikipedia brown 02:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Possible solution: "It should be noted that by the stricter definition, acts of suicide are only committed by human beings and most likely by dolpins as well; no other healthy organisms capable of reproducing that are currently known of except for those mentioned terminate their own life with the central intention being their own death." (edited)
I'll add a reference to it on the dolphin page. BabyNuke
Don't forget apoptosis and programmed cell death. If you mean sapient or sentient orgranisms on the other hand, that's another thing. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merge some info

Shouldn't some information from other related articles be incorporated into this article? For instance, some information about the types of suicide, views towards suicide, history of suicide, etc should be added with a {{main}} template linking to the main article? I'd be willing to help do this, I would just like to hear if this is a good idea or not. Comments? Gflores Talk 08:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No comments? I just noticed that this article had previously been [very long and was subsequently split up.[1] Although I agree it was long, I now think this article is neither complete nor organized in the best way. Would people be against some restructuring? I'll work on an outline later tonight. I would appreciate some feedback. :) Gflores Talk 00:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV in External links

"If you are in suicidal crisis, call a crisis line and talk to someone about it. In the United States, you can call 1-800-273-TALK or 1-800-SUICIDE to reach a trained counselor near you." I don't think WP's aim is to recommend people talk about suicide on the phone. Moreover, phone numbers are not weblinks. Also, I see no reason why anti-suicide (i.e. POV) links should be displayed first. Apokrif 12:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. The line doesn't deserve to be here. The article contains already contains links to suicide prevention and crisis hotlines; those links and phone numbers, especially ones that are specific to the U.S., are not needed in this article. They already exist in the aforementioned articles. I think the only Crisis line website that should exist in the external links section is befrienders which gives a list of crisis hotlines around the world. Westfall 17:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the original wording was out of place for Wikipedia - but I don't think it's good to phrase it as "according to some people". I've reworded it to avoid the whole should/shouldn't debate altogether. Let's stick with stating the simple NPOV fact that crisis lines exist which such people can call. Mdwh 23:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Always carefully verify that "help lines" are not being run by Scientology. No kidding. 100% serious. AlbertCahalan 04:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think crisis lines enchance the article at all. We should remove them all. Let suicidal people die. Skinnyweed 05:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

A new layout for Suicide. Post comments below.

I. Terminology
II. Motivations
III. Types of suicide 
IV. Prevalence
V. Causes
VI. Methodology
VII. Evolutionary explanation
VIII. Medical views
   A. Prevention
   B. Treatment
IX. Legal views
X. Religious views
   A. Buddhism
   B. Christianity
   C. Hinduism
   D. Islam
   E. Judaism
XI. Cultural views
XII. Philosophical views
   A. Arguments for suicide
   B. Arguments against suicide
XIII. History of suicide
XIV. Suicide in pop culture
XV. see also, sources, etc stays the same

things to mention under a section (which one?), see also or create a section for it

  • parasuicide and self-harm (types? or own section?)
  • motivation - why people commit suicide and why people who are suicidal don't commit suicide (created new section)
  • Population differences and high risk groups (under prevalence)
  • Impact on others (?)
  • treatment (possibly under prevention)
  • List of songs about suicide / List of films about suicide (pop culture)
  • List of suicide sites (methods?)

things on template

    • suicide watch (under prevention or treatment)
    • suicide note (?)
    • famous suicides (history of suicide)

I've attempted to create an outline. Should I add or remove a section? Reorder them? I would appreciate any comments. Gflores Talk 20:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I started consolidating all the information back into one article, but generalizing it a bit more so it's not as length as it was last year. My rough draft. It's just my attempt, it doesn't need to be used if there's opposition. I was planning on researching via some books at the library, but haven't had time... I also had difficulty with the motivations/causes sections, maybe someone can improve on that and fill in the remaining sections. Comments are also welcome. Gflores Talk 15:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Resources for dealing with suicidal thoughts" should be updated, perhaps

What if some people would rather wish to find resources for committing suicide? Would Wikipedia be sued or legally tried for allotting resources that give persons with suicidal inclinations different methods for ridding the world of themselves? It's entirely possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.216.236.215 (talk • contribs).

"Statistics have shown that 4 in every 10 people, who think about suicide, finally do commit." There should be a source for this quote, or it should be removed. It is quite subjective, and really not even close to fact. Adam Gamradt 19:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Adam

[edit] Advocation of suicide prevention

Was directed to talk page, I made the removal of suicide prevention hotline numbers because of same issue at German wikipedia. While not relevant, that reasoning should apply here too. The argument, in short, is that phone numbers for suicide prevention are advocating a point of view just as offering links to Howto suicide at the same position. The difference is entirely a moral one, and wikipedia does not endorse life, death or any kind of moral. I don't think wikipedia should suggest, even implicitely, 'the reader' (there is no NPOV notion of 'the reader', from abstract NPOV reasoning, there is no 'reader') to take a certain decision. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, describing what suicide *is*, not give advice on what could be done about such a condition. --Rtc 04:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC) PS: See above #POV_in_External_links, related issue, especially User:Westfall's message.

I agree with your removal and Westfall's logic. A hotline has no place here in the main article, as it just presents information. You don't see Encarta or Britannica having phone numbers in the middle of their suicide entry. Besides, we have Suicide prevention on the template sidebar. Gflores Talk 05:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

You should clean up this article & edit it for grammar and spelling mistakes. Frosty 22:13, 22 April 2006

ThatPaige Been working on some of that. For those of you reviewing, sort of an ethical problem with describing how a person who is suicidal may be treated if they are to enter a hospital--i.e. they may be considering showing up at an ER but then read about how they will be bound and gagged, placed in a padded cell as the old version said. i removed this as it's not entirely true.

most suicidal people are placed on 24 hr in a normal hospital room, which is locked with sharp objects removed, but otherwise comfortable. a person who is an EXTREME danger to themselves and others might be the case.

[edit] Reduced content

Why has this articles taken a big chop from a few months back? For instance, compare now to early Jan. Skinnyweed 21:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This was due to vandal 216.226.127.190. I reverted back to April 27th version. I'll try to do another edit to capture the valid changes made afterwards. Wikipedia brown 03:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Messed up links

I have added two subheadings: 'suicide methods' and 'suicide prevention' in order to categorise the mass of links that is there. Skinnyweed 23:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Suicide in literature" heading

I think this is a redundant section as we can add limitless amounts of books here so it will get bigger one by one as people think of more books. I would rather have a subarticle of "Suicide in popular culture". Skinnyweed 01:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bipolar Affective Disorder and Suicide needs to be discussed.

Treatment for suicide is severely lacking. Hospitals take care of the physical needs of the patient and then recommend that the patient find a psychiatrist. Psychiatry is the most underserved sector of health care in the US. Finding a psychiatrist who conducts both psychopharmacology and psychotherapy is an arduous undertaking, often resulting in 3 month waiting periods even after a suicide attempt. Even when a patient finds a suitable psychiatrist, medical insurance often won't fund the requisite sessions to offer the patient adequate therapy.

The uninsured. Depressed and Bipolar patients who are uninsured or underinsured cannot afford their antidepressants and mood stabilizers. The retail price of a drug cocktail for bipolar patients can run upwards of $300, particularly since the more efficacious therapies are still under patents.

More needs to be stated that depression and bipolar disorder are chemical disorders in the brain. As time goes on, these disorders can worsen, causing the manic and depressed states to become more elevated and more bleak, often catatonic states of depression. When the patient cycles back out of a bad bout of depression, he often makes a pact with himself: if he feels the depression coming on that strong again, he will kill himself before it gets that bad.


[edit] A question to the readers of this talk page

Does suicide have to do with euthanasia ? If so, in which respect ? If not, why not ? -- I hope to get some answers from you readers, and I will come back later on why I ask this question on this discussion page. Thank you for you contribution in advance. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (08062006)

Euthansia is suicide. Skinnyweed 06:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read on: "If so, in which respect ?" I am not asking for personal statements, but for arguments. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (08062006)

Euthanasia is not suicide. There is non-voluntary euthanasia, where the "victim" does not consent to being "mercifully killed", and volulntary euthanasia, where the person who wishes to die is assisted by another. Angelicakrasia 20:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Euthanasia is sometimes suicide. In general usage, "euthanasia" refers to voluntary eutanasia, a form of assisted suicide; involuntary eutanasia is unrelated to suicide. 84.9.232.215 20:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help for suicidal People

Erm, shouldn't we really have a section, quite near the top of the page, for people to SEEK ADVICE if they are feeling suicidal? You can try to be as professional as possible, and I know this is an encyclopaedia, but shouldn't we try a little compassion? It sounds cliched but it might save a life or two? Spunko2010 00:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This has been addressed in the discussions above. As usual, we describe different points of view and give links, so people who are looking for advice about how not to commit suicide should find it easily. Apokrif 14:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Unwanted homosexuality"

I think that the listing of "Unwanted homosexuality" as a cause for suicide is offensive. I understand that Wikipedia intends to show all points of view, but surely the place for this is in the articles on homosexuality, not those on suicide. Every time I've looked for "unwanted homosexuality", it shows up in the context of religious types claiming they can "heal" gay people. I strongly feel that neutral language, such as "unresolved sexual issues" is a much better way of addressing this. If anyone can come up with better wording, then feel free. --Orpheus 08:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unresolved sexual issues

I find it unsettling that we censor reasons for suicide because we somehow find them personally offensive. In striving to become a neutral encyclopedia, filled with facts and free from personal bias, we need to show restraint in our censoring. We can't allow ourselves to think "I find this or that reason for suicide offensive to me and therefor I will edit it" as a rationalization to further a personal cause. Suicide is a very tragic topic, reasons are many for suicide, our need to understand them, not shy away from them, is imperative if we want to prevent suicide. I understand that homosexuality is a very touchy subject and in any way linking it to something "taboo" like suicide might be bothersome to some like Orpheus, but we need to be honest here. Unwanted homosexuality has been documented to be a reason for suicide, and thus should be stated.

Actually, the reason you have given is exactly the reason I think "unwanted homosexuality" shouldn't be in this article. It's a term that seems to be used solely in the context of people claiming that homosexuality is a disease that can and should be cured. I think that society has now moved past that point, and that an article on suicide is definitely not the place to have that debate. If I was trying to push a personal agenda, I would have replaced the term with "hate crime related bullying" or something similarly loaded. It seems clear to me that there's a perfectly good neutral term to use, so why not use it. Orpheus 10:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


One more comment on the unsigned note above. I do not object to homosexuality being linked to suicide. It's a verifiable, and tragic fact that gay people (particularly the young) are much more likely to commit suicide. There's a good body of evidence that suggests that the cause of the higher suicide rate is the bigotry and discrimination experienced by gay people. It's the "unwanted" bit that irritates me. How does "Issues relating to sexuality. In particular, people whose sexual orientation brings them into conflict with their family or others" sound? I got that quote from [2]. Orpheus 10:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not particularly invested in this debate, I've never even heard of the term 'Unwanted homosexuality' before. Anonymous user: A Google search does seem to give a disturbing number of links to rather right-wing and non-NPOV sources making me lean away from having it on this page. Orpheus: that the last suggestion is rather long and unwieldy for what is supposed to be a short and concise summary list. Also, your last edit kind of makes the added citation mismatch with the text (i.e. the text now refers to sexual orientation in general, but the citation only mentions lesbian and gay orientations). Mucus 04:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree - it's too long and unwieldy (which is why I didn't put it in the page without testing the waters here). As for the citation, though, I think that's ok - maybe the page just deals with gay and lesbian youths, but they're the highest risk and by far the most common victims of suicide related to sexual orientation issues. I think that anyone who wants to know more about the connection between sexual orientation and suicide will go to the Wikipedia page on sexual orientation, which discusses this issue in some depth, as well as the one sample link provided here. The other option is to remove the link altogether and put a short comment to the effect of "for more details, see the sexual orientation page", where several related references can be presented. Orpheus 05:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, however, "unwanted homosexuality" isn't the only sexual issue that can lead to suicide. There are lots of sexual issues/dysfunctions/etc. that can lead one to suicidal feelings. While unwanted homosexuality is certainly one of them, I think that being more broad and saying "unresolved seuxal issues" is more appropriate as a catch-all, so to speak. I'm not going to change it unless others agree, though. -seinman 03:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. While we can list "unwanted homosexuality" as an example of a sexual problem that can lead to suicide, it is obvious that it is not the only problem that can lead to it. I believe that a good compromise would simply be to say "Unresolved sexual issues" and then give this as an example along with a strong citation (if someone can provide one). Mucus 03:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I made an edit which I feel is a good compromise. Still needs a solid source before I feel comfortable leaving specifics in there. -seinman 03:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced "unwanted homosexuality" with a link to the sexual orientation page. That page contains a discussion of the issues relating to homosexuality and other orientations, mental illness, and suicide. Bear in mind that unwanted homosexuality is a loaded term, aimed at pushing a particular agenda. Where there is no room for presenting a spectrum of viewpoints (such as in a summary list), we should aim to use neutral language. Orpheus 02:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone added "unwanted" back to the sexual orientation entry. I removed it, based on this, from WP:NPOV: We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.
That issues relating to sexual orientation can be a cause of suicide is a fact. That these issues are specifically due to not wanting to be gay is an opinion. Orpheus 02:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Orpheus, I think you've given "Unwanted homosexuality" a negative projective meaning beyond most peoples perception of that phrase. Why are you bringing up homosexuality as a "disease" that is able to be cured or not. How is that relevant to the phrase "Unwanted homosexuality"? Clearly we need to be carefull not to imbue words with meaning that is not there. Suicide due to unwanted homosexuality, again, is a well documented fact. Whether a few people think that that person needs to get "cured" or if he has a "disease" at all is not was this article is about, nor is it about what you hinted caused him to not want his homosexuality. Nothing in "Unwanted sexuality" suggests any of those beside-the-point issues. I get the feeling you think I'm some closeted biggot trying to get some anti-gay agenda across - if that's true, then you're completely wrong. I've studied suicide, that's my interest. Period. Of course there are other ego-dystonic sexual issues that can lead to suicide, though homosexuality is by far the most prevalent cause, not because it's "terrible" to be homosexal but because it's more common than other sexual orientations that are still considered taboo by some. And by the way, "Unrequited love" is not a sexual issue nor is a "break up". I think the best, most neutral, yet most encompassing phrase for this might be "Ego-dystonic sexual issues". I hope we can agree on that? Trynet

Trynet, over the years I've learnt not to make assumptions like that about people, so don't worry - I haven't assumed anything about your motivations or background. The only reason I was concerned about the term is the use it's been put to. I agree that the phrase "unwanted homosexuality" can be interpreted in a non-prejudiced way. However, the majority of times I've seen the term, it has been in the context of bigotry. It also brings up a debate over the causes of people not wanting their sexual orientation, which is not a suitable debate for either this talk page or the suicide page, in my opinion. With regard to "Ego-dystonic sexual issues", one of my earlier contributions was "Unresolved sexual issues", which is much the same thing. Ego-dystonic strikes me as a bit jargon-like, though.
As for the unrequited love comment, I think it's quite a trite statement to have in the "Reasons for suicide" list, and I didn't put it there. I would remove it, but one confrontation over terms is my limit at the moment - in my personal opinion, it should be removed altogether (it's more a cause of depression which may lead to suicide than a direct cause of suicide, outside of trashy romance novels). Orpheus 03:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations Needed

This doesn't really fit and its rather a long and unwieldy addition to the causes of suicides, so I'm removing it until we can get some good critical citations. Perhaps a suggestion as to which category it should belong to would be helpful too, since it does not seem important enough to merit its own entry

  • Poor Education — There have been increasing numbers of reports [citation needed] of teenage suicides due to their school, lack of freedom, stress of homework, and exams. Often dropouts commit suicide [citation needed] due to having a poor education.

Mucus 01:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious reasons

"Religious reasons (e.g. many suicide bombings in the Middle East have been attributed to Islamic fundamentalism)" - how accurate is this? A recent detailed study by Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago suggests that religious suicide bombers appear mostly to be driven by nationalistic objectives: "what over 95% of suicide attacks around the world [are about] is not religion, but a specific strategic purpose - to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland or prize greatly" Rbreen 21:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is suicide prevention info in fact inappropriate?

I'm finding myself unconvinced posting suicide prevention numbers and info would be a violation of NPOV.

If someone were in the path of a hurricane, we would direct them to resources for finding out if they needed to evacuate, and no one would suggest that this was anti-hurricane and that NPOV required we not discriminate against those who believed they had a moral obligation to die in their homes.

It seems this isn't any different.

I'm also seeing a lot of--non-neutral hostility toward those who would try to prevent suicides. Surely that is an NPOV? If we can't include prevention information, the least we can do is stick to strict factual information.

The March proposal for a re-org makes much sense to me, and would also make the page a more useful place to find information. Janni 18:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In Tropical cyclone I see no POV, and no emphasis on how to escape from hurricanes. The article currently has a section "Impact of suicide on family and friends" and many links to support groups. You can add info about the action of support and prevention groups. Apokrif 16:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Want to remove a sentence

I would like to remove the last sentence from this paragraph at the end of the first part of this article:

Defined as above, acts of suicide are necessarily committed only by human beings. No other known healthy organism possesses both the will and the capability to intentionally terminate its own life for the sole sake of death. There is some dispute over this with cases being reported of dolphins in captivity bashing their heads against walls, or not coming up for air. However, there are organisms that intentionally end their lives due to sickness or as a suicide attack.

The rationale is that the paragraph discusses acts of suicide within the context of the definition given previously (the term suicide is only valid when the act is committed with death being the main goal). Therefore, a suicide attack is not suicide per se, and sickness is excluded given the word healthy in the second sentence. Any objections? I usually would not ask when I have a proper rationale, but the author of the last line challenged this edit. 70.180.109.59 01:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that I added that a while ago, but I'm not 100% sure (and I do not know the reverters rationale). Anyways, the rationale behind that sentence is to expand on the first bit "Defined as above, acts of suicide are necessarily committed only by human beings. No other known healthy organism...". This seems rather final, so I wanted to clarify that organisms can end their lives intentionally if parts of the definition were left out.
i.e. Given the definition (but not healthy), an organism may end their own life. Also, given the definition (but not for the sole sake of death), an organism may end their own life.
This was to parallel the explanation given in the citation which has a similar format. Hope that helps. Mucus 02:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I know monkeys will eat their own hands and exhibit other serious self-injurious behavior (Favazza, A.R. (1996). Bodies Under Siege: Self-Mutilation and Body Modification in Culture and Psychiatry. Johns Hopkins University Press.)
I'm not 100% sure they also commit suicide, but perhaps it should be changed to read along the lines of "Defined as above, acts of suicide are necessarily committed only by human beings. No other known organism possesses both the will and the capability to intentionally terminate its own life for the sole sake of death. There is some dispute over this however, as there are reports of some other mammals seeming to commit suicide but it is impossible to judge their will; additionally, some organisms intentionally end their lives due to sickness or as part of an attack."
That's a couple of edits, so it might need more tweaking. I dropped the healthy, because imho, whale breaching is suicide, even if they are sick. And I editted the last bit to include the monkeys, since they and other animals do things that seem to be solely to end their lives. (edited to add) I also think the "healthy" should be dropped because a cancer patient commiting suicide is very much doing it to end their live, but to say their illness isn't a factor doesn't make much sense. Argentiaertheri 05:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The article needs to be reorganized.

As I read the article on suicide, the article came across as weak and misinformative. In another part of the discussion section, a person mentioned how the article lacked a sociological point of view on suicide. I agree strongly with this person, however, simply adding the sociological point of view would not fix this article. The reason the article on suicide is weak and misinformative is because it fails to approach suicide in a way sociology(as well as psychology) does- from a scientific point of view.

The only way to effectivly cover somthing broad like suicide, is to do it in a systimatic, orginized way. The purpose of an article is to provide information in order to help the reader create an understanding of the subject that he or she is reading about. The article on suicide, at best, is a bunch of various facts and perspectives on the issue.

I am not sure of an optimal way to approach this subject. Mabye separate articles presenting suicide from sociological and psychological point of views should be created with a central, more general article on suicide that points to them for further detail. Mabye I am alone in my opinion, but I honestly believe this article needs an overhaul. Any suggestions, comments, or opinions are welcome.

Lucky2bchucky 16:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strange Edit

Hey, I moved this text here. It was added by one user and looks kind of strange with what appear to be the remains of references? And it just sorta cuts off. Ideas? Mucus 01:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Teenage suicide occurs when a teenager kills himself or herself.
Although the suicide rate among youth significantly decreased in the mid-1990s, suicide deaths remain high in the 15 to 24 age group with 3,971 suicides in 2001 and over 132,000 suicide attempts in 2002, making it the third leading cause of death for those aged 15 to 24 in the United States [1]. In the United Kingdom, the suicide rate for males between 15 and 24 has risen consistently since 1989, while that for females in the same age group has remained largely static[1]. However, given the overall decline in the suicide rate in the UK, the rise in suicide amongst the 15-24 male population has been a considerable cause for concern [2]. More preventive measures have been taken in the last ten years, including increased understanding of the risk factors and causes and spreading information to schools and

[edit] Lists

Can anyone think of a good way to limit the size of the suicide-in-X lists? The film one has been expanding quite quickly lately. Orpheus 02:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Good question. At the very least the film one needs to be trimmed. I'd do it but I'm not very knowledgable about films. Angrycrustacean 07:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious suicide

The following comment was left in the main article, under "Religion" in the causes of suicide list. Orpheus 09:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

it doesnt seem to make much sense to place "suicide bombings" under the 'religion heading' - a suicide bombing, though linked to religious fundamentalism, is essentially, a politically motivated militaristic act. it would be inappropriate to classify the militaristic tendancies of the IRA to be religious in nature, likewise, suicide bombing is inappropriately classified as a 'religious' example of suicide; perhaps various self immolation traditions would be more aptly suited.
Comment left on 15:09 WST (GMT+8), 19 October 2006 by 69.110.31.105

[edit] Noun

The following text was removed.

Suicide is sometimes used as a noun for one who has committed or attempted the act.

with the rationale that it's more suited to a dictionary than an encyclopaedia. I disagree, at least one other person agrees. Let's discuss.

  • My reasoning for keeping it is that a brief definition of a term at the beginning of an article is very useful. In this case, the use of "suicide" as "someone who kills themself" is common in both historical and theological senses, as well as in many contemporary works. If we remove this definition, then we should also remove "Suicide (from Latin sui caedere, to kill oneself) is the act of willfully ending one's own life."

[edit] Literature and movies

I've removed the sections on suicide in literature and movies; they contributed nothing to the article. They were just incomplete lists of books and movies. If the article is going to have a section on these things, they should have a goal (such as talking in some amount of detail on highly relevant examples of literature containing a suicide theme) rather than just being lists. —Cleared as filed. 03:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Writing

The writing quality of this article is very poor. I cannot get far into this article without becoming frustrated. Can someone rewrite the offending sentences? Rintrah 17:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can! Seriously though, if something seems really wrong and unreadable to you you're welcome to either rewrite it or ask for help with it, but if you want to ask for help it would be good to be more specific. Orpheus 22:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Start with this paragraph:
Those experiencing suicidal ideation, or thoughts about fatally harming one's self, may struggle to be heard and understood. The person feeling suicidal may often be made to feel rejected and guilty by those to whom they have confided their thoughts and feelings. Sufferers are sometimes wary of mental health professionals, as they may feel that they lack empathy or might accuse them of trying to hurt the feelings of friends or family. A person feeling suicidal may also wish to avoid being seen as making suicide 'threats', fearing that they might be seen as attempting to manipulate others. This may lead to situations where a person commits suicide without telling friends or family of how they felt.[1]
It is too vague and written in an unnecessarily abstract style. If I see how this paragraph is done, I might attend to the rest of the article. However, if I edited it myself now , I would probably inadvertently alter the meaning of it, and therefore be reverted. So I am asking for help. Rintrah 02:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I've come to the conclusion that the whole page needs a complete rewrite. In parts it's poorly written, poorly sourced, poorly organized, and contains a great deal of irrelevant, factually false and POV information, original research, and trivia. Here is the proposed layout for the rewrite:

  • Introduction (as is)
  • Terminology (include short definition of suicide, first section of "parasuicide and attempted suicide" more or less as is but adapted to be lead-off, add "murder-suicide" and information about suicidal ideation and suicide notes)
  • Suicide methods (as is)
  • Reasons for suicide
    • "Causes of suicide" section (basically as is)
    • Suicide and mental illness (new section, including parts of "parasuicide and attempted suicide")
    • Epidemiology (as is)
    • Other reasons (combines "defiance and protest" and "military suicide", abridged)
  • Impact of suicide (as is)
  • Views on suicide
    • Medical (as is)
    • Cultural (new section; links to main article)
    • Religious (new section; links to main article)
    • Debate over suicide (as is)

SonoftheMorning 16:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] upward secular trend?

I'm a little confused about this line: "National suicide rates, apparently universally, show an upward secular trend." What does the word "secular" in this sentance mean? Are non-religious people more likely to commit suicide? Is it a restatement of "national"? --The burning bush 00:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That usage is common in trading/investing -- see how "secular" is used in Market trends. Basically, it means "long term." Dave6 09:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Dave6. Learned something.--74.61.206.233 17:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/i/Talk%7ESuicide_42c1.html"