Jump to content

Talk:List of suicides/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Too low on the right: Resources for dealing with suicidal thought

Why is this part near the bottom of the upper right textbox? I understand that it has a lesser relation, but I think it's important to make it available sooner for anyone that is having trouble with it. Just my 2 cents. Supaplex 06:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I searched the internet and couldn't find anything about Derick House. Perhaps should be removed from the list.

  • And I can't find anything about Christian Nordqvist, can someone confirm, please? J. Pinto 13:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: format change

Rather than listing entries this way:

  • George Eastman, (1932), inventor
  • Hannibal, (182 BC), military commander
  • Virginia Woolf, (1941), British novelist

it would be more interesting and useful (I think) to list the entries as such:

  • George Eastman, (1932), gunshot
  • Hannibal, (182 BC), poison
  • Virginia Woolf, (1941), drown

What are your thoughts? Kingturtle 05:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Currently, a few entries already have that information at the end of the entries. For your samples that would read:
  • George Eastman, (1932), inventor; gunshot
  • Hannibal, (182 BC), military commander; poison
  • Virginia Woolf, (1941), British novelist; drowning
If the list would provide the information in one way or the other for all entries, I think that would be interesting (hopefully not too "useful"). Personally, I would keep the short description of the person, afterall it's currently an alphabetical list. -- User:Docu
Should we change to the format to separate articles into categories? Gflores Talk 16:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
A good rule of thumb for the use of parentheses is that the text should still make syntctical sense if the parentheses and the text within are removed. In this example:
  • George Eastman, (1932), gunshot
becomes
  • George Eastman, , gunshot.

I've removed those extraneous commas throughout the list. TheMadBaron 02:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Campus suicides

I noticed that Violent crime and suicide at Ivy League universities was deleted, but it was the closest thing I could find to a list of suicides on university campuses or by then-students of the universities in question. Given that this is a topic that continues to receive much press, could we organize a List of college and university suicides? It wouldn't be OR if listings are backed up by official school announcements or campus newspaper articles. Thoughts? Wl219 11:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have started a subpage here, comments welcome. Wl219 01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fictional Characters

Under Terrell we have a fictional character who killed himself with a taser. If there is a consensus I believe we should splice out all of the fictional characters; we can create a page for them or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.237.207.0 (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Question on John Berryman

"John Berryman (1972), American poet, jumped from the Washington Avenue Bridge (Minneapolis) after waving to passers-by "

After developing an interest in this poet and doing some research on his life, I haven't seen the part about him waving, although it would be interesting. I was wondering if anyone knew of a credible second source to confirm this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.211.77.206 (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Spoiler warning

I've redone Kusma's removal of the unnecessary "spoiler" warning from a section clearly marked "Suicides in fiction". Anyone reading past that section header has been clearly warned what to expect, so an extra warning is superfluous. --Tony Sidaway 14:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a proxy war. Please abstain from implementing your policy until the discussion is over. --87.189.89.215
No, it's really just a use of templates that is just silly. I'm with Tony and Kusma. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable, (red links)?

if someone is a red wiki link, they aren't notable are they! Artlondon 18:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Vince Foster

Is it necessary to characterize Vince Foster's suicide as "still controversial"? The intro on his own Wikipedia page shows that multiple independent investigators--and some arguably not-so-independent investigators, such as Ken Starr--didn't find it controversial at all. CFBSolon 01:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Bogus Listings?

There are some listings here that sound awfully suspicious:

  1. Amber Greene (2003) Died because she was raped by a moose
  2. Eric Goetz (2005) Died from overusing the name rick baalman

Kottmeier 07:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetical order needs to be fixed

For whatever reason, the A section is ordered by first name instead of by the second letter of the last name, as would be standard. This needs to be fixed.68.45.106.216 (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks.-gadfium 19:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed entry

Removed this one:

  • Xavier Murguia (2007), Amateur gay pornography actor who unexpectedly pulled out a handgun and shot himself while filming on the set of his 3rd, and now defunct, film.

Googling gives nothing and it seems that this might as well be someone pulling a prank on a friend. If I'm wrong, put him back.

Removing people with no article

Since this list is basically unreferenced, with the article links standing in for referencing, I've gone ahead and removed a number of redlinked items and those without applicable articles. I've also added a references section while I'm at it; there was only one reference in the whole list. Many of the people I removed are notable enought that they could be readded with refenences (or with an article containing references); some didn't appear to be notable at all and shouldn't appear in this list. Please don't just blindly readd this material without sourcing it. If there's no source for the suicide, or no source for the notability of the particular persona lleged to commit suicide, their name should not appear here. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to split the fiction material into a new article

Like it says in the section title up there, I propose that the two sections of fictional suicides be split into their own article, tenatively List of suicides in fiction (List of fictional suicides, which reads more cleanly, is ambiguous). My reasons for the proposal:

  1. Fundamentally, they are different topics - suicides that actually happened versus suicides in fiction. At present, they are artificially welded together by the shared "suicide" concept, but browsing either part of the list should make it clear what the differences are.
  2. The list as it stands is fairly long, and each of the proposed articles is a substantial section, so splitting will result in two shorter, more readable lists.
  3. Most fundamentally, the standards for verification (and the consequences of insufficient verification) are different for the two topics. For real world suicides, we absolutely, positively, need sourcing for the assertion of suicide, and if that's not obtainable, we shouldn't have it on the list. For fictional incidents of suicide, it may well be more difficult to verify (though it might also be easier, for well known works), but the consequences of unverified information are a bit less. As a consequence, splitting the article will help maintain each part to an acceptable level of accuracy given the separate standards.

Since this can be a sensitive article, though, I'd like to get other people's opinions before giong forward with a split. I realize that it's just now coming up on Christmas, so I anticipate not going forward for a while. However, if there aren't any serious objections, I'm likely to carry it forward after January 1. Any thoughts?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavia immer (talk • contribs)

I read the title of this section, and I thought it was a joke. Are there really fictional suicides in here? If so, I would say it's not only desirable but necessary to put them in their own article. The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I think splitting the fiction out is a great idea.-gadfium 04:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: It's after January 1, so in light of the lack of objections, it's done. Feel free to look over the material there for anything you feel needs improvement. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Split by method

I think this is a poor idea, whether used to split into multiple articles or multiple sections. We already list the method of suicide for each person, but grouping by it makes no more sense than grouping by nationality or occupation.-gadfium 03:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In practice, the most useful sorting method for anything is the one that takes the least work to understand. Sorting the whole by method would make it more difficult to find appropriate information. More to the point, we have many subcategories of Category:Suicides by method that this is redundant to. I would suggest that the IP editor look at those categories first (and I'll add a link in the list for it). — Gavia immer (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Takako Konishi?

Takako Konishi

She has her own article. She committed suicide. But does she count as notable? Juggertrout (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

She seems to be. In general, if someone has their own eponymous article, and it's not about to be deleted or merged to some more general article, that's enough notability for this list. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

I went back through the list of 2008 deaths and added any suicides that weren't listed here. Just in case anyone was wondering why I have so many recent edits. I'll do 2007 later. Juggertrout (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the entry for Robert E. Howard. I removed Red Sonja from the list of his characters and added King Kull and Solomon Kane. Red Sonja was created by Marvel Comics editor and writer Roy Thomas. He used as inspiration two of Howard's characters, Dark Agnes and Red Sonya. Darci (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of List of suicides in fiction

Just to let interested parties know, List of suicides in fiction, which was split from content previously on this page, has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_suicides_in_fiction. Since there has been discussion of merging the material back to this page, editors here may be interested in contributing to the discussion. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Sands

Howdy Irvine22, you were a part of the discussion at the Bobby Sands article, where 'no consensus' was reached to describe Sands death as suicide. Why did you add his name to this article? GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Accusation of canvassing

I would like to respond to the false accusation made by Gavia immer and Tbsdy, the second false accusation has made against me regarding this article in a year. I have refuted this accusation on Gavia's Talk Page by pointing out what the Canvasing policy really says, and how I have not engaged in any of the four behavior that that policy lists as criteria.

For this, and Gavia's reverting during the above consensus discussion (a policy blockable policy violation in itself), I will be referring his behavior to the Administrator Noticeboard. In choosing whether to continue to allow the false accusation to defame me by allowing the banner to remain at the top of the consensus discussion, or censor it and any discussion that others may wish to participate in regarding that accusation, I've decided to simply move it here, to keep the two discussions separate. Nightscream (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nightscream, maybe rather than running off to get others involved it would be simpler if you just explained how you arrived at the list of people to notify of this discussion.
Gavia, maybe you could explain why you thought the selection was "non-neutral"? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Inspection of recent posts finds that User:Nightscream says he invited everyone who posted to this talk page recently. This would certainly be non-neutral. Do we have any reason to believe that this is not the case? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I have no particular insight into how Nightscream selected his list of people to notify. I do know that he elected to notify a list of people he selected rather than add neutral notices somewhere like WikiProject Biography; presumably, his selection criterion is based on who would support his viewpoint. A larger point is that his canvassing notice explicitly encourages people to skip earlier discussion - that is definitely non-neutral, because ten months earlier he claimed there were many unreferenced items here, and it evaporated for the same reason - that the items he claimed were unreferenced had references. Telling editors to please just ignore that is definitely not a neutral solicitation - that is why the notice above was originally at the top of this section, to catch people's eye before they skipped over it. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't get to have it both ways. You can't say "I don't know he 'selected' them" while simultaneously accusing me of 'selecting' people that I knew would agree with me, which is what you did. The idea that positing a notice "somewhere" is neutral, whereas contacting people on their Talk Pages is not, is a non sequitur, as is the notion that this encourages people to "skip" other discussions. So long as I have no way of knowing how these people would lean, then it was neutral. At the very least, your refusal to even talk to me before making such a public accusation makes it clear that you need to be counseled on things like WP:AGF, WP:Civility, WP:Attack, etc.

And yes, the article is indeed mostly unreferenced. Information is not "referenced" when it has a citation in "some article somewhere else." It is referenced when it has an inline citation in the article being discussed. Inline citations are not a "style" as you claim. They're Wikipedia policy. Nightscream (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Nightscream, you're mistaken. WP:CITE is a guideline. For that matter, WP:RS is also a guideline. It is only in cases of contentious material that WP:V requires an incite cite -- and I hope you don't consider Marc Antony's suicide to be contentious. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The policy, WP:V, requires an inline citation for anything challenged or likely to be challenged, contentious or not. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm deliberately not commenting on the citation question itself, but on the canvassing:

  • Gavia immer: I see no reason to think that Nightscream was selective in his invitations. There is nothing wrong in using talk pages to get people involved in discussion.
  • Nightscream : It would probably have been better not to recommend skipping discussion in your invitation.

OK, everyone happy? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not recommend skipping the discussion. I pointed out that there was one, and even linked everyone I contacted to that discussion (instead of say, starting a different one), and said that they could scroll down to the more recent posts if they wanted to. The reason for this is because I know how loathe some people are to read long discussions, and getting them to participate in consensus discussions can be difficult for this reason, among others. For some reason, many who are invited to participate in such discussions don't want to read the whole thing carefully, and Sarek just provided me with a prime example:

Sarek, no offense, buddy, but this isn't the discussion for the citations. That's above. This is a subsection discussion to talk about Gavia's accusation of canvassing. Can you move your post up to the main discussion? Thanks.

In any event, I wouldn't have said this if I knew it would lead to Gavia once again seeing something nefarious in it that wasn't there, given his tendency to split every hair in an effort to falsely accuse me of wrongdoing. Needless to say, I will not do that again, and apologize if it came off wrong. Nightscream (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. Nightscream : It would probably have been better not to suggest skipping discussion in your invitation. Now, please, lets get on with fixing the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just fixed the order of the comments above to make it clear that you were the one who brought up policy vs guidelines, so if you want to move your own comment, feel free. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh god, what nonsense Artlondon (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Assumptions

  • This article needs to stop 'assuming' suicides. Diana Barrymore's death was not ruled a suicide. She overdosed and that's all. Whether intentionally or by accident will never be known. And since she died there's no proof her death was intentional on her part. On the flip side Thelma Todd's death is never ruled a suicide though several stories persist to the reason for her death: homicide, accident -she fell asleep and was overcome by carbon monoxide. Hardly ever see that she MAY have taken her own life but since she died and like Barrymore, the reasons will never be known. Koplimek (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thelma Todd isn't listed here, even under "Possible suicides". As far as Diana Barrymore goes, the article has just-barely-acceptable sourcing for her having committed suicide, so she's listed here - but I couldn't find any better sources when I was looking recently. It might be preferable to move her to "Possible suicides" - but the best thing to do is find better sources for her death, if they exist. In particular, if you know of any better sources, the Diana Barrymore article could use them in general. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
yes that's what I mean, Thelma's is never seen as a suicide or Possible suicide. It's taken for granted that it was accidental or even homicide. Discernation still persist to this day.

Koplimek (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Very much agree on the assumption of suicides. As a member of a family which experienced a suicide, I am well aware of the particular grief and guilts that can occur in the survivors. Spouses or parents or children of a suicide suffer in particular ways when a loved one dies in this fashion. I recently reverted "an apparent suicide" with respect to a wife of a notable author since there was no documentation. So agree that we should by no means "assume" a suicide, and err on the side of non-inclusion on this list. Stellarkid (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Christine Norman, her story

I know there isn't an article on her, but her story was that of a once famous actress. Below you can read on two websites Hartsdale Cemetary

Christine Norman Koplimek (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you create an article on her, and then we can add her to the list? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Citations Needed

I have come here in response to a request at the WP:V talk page, asking whether list articles need citations. The argument for saying "no" to this question is that lists are a form of Summary Style, and the information is cited at the main article on the list entry). However, this assumes that the information actually is cited at the main article. This is not the case with a large portion of articles on the people listed here. I took a look at the articles for first 10 entries on this list... over half of them do not give a citation for the person's suicide (indeed, several of the articles are completely unsourced). This is not acceptable.

Frist, I am a strong believer in saying that there is no "summary style exception" to WP:V... all articles need sources, even lists (and especially so if the list topic is at all controvercial). Second, even if I were to accept the argument for such an exemption, there is a serious problem with this list... the information needs be cited somewhere... either here or in the main article. Please fix. Blueboar (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind, I agree that every item here needs to be sourced impeccably - here's my very first series of edits to the list [1] to give you an example. I prefer just keeping the sources in the linked articles, because it would bloat this page considerably to duplicate all the sources from the articles, and practically all of them would be duplicates (hence why that style is allowed). If it's genuinely contentious, that can be changed, but at the moment I see only one editor objecting to it.

As far as the actual quality of referencing in the articles, lets make sure we distinguish between articles with no cited sources at all, and those that simply lack inline citations. If there's no sourcing at all, or the sources don't address the manner of the article subject's death, then item in question shouldn't be here, period. I remove additions with bad sourcing all the time, even if the actual assertion of suicide seems to be legitimate. I've also tracked sources down and added them to the main article, when that was easy enough to do. On the other hand, if it's just a lack of inline citations in the main article, the fix is to add them. You didn't mention which articles you checked, so I don't know which applies here. However, I've checked the sourcing on most of these before, so I suspect it's the latter. So long as the provided sources do cover the facts of the person's death, it's fine. It's not ideal, but it meets requirements. Just to repeat, if there isn't even that much sourcing, then it shouldn't be here, so feel free to remove it. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I can see you've tagged some of the ones you checked. Struck that part of my comments. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Followup on the ones you tagged: Johnny Ace has a reference in the text, but it's badly formatted. Robert Adams, Jr. has a source, but not a full reference. Stanley Adams has a dead reference and has been tagged since December 2007; that should go. Stuart Adamson has a full reference; the {{cn}} tag is for a speculative sentence disputing his intent to commit suicide. Neil Aggett has sources, but they support moving to the "Possible suicides" section. Sergei Akhromeyev has no references at all; that one should go too. I don't see the badly formatted references as a problem with this article, but I agree that finding two completely unreferenced items in the first half of the "A" listings indicates that there's a need to review this. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
If the article on each person does not have a source to support the suicide, than in my opinion, that person's name should be removed from this list. Nightscream (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Since neither Gavia nor anyone else has added citations to the article in the ten months since my last post, or even continued the discussion, it seems that we need to address the matter again. I'm going to contact as many other editors as I can to participate in this.

Some have floated the notion the "summary style" notion that the presence of a citation in the parent article of each person is sufficient. This is wrong for two reasons, one of policy, logic and implication, and the other of whether those parent articles are sourced. Let's start with the first. Asserting that any article does not need sources flies in the face of WP:V. WP:V applies to all articles, and I know of no policy that says list articles should be exempt. This is additionally a problem because suicide can be a potentially contentious or controversial area, and listing people on this page without cites could lead to problems. Moreover, the idea that information should be sourced in one article that is arbitrarily designated a "parent" article, and not others that are not, is a poor idea. With respect to the harboring of information, articles are hierarchically homogenous. One is not designated as the "home" article, to the exclusion of others. Using this reasoning, a reader clicking onto one article with a given bit of info might be given a source to follow, but not on another article with the identical information. Think of the implications of this: The article on Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, for example, might source their suicide, but the article on the Columbine Massacre might not, or vice versa. Obviously, this is a bad idea. Information should be well-sourced regardless of which article it's in.

The second problem relates to the issue of whether those parent articles actually have sources. To investigate this, I went through the A's. I found ten whose parents articles did not source the suicide: Hatazo Adachi, Ryūnosuke Akutagawa, Clodius Albinus, Jean Améry, Fridolin Anderwert, Gwili Andre, Marc Antony, Marshall Applewhite, Hubert Aquin and George Ault. And that's just the A's. Can you imagine how many are in the entire article?

Assuming that we are in agreement here that this article needs a source for each suicide (and I'm hoping that consensus will do so), the next question is what to do with the article pending that sourcing. Given the amount of material in it, and the notion that must of these might have sources in the BLP articles, I'm loathe to simply remove it, especially given WP:PRESERVE. What I would suggest is moving them to the Talk Page until they can be sourced, as was suggested to me for situations like this on Jimbo Wales' Talk Page. Thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Until a citation is obtained, the fact citation tags could be added. Citations for suicides are particularly needed for politically charged entries. A dispute over the inclusion/exclusion of Bobby Sands (since resolved), was a good example. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Nightscream, if it's not too laborious then proceed, nevertheless I'd really like to hear what some of the other posters think. Four topics down from this one I left info on Christine Norman, a Broadway actress. I could've cited that information but alas there's no article on her. I may create one on her later and then bring back the info as a citation. But that's pending that I can uncover more about her than just her death. Many of the entries seem to be conscientious but it is a long list. (pardon, forgot my signature.)Koplimek (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Whether someone on list has a Wikipedia article is irrelevant. Wikipedia articles, after all, cannot act as articles in other sources, since that is circular. If there is a source in the article, then that can be added, much as I did with the A's. But regardless of whether there's a Wikipeida article on him/her, a source is what has to be added. Whether that source is from a Wikipedia article or elsewhere doesn't matter. And do we really want to fact tag the entire list, GoodDay? Nightscream (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh no, we shouldn't use an article as source. Having re-considered, I believe we should (as mentioned) transfer questionable entries to the talkpage (until they can be sourced). GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nightscream, when you originally took an interest in this page, you tagged it as {{unreferenced}} in the same edit that you changed the name of the "References" section, containing references, to "Notes" [2]. You later justified this to me by saying that "that's what those sections are called" [3]. Given that, I don't know what to make of the fact that you have tagged Jean Améry as unreferenced, removed it from List of suicides, and listed it here as an example of an unreferenced article, when it has an explicit reference for his suicide, added by me [4], in a section titled "Notes". I do know that I can make nothing good of it. I have not yet inspected the other articles listed in depth, but your personal idiosyncrasies about reference style are not sufficient to tag referenced articles as unreferenced to make a point. If other articles have weak sourcing, I encourage anyone to improve the sourcing, or to remove them as a last resort, but I myself have already removed those that genuinely lack sourcing.

By contrast, the issue of whether or not certain of those references should be duplicated here is a matter of style preferences. I am on record as opposing such duplication, because it's just duplication, and would result in a huge references section with no information that isn't found elsewhere. If there is a general consensus to have duplicate references here anyhow, then I will respect it, but I have to say that I don't place much weight on your own personal sole preferences, because they don't appear useful or consistent to me. I am sorry if that sounds like a personal dispute, because I genuinely attempt not to have personal disputes - but it's a fact that I have had problems with the your approach to this article, and based on your current actions I still do have a problem with your approach to this article. I am absolutely in favor of quality sourcing for potentially controversial facts about people's deaths; I am not in favor of creating the appearance of a problem so that you can claim there is a problem. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

All claims in Wikipedia articles must be sourced in the article making the claim, even in lists. Any item without a source can be summarily deleted from the list/article, particularly here, where claim is of a fairly serious nature. Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Summary style does allow this form of referencing for lists; nonetheless, as I said, I have no problem if there's a genuine consensus to use full references here. I do have a problem with Nightscream's making deliberately inflated claims of articles being unreferenced in order to push through his preferred style. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Summary style is a guideline, WP:V is policy. If the two disagree, as they may appear to here, policy takes precedence. Jayjg (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
To follow up to my main point above, of the ten articles claimed to be unreferenced by Nightscream, seven (Hatazō Adachi,Ryūnosuke Akutagawa, Jean Améry, Mark Antony, Marshall Applewhite, Hubert Aquin, George Ault) do have references covering the death of their subjects, albeit not always formatted in the best possible manner. One, Fridolin Anderwert, has only non-english tertiary sourcing and could stand to be improved. Two (not ten!) of the articles do seem to lack acceptable sourcing and should stay gone unless they get improved referencing (I'll see if I can do so). While it's bad to have two such unreferenced articles, the original claim doesn't hold water. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Further followup: Clodius Albinus and Gwili Andre, which I agree did not formerly have acceptable sourcing, now do both have references specific to their deaths. Since none of the articles removed by Nightscream is now unreferenced, I will be reversing his removal of them. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is a balance between when to cite things in a summary-type article, and when to leave the citations to a more detailed child article. Obviously, if you point out there is a citation for a specific fact in a child article, nobody can continue to claim in good faith that the fact in question is "unverifiable". However, for this particular article ("list of suicides"), I think that the topic is such that it's better to include references directly here.

Really, I am more concerned with the scope of this list than with sourcing: is the goal really to include every person with a Wikipedia article who was claimed to have committed suicide? But that might be a question for another day. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Citations are absolutely necessary when specific claims are made about specific entities (people, businesses, countries, organizations). Adding an entity to a list implicitly makes claims about the entity. I agree with GoodDay that we should use "fact" tags to acknowledge the lack of a citation and to flag the need for further work on the article. Give editors 6 months or so to provide citations before deleting anything. Jojalozzo (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Claims of suicide should be well sourced, both in the parent article and in the list. If an editor is of the opinion that a subject is not well sourced, it should be perfectly acceptable to - at the very least - comment them out and make a note on the talk page. It would also be appropriate to look for a source oneself, but until sourced should not be there. Better to err on the side of restraint. Stellarkid (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I support Gavia immer's position; the linked articles must contain good sources for the suicide, but this follows summary style and need not contain a reference for each entry which links to an article. I am concerned that adding a redundant reference to every line will bloat the article, and it may be necessary to split it into sub-articles, perhaps by alphabet. I think this would dramatically decrease the value of the article.-gadfium 06:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Lists in Wikipedia can border on being directories. I totally support the transition of Wikipedia's scope to become inclusive of directories and lists, but as it currently stands, a list of suicides is just an inappropriate endeavour. I'd recommend we focus our efforts on pushing for the inclusion of directories and lists into WP's overall scope in an effort to expand the concept beyond merely an encyclopedia. Nick carson (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There isn't even anything to discuss here. If there is no reference to support the claim of suicide then the person can - and should - be removed from the list. It would be reasonable to check the main article first, and then (assuming the claim is made there) copy over whatever reference is used to support it. There are no exemptions to this. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core value. The time spent discussing this would be much better used adding references to the article. Many do have references which can be copied straight from the main article - cut and paste. I've just done two to get us started. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Like Claypole, I copy the sources for a list article if someone insists, but in my case its just to keep the peace, for I think there is no reason in logic or even in Wikipedia policy for doing so. Everything must must be sourced--that is a core policy. How things are to be sourced is a guideline, and flexible, with many special cases and qualifications. My view of it is that if the source can be found in Wikipedia, and there is a clear pointer to it, that is sufficient--and having the link to the main article is a sufficient and obvious pointer. They won;t disappear to matter how the material is edited, because unlike other possible sources, we keep earlier versions accessible. consideration of readability are real, and a sufficient basis for guidance upon style matters like whether to do direct or indirect referencing. FWIW, I came here from AN/I, not a personal notice. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
HI DGG, how things are sourced is part of the policy. Anything challenged or likely to be challenged needs an inline citation—on that page, not on some other. The point of sourcing is to make things easy for the reader. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
it is only a list. Anyway is fine by me Artlondon (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here. I haven't read all of the above, so sorry if this has already been dealt with, but lists need sources just like any other article, and summary-style sections need sources too. There is no exemption from source requirements for any kind of article or section. All material challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source in the form of an inline citation. That's the policy (WP:V) and it's widely upheld. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I said above. Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Nightscream requested my comment on this subject. [5]

Over many years experience of editing conditions on Wikipedia my opinion has shifted from favoring loose coupling (in which it's okay to include an item if the main article has sources establishing list membership) to far more stringent direct citation. In the end the sheer difficulty of maintaining articles according to the former practice outweighs the convenience of trusting editors to only add properly referenced items, and loose coupling was always against the spirit of the verifiability policy.

I do not favor "citation needed" tags and the like because, in my opinion, their use has enabled a lazy "tag and forget" culture to pervade much of Wikipedia editing. Verifiability is one of the most important Wikipedia policies but tagging has diluted it to the point where as an encyclopedia we tolerate competely unsourced statements almost indefinitely as long as they're marked with a tag. I would not want to encourage such practices, so I say that unreferenced items should be removed from a list article and discussed on talk to establish whether a reliable source confirms membership.

In short, I very much concur with Jayjg. Guidelines do not supersede policies. Sourcing must be provided in the article containing an item. --TS 14:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest that everyone who comes here and says "yes we must have references" adds one reference to the article. Most of them are easy - follow the link, find the reference from the article and copy it to this one. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest that, instead, we each remove one unreferenced item until references are provided? It is the responsibility of the editor advocating inclusion to provide the reference--and if it's easy there's no excuse not to. --TS 15:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I would agree in cases where there isn't a clear reference in the main article. But when there is, let's just copy it across. I know it's the responsibility of the adder, but this is a cooperative encyclopedia, not a blame assignment exercise. Copying the reference will be hardly any more effort than deleting, and a lot more constructive. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
In reading Gavia immer's January 27 post in which he responded to my reporting that ten of the suicides in the A's, were unsourced, I'm guessing that perhaps he took issue with that assertion because I used "reference" or "source" a bit too loosely with "inline citation". If that's it, I apologize for not being precise enough; I'll try to do better from here on in. Nonetheless, this is still a problem because it goes to WP:V: Readers cannot verify information if there's a list of works (especially if they're not online works), and they don't know which one contains that particular piece of information in question. The following suicides in the A's may have lists of references (sometimes referred to as "Bibliography", et al.), but no inline citations: Ryūnosuke Akutagawa, Marc Antony and Hubert Aquin. Thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been over the above as well, and while I see value in the summary style argument, I'm inclined to go with Carl and say that the potentially contentious nature of the claims here are enough to suggest that this article will need a high standard. The problem with relying on other articles is that they change, and, unfortunately, articles on Wikipedia stand alone, so a change to one article may not be reflected in another. I just saw the reverse on some other articles: the summary version was being questioned by editors, but the article where it came from (also equally questionable) was being left alone. It's always going to be a problem, but I feel it's a tad less of one if every inclusion here has to make its own case here. (Out of interest I checked a few articles, and one had no sources for the suicide claim at all, while another had potential sources, but nothing inline, and the refs were questionable). That said, this does feel like a topic that could better be handled by a category, which would place all of the requirements for inclusion in the source article, but I guess that's a different issue. - Bilby (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pasting the following four posts here from Gavia immer's Talk Page, where we've been having a discussion:

Great, thanks. Now I haven't counted the number of "votes" in the discussion (though I suppose we could do that), but offhand it appears that most people have concluded--and citing Wikipedia polices in doing so--that referencing each suicide on the list is in order. Before we go further, are we agreed on this point? Nightscream (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


It does seem to be the current consensus, yes. On the other hand, there is a general lack of editors putting this belief into action by adding references to the list. — Gavia immer 02:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


True, but that's a separate matter. The point is, policy requires inline citations. I can't be everywhere at once, but I did spend quite a bit of time doing so for the A's. Since that article is one of your babies, you could certainly add a citation or two a day. But even aside from that, I think the ones whose parent article lack an inline citation should be moved to the Talk Page until that's changed. Is that a fair compromise? Nightscream (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


That doesn't really seem like a compromise to me - it's more than you were going to do before, not less. I acknowledge that you have done some of the work that you want to see done, but really, if you want the work done you have to be willing to do it; Wikipedia doesn't work on a principle of requiring others to do such jobs. I have been adding inline references (since that is the consensus) any time I have reason to edit a list entry, but remember, I think such references are unneeded. I don't see that I have any reason to do more than that, and I don't see what slashing the list will accomplish that couldn't be accomplished by adding the references instead. — Gavia immer 03:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not have to be willing to do the work (at least not all of it). The burden for verifiability is on the person who adds, re-adds or favors the material in question. It is not my responsibility to source a suicide, since I'm not the one alleging these are suicides in the first place. If what you propose were s.o.p. here, then that would give free reign to anyone to dump completely unsubstantiated material into an article, and send good faith editors on potential wild goose changes to confirm/verify it, which is untenable, and unfair to them. Requiring each editor to be responsible for the material they wish to include in an article not only distributes responsibility in a manner that is fair and logical, but in a way that properly upholds WP:BURDEN.

Jimmy Wales and another editor supported my interpretation of WP:V in a discussion some time ago on Jimmy Wales' Talk Page, and Jimmy Wales himself stated that unsourced material, especially of a contentious nature, must be removed immediately. Particularly relevant to this discussion is User:Unomi's final post in that discussion, on May 15, 2009, in which he says:

Two things, 1. The quote serves to underscore this : 'Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles and do not move it to the talk page'. This relates entirely to damaging information. 2. The quote contains this: unless it can be sourced.

This information is certainly contentious, but if it can be sourced, who does the sourcing? I was at least am willing to add cites to the A's, and to move the information here until citations are provided for the rest, instead of deleting it outright from the article. That is indeed a compromise. But now you're saying that you have no intention of adding cites to the rest. If that's the case, and you have no intention of meeting in the middle, then the material should be removed. And there's also the problem of the ones, such as those three or so ones in the A's, whose parent articles lack inline cites, but just a list of sources at the bottom.

Thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that we were having a private conversation about the possibility of a "fresh start" between us, and you have dumped a selective quotation from that discussion here without context (full previous discussion is at User talk: Gavia immer#A fresh start, for those interested) and without asking whether I felt that was a good idea. Apart from that, I think that I will not edit further on this article. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
We were having a discussion on your Talk Page, which is not private, but public. But what passages have I related out of context, and how? Nightscream (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I started watching this article because the previous maintainer made a plea for new people to do so, but it's not a special interest of mine. Since Nightscream and others have expressed an interest in maintaining the article, I'll remove it from my watchlist now.-gadfium 03:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that I am a bit late to the party, not to 'pile on' but I too believe that material of this nature need their references linked directly. For a similar example see List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience and trust that the sourcing was not always that conscientious. Though there is indeed quite a bit of work that needs to be done to bring this list up to that standard, it remains necessary. I wish I could help out but unfortunately I have not had much time for WP recently. I am compelled to support moving the list wholesale to a talkpage section and moving out entries as they have their sources attributed appropriately. Best, Unomi (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Am I correct in understanding most of the list was deleted bcause of concern over references?

Why not leave something up if it links to a main article? The articles have ciatations.

I just see the list as a handy shortcut to articles....not as a significant piece of stand-alone work requiring ciations.

Sure, if the list mentions someone who is NOT the subject of a Wiki article, then yes, that should have a citation. 16:52, 19 February 2010 User:Bassetman4

See the discussion above. Nightscream (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced material in need of sourcing

I'm moving the following unsourced material here from the article until it can be properly sourced per WP:NOR/WP:V/WP:RS/WP:CS, et al, as well as the consensus developed in the Citations Needed discussion above. I've added sources to the list of A's myself from the parent articles that have inline citations; hopefully other editors will take the initiative and do the same with the rest. Nightscream (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being bold and "rebooting" the article. MahangaTalk 05:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing many famous people

The list seems very incomplete--where are Ernest Hemingway, Sylvia Plath, Anne Sexton, Vincent Van Gogh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.182.43 (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion topic up above. MahangaTalk 05:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

or Hitler?194.75.159.78 (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

[Ernest Hemingway]. That's all I need to say. There are 100's of sources, use one and put him up. He's one of the most important suicides of the 20th century. Vincent Van Gogh- but that's iffy because he shot himself in a fit but regretted what he did. Kurt Cobain is kind of up there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.164.18 (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

First, new posts or discussions go at the bottom. Second, no one is disputing that there are sources, but the person who wishes to include the material is the one who has to cited them. Is there some reason why you can't put him up?
Also, make sure you sign your posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

John Kennedy Toole

I think should be moved to the 'unknown before death' side, as he was totally unknown as a writer until many years after his death. Objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.185.241 (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Althought it's a contentious category, I think since he wasn't even published until after death, it's fairly safe to say he wasn't known as a writer until then. Markleci (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I TOTALLY DISAGREE, the page is about notable people, not notable people before their death. Toole is a good example of an amazingly talented individual who killed himself... its irrelevant if his talent was recognized before or after his death! As one of the most famous cases of writer-suicides it would be really silly not to include him in this list because of an apparent general lack of semantical comprehension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.239.97.10 (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. I've actually been vaguely thinking about just getting rid of that section; I don't know that it helps clarify the list at all. One clue about this, in my mind is that so many "unknown before death" types (Toole qualifies) actually aren't listed there, but in the main section. In practice, it's being used to separate out some suicide attackers, which I don't think is necessarily a good thing. On the subject at hand, though, if the section stays, Toole should be there. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to follow up, since there hasn't been any objection to the idea, I went ahead and dispersed the "unknown before death" section into the main listings. Anyone should feel free to reverse this if they wish, but I believe it's an improvement to the article. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. It was an unnecessary complication to the article structure.-gadfium 20:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add Kurt Donald Cobain to the list. He should be there. Thanks.

190.41.247.231 (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 22:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Or better yet, sign in for an account, and add the material yourself. It's free, takes only seconds, and you can remain anonymous by choosing a username. Nightscream (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that list is really, really arbitrary. 89.204.137.222 (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

New sections and messages go at the bottom, not the top. As for the list, see the previous discussion above in this section, and in the "Citations Needed" discussion further up. For future reference, looking through a Talk Page to see if previous discussions addressed the issue that you want to bring up might also help. Nightscream (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
There are almost as many people listed whose last name starts with "A" (32 entries) as people whose last name begins with any of all the other letters in the alphabet (37 entries). Does anyone know why this list is so front-loaded? Did somebody begin to work on it in alphabetical order and then abandon the project, or is there a natural/unnatural propensity for A-surnamed folks to take their own lives? 168.98.67.11 (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see the post I made directly above yours regarding where to make new posts, and for the (partial) answer to your question. After the discussion that took place in the "Citations needed" section in January and February, I decided to make a good example by restoring all the A's, albeit with the sources that they previously lacked. It was my hope that it would spur others to do the same with the other letters, but so far, additions have been sporadic. Anyone want to follow my example? Nightscream (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please include Philosopher, Gilles Deleuze to the list. Regards 217.44.93.81 (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 00:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Brad Delp (2007) Lead singer of Boston, carbon monoxide poisoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Delp) 174.98.217.67 (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read the note at the bottom and keep it there. As for additions, please see previous edit requests, such as the ones right above this one. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Charmaine Dragun

Charmaine_Dragun{{edit semi-protected}}

  • Charmaine Dragun (1978), Australian Broadcast Journalist, committed suicide (2007) by jumping The Gap in Sydney area.

Raspberrian (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

{{edit semi-protected}} Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

Reference Columbine Documents

Dtaylor05 (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Oxguy3 (logged in as Oxguy the 3rd) talk 15:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for providing that. :-) Nightscream (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Gwili Andre

I have removed Gwili Andre's name from the list because the only citation supporting the claim that she committed suicide by self immolation is the book Hollywood Babylon. Hollywood Babylon is notorious for inaccuracies and flat out falsehoods (a few of which turned into some vicious urban legends) and isn't a reliable source for content included in an encyclopedia. The only reliable source for Andre's death I've found states that the cause of the fire she died in was not determined. In fact, I've never found another source outside of Hollywood Babylon that claims she killed herself. I think her name should only be added back if another source that supports the suicide claim can be found. Pinkadelica♣ 07:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ian Curtis

{{edit semi-protected}} Ian Curtis

220.253.225.165 (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The information about Brad Delp is incorrect. His suicide was in 2007, not 2008. Also, he did not use charcoal "canisters" as listed, he used charcoal grills. Someone might have said that because he had a hose connected to the exhaust on his car, but he was found in the bathroom along with the grills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.184.62 (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Budd Dwyer

Recommend an addition: Robert "Budd" Dwyer was a PA state senator and treasurer. In 1987, he committed suicide during a press conference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Budd_Dwyer#Public_suicide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.47.175 (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Richard Farnsworth

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add:

190.244.254.63 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:V and WP:CS. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain's death

Many investigators think Kurt Cobain may had be murdered. Therefore You should remome him of the list. -- Poposho 04:31, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There will always be conspiracy theories but until it is proven I believe Cobain belongs on the list with a disclaimer. Redfarmer 15:04, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why are we making an exception for the NPOV rule here? We've gone over it at the Kurt article, and we've decided that we can not classify this as a suicide since the evidence is still questionable. -- LGagnon 19:28, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Kurt should be on the list but it should be noted that there are strong theroies that point to murder

Do we have to say alleged Columbine High School shooter? Is there any doubt? DJ Clayworth 20:17, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories aside, I don't believe there's any doubt. Redfarmer 15:04, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How is it known that Adolf Hitler, and especially Eva Braun committed suicide? Dori 14:29, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

The following didn't have any dates, thus I removed them from the list:

BTW Kusaka Gennai is also listed on List_of_assassinated_persons. Soga was in the 6th century? -- User:Docu

If you're going to mention that Cobain may have been murdered, shouldn't you also add that there is suspicion that Elliott Smith was also murdered, and for that matter Salvador Allende?

Should the 9/11 terrorists be listed here? --Auximines 11:48, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What would people think of listing after each person's profession the method each person used? I think it would make the page more interesting. Also I think if there is some doubt that a person committed suicide they should still be listed, but with an asterisk or something indicating that murder (or whatever) is suspected by some. -R. fiend 18:52, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I put Kurt Corbain under possible sucicdes. I think that is the best place for him.ShadowWriter 04:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

if Elliott Smith is under "possible sucicdes" Kurt Cobain should be too, it is more widely thought that Kurt was murdered then that Elliott was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.254.70 (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

For Tom McHale, main article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_McHale lists carbon monoxide poisoning, this entry does not list cause of death (others do). *sorry, I am on a public computer to send this IP should be ignored, belongs to university library* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.102.122 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because you're on a public computer doesn't mean the IP should be ignored. Regardless of where you post from, you should sign your posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them, which will also automatically time stamp your messages too.

As far as McHale, the source cited in both the List article and McHale's article does not specify the means of suicide. I removed that material from McHale's article, as I could not find a source to support this via a Google search. Nightscream (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Dave Duerson

Proposed content:

  • Dave Duerson (2011) Two-time Super Bowl champion. The Miami-Dade County medical examiner reported that Duerson died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest.<ref name=independent>{{cite news|last=Foley|first=Stephen|title=Tragic NFL star's last wish could shed new light on game's risks|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/tragic-nfl-stars-last-wish-could-shed-new-light-on-games-risks-2221722.html|accessdate=26 February 2011|newspaper=[[The Independent]]|date=22 February 2011}}</ref>

--Michael Barkowski (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Spalding Gary and David Foster Wallace

Gray, Spalding - Jumped from Staten Island Ferry. Wallace, David Foster - Hanged. Quixola (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: I added Wallace, as I could find a source and it seemed to be unambiguously a suicide. Gray on the other hand I couldn't find a source and it seems that no one is positive he actually jumped. If you have source saying Gray definitely committed suicide, feel free to post it here and reopen the request. Cheers! — Bility (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Alan Turing

I suggest that Alan Turing (1912-1954), British mathematician, logician, cryptanalyst, and computer theorist, be added as one of the famous suicides. As his Wikipedia article says, his death was due to cyanide poisoning, and he is believed to have partially eaten a cyanide-poisoned apple. Ajlopp (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: From what I've read on his article, it seems uncertain as to whether his death was caused by suicide. Stickee (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What about Hannibal Barca?

would someone consider Hannibal Barca's suicide to avoid capture famous?--67.67.219.38 (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

In what way is fame relevant? Nightscream (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
well that was kind of a mistake on my part. call it bad wording. i was trying to suggest putting it on here--67.67.219.38 (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure. I forgot the article was protected. The Hannibal article has a source for his suicide, so I added him to this article, along with that source. Thanks for the suggestion! :-) Nightscream (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Del Shannon

I am not looking to get anything changed, I just have an addition for the list:

Charles Weedon Westover (1990) better known by his stage name Del Shannon committed suicide in his home by shooting himself with a .22 caliber Rifle

142.162.163.137 (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see the note at the top of this page. Nightscream (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Mohamed Bouazizi and Thich Quang Duc

Mohamed Bouazizi and Thich Quang Duc are notable suicides. They are missing from this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fast thinker (talk • contribs) 11:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion here because it does not pertain to the Proposed Criteria for Inclusion/Means of Classification discussion.
Then feel free to add them, with the proper citations. Thich Quang Duc was one of the many people removed from the list a year and a half ago because his inclusion was not sourced per WP:V. Nightscream (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Cleopatra: Suicide or not???

Some significant problems with Plutarch's account of the "suicide" present. a. He wrote 75 years after the fact. b. Cobras take any where from 20 minutes to 2 hours and may require 10 or more strikes just to kill one person, let alone Cleo and her poor pair of maidens. c. The snake wasn't found when Octavian's thugs showed up. d. Who provided her with the snake in the first place? e. If you were one the the handmaidens and just watched your queen allow a snake to repeatedly bite her, would you calmly pick it up and do the same. Or would you, like a normal person, scream bloody murder and run like hell? f. Wouldn't a nice dagger be faster and less painful?

Read more at http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/9444.html

Jim K.65.102.21.74 05:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Whether she actually suicided or not, it is a fact that she is one of the most famous people who have been ever reputed to have suicided. That fact alone (perhaps with qualifications about the historical accuracy) merits her a place on the list. JackofOz 07:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
And maybe Peter Brock intentionally drove into his tree. Maybe Heath Ledger intentionally died of a drug overdose - you can't be sure. And you won't put Heath Ledger on the list just because he might have commit suicide. And the same with Cleopatra, you can't be sure, therefore I disagree and think she does not deserve a place on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanatuhi (talk • contribs) 12:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
But nobody ever suggested Brock or Ledger suicided. Cleopatra, on the other hand, has been known for over 2000 years as the woman who clasped an asp to her bosom and then died. With appropriate qualifications as to the uncertain historicity of the matter, we should definitely include her. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Inclusion or exclusion on the list is not based on what individual editors think, it's based on mainstream sources. Mainstream sources regard her death as a suicide, so she goes on the list. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, or to soapbox about our personal opinions on the mainstream. Please see WP:No Original Research. Nightscream (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Tyler Clementi

This is in regards to Tyler Clementi's suicide. Clementi's college roommate did not secretly record him having sex, as this page states. Instead, he recorded him in an embrace with another man--there was no recording of sex.

Please change "...jumped off the George Washington Bridge after his roommate secretly recorded him having sex" to "..jumped off the George Washington Bridge after his roommate secretly recorded Clementi meeting with and embracing another man in his dorm room and then publicized the event on Twitter."

The New Yorker published a story on February 6th, 2012 that debunks the sex rumors: "It became widely understood that a closeted student at Rutgers had committed suicide after video of him having sex with a man was secretly shot and posted online. In fact, there was no posting, no observed sex, and no closet." This is an excerpt from the first page of the digital copy of this story on the New Yorker site. Here is the article: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/02/06/120206fa_fact_parker?currentPage=1

209.6.45.131 (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Chatterton and B.S. Johnson

Please add

Thomas Chatterton (1753), English poet, essayist, dramatist, forger, arsenic poisoning, presumed suicide, possible accident Groom, Nick (2002). The Forger's Shadow: How Forgery Changed The Course of Literature. London: Picador. p. 352. ISBN 033037432X.

and

B.S. Johnson (1973), English novelist, poet, literary critic, sports journalist, television producer and film-maker, cut his wrists" Coe, Jonathan (2004). Like a Fiery Elephant: The Story of B.S. Johnson. London: Picador. p. 480. ISBN 033035048X.

Brockbank Phillips (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Further categorisations - singers / actors / etc who died by suicide

Is it bossiple to get further breakdown of this list into for example "list of signers who died by suicide" and "actors who died by suicide"? 178.111.165.63 (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 10:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It's already subdivided alphabetically. Further subdivision would be redundant, I think. Nightscream (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Isabella Blow

I just though Isabella Blow should be mentioned in this list. She was a British fashion designer and muse to Alexander McQueen. 92.20.167.86 (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ray Combs

Add former Family Feud host Ray Combs after Kurt Cobain. His Wikipedia entry is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Combs Fsulka (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Suicides in famous people's families

should we include some of them? probably not

famous boxer george chuvalo lost 3 sons and 1 wife to suicide and ?drug overdoses?

I thinkn it should only be on the list if the person who committed the suicide was themselves notable. Nightscream (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Socrates

No Socrates on the list? Especially odd given the pic is about his suicide! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.73.159 (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Sorry it took so long to respond. Thanks for bringing it up. It allowed me to not only add it to the list, but to add citations for it in the Socrates article, where his suicide/death was not cited. Nightscream (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Elliott Smith to list of suicides.

Elliott Smith, October 21st, 2003 self inflicted stab wounds to the chest.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/earshot/remembering-elliott-smith-10th-anniversary-649705

142.68.38.26 (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: your source states that the stab wounds were inflicted at his home, but not that they were self-inflicted. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/smith-autopsy-inconclusive-20031231 reports: "the Los Angeles coroner's office said that it could not conclusively confirm that the fatal knife wound to his chest was self inflicted". --Stfg (talk) 09:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Ann Nicole Smith and Marilyn Monroe

Anna Nicole Smith Marilynn Monroe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.61.56 (talk) 02:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Anna Nicole Smith did not commit suicide. Marilyn Monroe's death was deemed a "possible" suicide, but other explanations have not been ruled out, so the status of her death as a suicide is unclear. Nightscream (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The Von Erichs?

Mike, Chris and Kerry Adkisson (better known by their pro-wrestling stage names as Mike, Chris and Kerry Von Erich) all committed suicide and they're all celebrities with their own separate entries in Wikipedia. So, why aren't they on this list? 107.144.133.110 (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2014

Someone needs to add Robin Williams, please. 96.61.115.42 (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done - by someone else - Arjayay (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2014

George Sanders (actor) suicide 2600:1006:B129:5601:F12D:92BF:87F3:47B6 (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Arjayay (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

David Carradine

Not sure he belongs on this page. The opening paragraph states that deaths "by accident or misadventure are excluded", but Carradine's death is generally accepted to be accidental. Thoughts? 209.90.140.72 (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Completely inappropriate, just Google "did David Carradine commit suicide?", and that will answer this question. Terry Foote (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

adding rationale for suicide, where available

The article already gives the rationale for some individuals (e.g., heavy stock market losses, escaping the Nazis). I think giving the rationale helps the reader to understand the motivation for suicide. As it is now we just see a long list of people who killed themselves.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is an existing example, not added by me:Robert Adams, Jr. (1906), congressman from Pennsylvania, shot himself after heavy losses in stock speculationOnBeyondZebrax (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
It should not be surprising that an article called "List of suicides" would be a list of names. I feel that if more information os added then it needs to be referenced and as we know, a link to a wikipedia article is not considered to be good enough. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus discussion: Should the reason for suicide be added?

The list of suicides list the name, occupation, and method of suicide, but there is no mention of the rationale for the suicide. I was asked to open a discussion on the talk page, so here is my proposal: the entries should list the name, occupation, method of suicide, and, where available, the rationale (e.g., depression)OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There are already some entries that have this format:

Finn M. W. Caspersen (2009), American financier and philanthropist, firearm, after battle with cancer and anticipated financial problems.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Adding such details would lead to bloat, and inconsistency, since the "reason" for many people's suicides may not be available. And for many others, it is often just depression, which might be repetitious. I think this is the sort of information that belongs in the person's individual article, but not in the list article, which needs to be summarize information with a sense of brevity. Yes, there were some entries that mentioned the reason before I removed them, but most did not, and those that did were often poorly written or poorly sourced. Nightscream (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This will almost always involve some level of conjecture, or an unreliable narrator. This is the type of thing that needs the context of what evidence there is for the reason, and that kind of context is too much for a list. oppose reasonGaijin42 (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I would rather not have a rationale added personally, because there can be more than one, particularly when an individual is in a rather strictly regimented society. One example which comes to mind quickly is Robin Williams, whose suicide has been previously accounted to either drug abuse or depression, but there are seemingly new reports that he recently was told that he has an Alzheimer's-like degenerative disorder. Other examples might be historical figures who seem to have committed suicide shortly after the death of their spouse, but who are thought by others to have committed suicide because the deceased spouse supplied all the money that the later suicide squandered, and that the suicide might have sought to avoid debtor's prison or the equivalent. There is so much speculation regarding the accuracy of the "final words" of the suicide and other factors that it is in many cases hard if not impossible to decide which of the multiple possibilities to include if rationale were to be included. John Carter (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This is not suitable for a list, because it always will require some degree of qualification. We can never be sure about the reasons. We can report what others say, and give the context for what they said. For example, the reasons a person gives in a suicide note may not be their real reasons, but we can report what was in the note, and the reader will judge how far to rely on it--but this would have to be in the article, where we could also report what RSs have said about the statement. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support leaving out the rationale I was initially opposed to having anything other than a name, but having seen what a little looks like, I like it, but it's hard to imagine (though it might be a failure on my part) someone who was not depressed committing suicide, so the "why" becomes, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................... well something that is locked inside a dead person's mind. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC).
  • Oppose addition of rationale Short answer - A list should be fairly concise and any kind of "rationale" for a suicide can be found in the subject's article if one applies. Long answer - Adding a rationale is an invite for drama and edit wars. I've yet to edit an article here where the subject died in this manner that didn't attract at least one person who wanted to challenge the findings or what people gave as the reason. Marilyn Monroe comes to mind. Further, if the person didn't leave a note or didn't act in a particularly suicidal manner, we can't just pull a reason from thin air. Depression can't be a catch all rationale because it is not always a sole motivator. All we can do now is re-report what friends and family guess was the reason and that is generally far too wordy to include in a list. Pinkadelica♣ 05:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose addition of rationale and for the avoidance of doubt, Support removal of rationales that are there. I suspect this will raise the ire of those trying to raise awareness of the problems arising from bullying, but depression, and other mental health issues, can make a clearly written suicide note, or farewell video, unreliable. This is a list, which allows people to find out more in the relevant article; although I note there are 5 names without their own article, which I suggest should be removed - Arjayay (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support leaving out/removing rationales, per conciseness and issues raised above about possible unreliable rationales. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support leaving out/removing rationales. There is a real danger of doing the argument fallacy named "Post hoc ergo propter hoc, which is Latin for "after this, therefore because of this"). An actor gets fired from a major TV show, and the next day, he jumps off a bridge. It is easy to say "he killed himself BECAUSE he was fired from the TV show", but this may not be the case.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support leaving out reasons, but open minded to an alternative, such as life circumstances immediately prior to the suicide. Say for instance, with Adolph Hitler "he could hear Soviet cannons outside his bunker" or with Kurt Cobain "he had an apparent suicide attempt the week before."Nightscream asked for my opinon on this as I've discussed it before - all I can say is that I don't remember what I said before, and I sure hope I have some consistency in my opinion. I think suicide is an act with multifaceted, very complex motivations that for many have their emotional roots going back decades. Furthermore, it's very possible that the people who've committed suicide don't fully understand why they did what they did, themselves. All they knew was that they were suffering, and they were done with it. So, if they don't know, how can anyone else? I hope this helps. Terry Foote (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of suicides

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of suicides's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ebert":

Reference named "NYT":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

FORMAT CHANGE SUGGESTIONS

Freshacconci- in reference to 2007 discussion about alphabetical order on this talk page - I Agree. It is simpler, easier to find references, makes the page look neater and is standard practice for most all educational/encyclopedia purposes. And as far as I could tell it did not mess with formatting or links. I am a new editor and I would appreciate some guidance on this, many thanks Coco Star3 (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_suicides/Archive_1&oldid=1235870711"