This is an archive of past discussions about Suicide. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
We have a section on the "prevention" of suicide. There are a number of psychological techniques which may be useful. Thus these with be "psychological prevention methods" rather than "prevention treatments". Thus Psychological would be a better heading.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Query I 'm wondering where the title 'Failed suicide attempt' should point to, a subsection here or to Parasuicide? Dmcq (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Disagree on merge. This article needs work but Failed_suicide_attempt is a separate subject than parasuicide, suicidal ideation, euthanasia and/or suicide. Simply put Correlation_does_not_imply_causation . If this article is merge it will be slowly deleted out of the suicide article as numerous merges articles have had happen across many subjects. This merge and the loss of information on separate subjects is one of wikipedia's problems. The article on suicide is large enough already. Multiple articles on suicide and related subjects have been deleted over the years. Merge and Purge is the great way to silence a subject you don't like here.There is no reason, the url isn't needed or confusing for multiple subjects. This article's briefness reflects on the low level of research and the poor understanding of suicide failures. Parasuicide is making a fake attempt when the goal isn't death, sometimes failed attempts get written up as parasuicidal behavior especially when the person is facing being held involuntarily against their will and/or medicated against their will. The right to die is another article that goes in to detail how volatile the opinions are on this subject matter. I vote to leave it un merge and for it to be worked on. Due to the great "citation needed" wimp out when you don't have facts to argue with the standards and regular results of people experiences on the subject. People who have failed attempts could add a lot of information but studies are on the subject are flawed because you have different groups, those who tried and are glad they failed,those that want out of the intervention to continue to completion the attempt, those who wished it would have worked. Just to name a few. Work is needed but that job isn't merging.68.210.95.127 (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The color messes with anyone who has a custom color scheme, may cause accessibility issues, and is frankly rather ugly as well. SDY (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I've converted both to wikitables per WP:DTAB. It is important that accessibility guidelines in the Manual of Style are respected unless there is a very good reason to deviate. This is because the default colour schemes are not only well-tested on the different skins to meet WCAG standards, but also allow registered users to compensate for personal colour deficiencies within their own MySkin.css, which hard-coded styles within the HTML prevent. --RexxS (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words, 7mike5000, but it's perfectly reasonable for both James and SDY to comment on the talk page before doing anything, because establishing consensus first is sometimes better than being too bold. It made my decision to make changes much easier knowing that others already agreed with a revision. Happy editing to all of you! --RexxS (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The Strain Theory of Suicide
An Article for Wikipedia
Jie Zhang, Ph.D.
Professor Jie Zhang, Ph.D., Department of Sociology, State University of New York College at Buffalo, <contact details redacted>
November 10, 2011
Extended content
Author Biography
Jie Zhang, Ph.D.
Dr. Zhang is professor of sociology at State University of New York College at Buffalo. His research interests include sociology of mental health, culture, and suicide. He has published extensively in such sociological, medical and psychological journals as Social Forces, Social Science and Medicine, American Journal of Psychiatry, Archives of Suicide Research, Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, Psychiatry Research, Psychological Medicine and Journal of Personality Assessment.
The Strain Theory of Suicide
The strain theory of suicide postulates that suicide is usually preceded by psychological strains. A strain can be a consequence of any of the four conflicts: differential values, aspiration and reality, relative deprivation, and lack of coping skills for a crisis. Psychological strains in the form of all the four sources have been tested supported with a sample of suicide notes in the United States and in rural China through psychological autopsy studies. The strain theory of suicide forms a challenge to the psychiatric model popular among the suicidologists in the world.
In the United States, the factors most consistently associated with suicide, affecting over 90% of all people who die by suicide, are mental illness, substance use disorders (SUD) and alcohol use disorders (AUD). However, the fact that only a small proportion of persons with these disorders actually die by suicide and only about half of the Chinese suicides have been diagnosed with any mental problems (Phillips, Yang, Zhang, Wang, Ji, and Zhou 2002) raises important questions that challenge the psychiatric model of suicide (NIMH 2003). A psychiatric disorder may be neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for suicide. To identify suicide risk factors, it is imperative to look beyond the presence of a major psychiatric syndrome (Mann, Waternaux, Haas, and Malone 1999). Actually, the blend between psychiatric and social predictors of suicide is rare in suicide research. Sociological studies of suicide tend to overestimate the importance of social variables by failing to measure psychiatric disorders with such rigorous instrument as the SCID (the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) (Spitzer, Williams, Gibbon, and First 1988). Durkheim’s (1951) classical theory of social integration and regulation explaining egoistic, altruistic, anomic, and fatalistic suicide is in theoretical and practical conflict with psychopathological theories prevalent in today’s. However, substantial numbers of suicides, East and West, are conducted by persons who appear to be in an un-anomic environment (Zhang and Jin 1998; Zhang 2000). Suicide rates and patterns vary greatly among different geographic areas and different racial and ethnic groups around the world, and the radical differences in demography of suicide reflect cultural influences. Society and culture play an enormous role in dictating how people respond to and view mental health and suicide, and cultural variables have a far-ranging impact on suicide. Therefore, suicide prevention requires an understanding of how suicide varies with social and cultural forces and how it relates to individual, group and contextual experiences (IOM 2002).
In their theoretical work on anomie, deviance, and criminology, Durkheim (1951), Merton (1957) and Agnew (2006) have laid foundation for this strain theory of suicide. When the strains caused by frustrations are outwardly directed, deviance or crimes occur (Agnew 2006; Durkheim 1951; Merton 1957); when the strains are released inwardly, self-harm or suicide happens.While crime usually involves outward acts of violence with physical victims, suicide is an inward violence without other physical victims, and both could result from strain that has brought about negative emotions such as anger, depression, resentment, and dissatisfaction. However, the strains that precede suicidal behavior may not be only economically based as exemplified in Agnew’s three strains. There are other intellectual observations that help us conceptualize the current strain theory of suicide.
Strain cannot be equivalent to simple pressure or stress. People may frequently have stress but not necessarily strain in their life time. A pressure or stress in daily life is a single variable phenomenon. When we say we have pressure at work, we mean that we have a lot of work to do, we have a deadline to meet, or we have stressful relations with co-workers or bosses. A strain is made up by at least two pressures or two variables, similar to the formation of cognitive dissonance. Examples include, at least, two differential cultural values, aspiration and reality, one’s own status and that of others, and a crisis and coping ability. As cognitive dissonance, strain is a psychological frustration or even suffering that one struggles to find a solution to reduce or do away with. But in truth, it is more serious, frustrating, and threatening than cognitive dissonance because major cultural value systems may be involved. The extreme solution for a strain is suicide. Figure 1 illustrates the proposed diagram for the relationship between strain and suicide.
Figure 1: Psychological Strains and Suicide: A Theoretical Model
There could be four types of strain that precede a suicide, and each can be derived from specific sources. A source of strain must consist of two, and at least two, conflicting social facts. If the two social facts are non-contradictory, there would be no strain.
Strain Source 1: Differential Values
When two conflicting social values or beliefs are competing in an individual’s daily life, the person experiences value strain. The two conflicting social facts are competing personal beliefs internalized in the person’s value system. A cult member may experience strain if the mainstream culture and the cult religion are both considered important in the cult member’s daily life. Other examples include the second generation of immigrants in the United States who have to abide by the ethnic culture rules enforced in the family while simultaneously adapting to the American culture with peers and school. In China, rural young women appreciate gender egalitarianism advocated by the communist government, but at the same time, they are trapped in cultural sexual discrimination as traditionally cultivated by Confucianism. Another example that might be found in developing countries is the differential values of traditional collectivism and modern individualism. When the two conflicting values are taken as equally important in a person’s daily life, the person experiences great strain. When one value is more important than the other, there is then little or no strain.
Strain Source 2: Reality vs. Aspiration
If there is a discrepancy between an individual’s aspiration or a high goal and the reality the person has to live with, the person experiences aspiration strain. The two conflicting social facts are one’s splendid ideal or goal and the reality that may prevent one from achieving it. An individual living in the United States expects to be very rich or at least moderately successful as other Americans do, but in reality the means to achieve the goal is not equally available to the person because of his/her social status or any other reasons. Aspirations or goals can be a college a person aims to get in, an ideal girl a boy wants to marry, and a political cause a person strives for, etc. If the reality is far from the aspiration, the person experiences strain. Another example might be from rural China. A young woman aspiring to equal opportunity and equal treatment may have to live within the traditional and Confucian reality, exemplified by her family and village, which interferes with that goal. The larger the discrepancy between aspiration and reality, the greater the strain will be.
Strain Source 3: Relative Deprivation
In the situation where an extremely economically poor individual realizes some other people of the same or similar background are leading a much better life, the person experiences deprivation strain. The two conflicting social facts are one’s own miserable life and the perceived richness of comparative others. A person living in absolute poverty, where there is no comparison with others, does not necessarily feel bad, miserable, or deprived. On the other hand, if the same poor person understands that other people like him/her live a better life, he or she may feel deprived because of these circumstances. In an economically polarized society where the rich and poor live geographically close to each other, people are more likely to feel this discrepancy. In today’s rural China, television, newspaper, magazines, and radio have brought home to rural youths how relatively affluent urban life is. Additionally, those young people who went to work in the cities (dagong) and returned to the village during holidays with luxury materials and exciting stories make the relative deprivation even more realistically perceived. Increased perception of deprivation indicates relatively greater strain for individuals.
Strain Source 4: Deficient Coping
Facing a life crisis, some individuals are not able to cope with it, and then they experience coping strain. The two conflicting social facts are life crisis and the appropriate coping capacity. All people who have experienced crises do not experience strain. A crisis may be a pressure or stress in daily life, and those individuals who are not able to cope with the crisis have strain. Such crises as loss of money, loss of status, loss of face, divorce, death of a loved one, etc. may lead to serious strain in the person who does not know how to cope with these negative life events. A high school boy who is constantly bullied and ridiculed by peers may experience great strain if he does not know how to deal with the situation. Likewise, a Chinese rural young woman who is frequently wronged by her mother-in-law may have strain if she is not psychologically ready to cope with a different situation by seeking support from other family members and the village. The less capable the coping skills, the stronger the strain when a crisis takes place.
The strain theory of suicide is based on the theoretical frameworks established by previous sociologists, e.g. Durkheim (1951), Merton (1957), and Agnew (2006), and preliminary tests have been accomplished with some American (Zhang and Lester 2008) and Chinese data (Zhang 2010; Zhang, Dong, Delprino, and Zhou 2009; Zhang, Wieczorek, Conwell, and Tu 2011).
REFERENCES
Agnew, Robert. 2006. "General Strain Theory: Current Status and Directions for Further Research." Pp. 101-123 in Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory-Advances in Criminological Theory, edited by F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright, and K. Blevins. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Durkheim, Emile. 1951. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. New York: Free Press (Original work published in 1897).
IOM, (Institute of Medicine). 2002. Reducing suicide: An American imperative. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Mann, J.J., C. Waternaux, G.L. Haas, and K.M. Malone. 1999. "Toward a clinical model of suicidal behavior in psychiatric patients." American Journal of Psychiatry 156:181-189.
Merton, R.K. 1957. Social Theory and Social Structure, rev. ed. New York: Free Press.
NIMH. 2003. Research on Reduction and Prevention of Suicidality: National Institute of Mental Health.
Phillips, Michael R, Gonghuan Yang, Yanping Zhang, L. Wang, H. Ji, and M. Zhou. 2002. "Risk factors for suicide in China: a national case-control psychological autopsy study." The Lancet 360:1728-1736.
Spitzer, R.L., J.B.W. Williams, M. Gibbon, and A.B. First. 1988. Instruction Manual for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R (SCID, 6/1/88 Revision). New York: Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute.
Zhang, Jie. 2010. "Marriage and Suicide among Chinese Rural Young Women." Social Forces 89:311-326.
Zhang, Jie, Nini Dong, Robert Delprino, and Li Zhou. 2009. "Psychological Strains Found From In-Depth Interviews With 105 Chinese Rural Youth Suicides." Archives of Suicide Research 13:185 - 194.
Zhang, Jie and Shenghua Jin. 1998. "Interpersonal relations and suicide ideation in China." Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs 124:79-94.
Zhang, Jie and David Lester. 2008. "Psychological Tensions Found in Suicide Notes: A Test for the Strain Theory of Suicide." Archives of Suicide Research 12:67-73.
Zhang, Jie, William F. Wieczorek, Yeates Conwell, and Xin Ming Tu. 2011. "Psychological strains and youth suicide in rural China." Social Science & Medicine 72:2003-2010.
Zhang, Jie. 2000. "Gender differences in athletic performance and their implications in gender ratios of suicide: A comparison between the USA and China." Omega: Journal of Death and Dying 41:117-123.
Not done, we're not going to add your entire paper to Wikipedia if thats what you're requesting. If it is published somewhere credible then it may be used as a reference if someone wants to use it--Jac16888Talk17:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
"The strain theory of suicide postulates that suicide is usually preceded by psychological strains." The "Strain Theory" is, no offense not an original theory it's usually called "Stress". In simplest terms stress can be the trigger that exacerbates an underlying condition that leads to suicide. Conversely an underlying condition can create the stress and it can turn into a vicious cycle the cumulative effects of which results in sucide. A persons abilities to deal with stress are as varied and unique as stressful events themselves, out of billions of people on the planet no two, not even identical twins have the same life experiences or the same underlying psycholgical and neurological make-up, physical health etc.
A long and convulted multi-volume book can be written on the various nuances and minutiae of stressful events, individual coping abilities, what does and does not constitute a mental disorder, cultural differances, age, economic resources, physical health, access to resources, age, sexual orientation, marital status etc.,etc. e.g. an impoverished, unmarried Buddhist farmer from Fujian province would view things alot differantly than a wealthy, married Catholic businessman from Shanghai who now lives in the United States. 7mike5000 (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Grammar correction
In the "Murder-suicide" subsection of the "Classification" section, the phrase "... the in part successful kamakazi attacks..." should be changed. "in part" should be "partially", or at the very least, should be "in-part". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.133.185 (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
See this edit: [2]
Not sure why you object exactly. No, there is no link to somewhere else in Wikipedia explaining this. Obviously this is not an article about evolutionary psychology but neither are such explanations prohibited here. Epigenetics are not incompatible with evolutionary psychology and epigenetics are used in several evolutionary psychology theories. Furthermore, you have deleted clinically important research such that perceived burdensomeness to others has been to found to be a very strong predictor of completed suicide and differentiate between non-lethal and lethal self-injury. Miradre (TalkE-mail) 12:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
No offense, sincerely, but this is a general article on suicide not on evolutionary psychology, which i might add is a theory. I didn't object, I just pared the sentences down. it's there even though it's a theory that many consider quite frankly to be B.S. It's considered a pseudoscience with NO empirical data whatsover to support it please read:
Nonsense on stilts: how to tell science from bunk By Massimo Pigliucci[4]
Science fact and science fiction: an encyclopedia By Brian M. Stableford, p.41[5]
Evolutionary psychology as maladapted psychology By Robert C. Richardson, p.76[6]
The handbook of evolutionary psychology By David M. Buss, P. 152[7]
The Monkey in the Mirror: Essays on the Science of What Makes Us Human By Ian Tattersall p.170[8]
This is a general article on suicide, the "theory" is mentioned, general sentences like this don't belong here:
"Evolutionary psychology argue that many human psychological features are adaptations to the ancestral envrionment which was very different from the current one. Psychological mechanisms that may have usually increased inclusive fitness in the ancestral environment may not do so in today's environment."
And it's not a debate page on the "criticism and counter-criticism" of evolutionary psychology. If you want to expound on it write a section on evolutionary psychology and suicide on the article on evolutionary psychology.
The article is on suicide not a literary exposé on: " many human psychological features " and this:"Perceived burdensomeness to others" can be a consequence of many different types of mental disoders or just plain situational stress.7mike5000 (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I am cited a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Not a personal opinion. The paragraph you cited and removed is not a general statement about evolutionary psychology but a response to one particular criticism of the theory (that you also deleted for no reason). Read the whole original text again. Futhermore, you have still not explained why you deleted the clinically important research finding that perceived burdensomeness to others has been to found to be a very strong predictor of completed suicide and differentiate between non-lethal and lethal self-injury. That is obviously very important to know. Yes, the cause of this perceived burdensomeness can be due to many different causes. But perceived burdensomeness still predicts completed suicide very strongly. That is an empirical fact, not a theory. Now there is also an evolutionary theory regarding this relationship. However, the status of this theory does not affect the empirical relationship between perceived burdensomeness and completed suicide. This is important information for clinicians to know so there is absolutely no justification for removing this.Miradre (TalkE-mail) 14:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, you do not seem to understand the theory and have written a poor description of it. I trouble understanding what your text is trying to state despite having read the scientific literature on this but it seems incorrect. One point in theory is that the person committing suicide will likely not have further children which you have misstated in your rewrite. Furthermore, resources may not only go to survival of relatives, as you state, but more generally to improving reproductive success of relatives. Miradre (TalkE-mail) 14:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Holy crap, I swear it has to be me. All I am trying to do is clean-up the article by deleting redundancy, deleting redundancy. "I trouble understanding what your text despite having read the scientific literature on this but it seems incorrect" it's YOUR text I just put the last sentence in the beginning of the paragraph. Nothing personal I manage to explain the basics of epigenetics in ONE sentence with a long-winded passage full of redundancy.
Epigenetics, the study of changes in genetic expression in response to environmental factors which do not alter the underlying DNA, may also play a role in determining suicide risk.
That's it no Victorian prose, it could use a sentence or two more to expound on the "environmental factors". i'm not trying to be offensive but this:
An evolutionary psychology explanation for suicide is that suicide may under some circumstances improve the reproductive success of relatives of the person committing suicide and thus also the overall reproductive success (inclusive fitness) of the person committing suicide. This may occur if the person committing suicide will not have more children (even if not committing suicide) and takes away resources from relatives by staying alive. This theory predicts that suicide may be especially likely if a person perceives that he or she is a burden to others, especially relatives, and with no hope of future improvement. In support of this several studies have found that perceived burdensomeness to others is a strong predictor of suicidal thoughs, suicidality, lethality of suicide method, and successful suicide. Joiner et al. argue that there is also other reserach that is be consistent with the theory such that "genuine suicide attempts were often characterize by a desire to make others better off, whereas nonsuicidal self-injury was often characterized by desires to express anger or punish oneself." An objection is that while some suicides may increase the inclusive fitness of a person, in other cases, such as healthy adolescents commiting suicide, this likely decrease overall reproductive success even if also including the reproductive success of relatives. A response is that such cases may be due malfunctioning psychological mechanisms (in the sense of increasing inclusive fitness). Evolutionary psychology argue that many human psychological features are adaptations to the ancestral envrionment which was very different from the current one. Psychological mechanisms that may have usually increased inclusive fitness in the ancestral environment may not do so in today's environment.
Is a longwinded unnecessarily verbose passage that quite frankly is a waste of space because it can be explained in a few sentences. You mention "inclusive fitness" four times in one paragraph. You can't explain it in a couple of sentences without writing a novella. And slapping the tags on the page is supposed to accomplish what besides make the page look like crap?
This is from the National Institute of Mental Health:
More recently, scientists have focused on the biology of suicide. Suicide is thought by some to have a genetic component, to run in families. And research has shown strong evidence that mental and substance-related disorders, which commonly affect those who end up committing suicide, do run in families i.e. genetic inheritance
I didn't say "perceived burdensomeness" wasn't a valid indicator but does everything need a seperate header? Like "perceived hoplessness", feelings of worthlessness or guilt or helplessness, etc., etc.
The page looked like cluttered crap, it finally looks a little presentable and now you pop up out of the blue with the "Joiner et al. argues that .....", inclusive fitness, inclusive fitness,inclusive fitness,. Just state, what is an unproven theory in plain brief English. 7mike5000 (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the text can be more brief while having the same content but your version has certainly not achieved that. 1.) You deleted the criticism of the theory. 2.) You deleted part of the counter-criticism which made the remaining counter-criticism look very strange. Then you placed this remaining part first which is even stranger. 3.) You removed the empirical research regarding perceived burdensomeness being a very strong predictor of suicice 4.) You removed the quote regarding perceived burdensomeness differentiating between lethal and non-lethal injury. Both 3 and 4 are very important for clinicians trying to judge suicide risk. 5.) You inserted factual errors since you seem to misunderstand the theory. One point in the theory is that the person committing suicide will likely not have further children which you have misstated in your rewrite. Furthermore, resources may not only go to survival of relatives, as you state, but more generally to improving reproductive success of relatives.improving reproductive success of relatives.
In short, deleting most of the information and inserting factual errors is not the same as "deleting redundancy, deleting redundancy". Miradre (TalkE-mail) 18:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Evolutionary psychology is, in my opinion, irrelevant speculation. All of it seems half-arsed to me, but I acknowledge there are some who think it matters in some way. All I beg of you is, please make it really, really short and clear. The stuff on perceived burdonesomeness sounds interesting and I hope it gets included, but it shouldn't be given undue prominence. Is the source a review, or a single study? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
A review. The connection between perceived burdensomeness and completed suicide as well as sense of altruism differentiating between lethal and non-lethal self-injury is not an evolutionary psychology theory but empirical observations. Apart from that the text can be quite short, especially if we remove the criticism as in the current strange version.Miradre (TalkE-mail) 19:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'd be OK with including the altruism and sense of burdensomeness data then, and as Mike says, it probably doesn't deserve any more space or emphasis than hopelessness, worthlessness, guilt or helplessness. If there is a firm consensus explanation within evolutionary psychology regarding suicide, a very brief mention might be appropriate here. But I'm getting the impression you're wanting to include current speculation. If that's the case, it's not appropriate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually perceived burdensomeness remains a strong predictor of completed suicide even after controlling for numerous other risk factors. I doubt that can be said for any of the factors you mention. Most are not even mentioned in the article and any empirical support for them affecting suicide, much less completed suicide, is thus purely speculative, unlike perceived burdensomeness. Regarding evolutionary psychology, I do not see why it should have higher standard than say philosophical or religious views on the matter, even if there were no evidence supporting the theory. But since there is supporting empirical evidence I do not think that there can be an objection to presenting it briefly. Miradre (TalkE-mail) 21:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I can make a more definitive statement after looking at the review again: Degree of hopelessness and emotional pain did not differentiate between attempted suicide and completed suicide in one study. Neither did they predict lethality of suicide method in another study. Perceived burdensomeness did in both. Two other studies found perceived burdensomeness to be an especially strong predictor of suicidality and suicidial ideation after controlling for other risk factors.Miradre (TalkE-mail) 22:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
So I propose the following text:
"Several studies have found perceived burdensomeness to others to be a particularly strong risk factor. It also differentiates between attempted vs. completed suicide and predicts lethality of suicide method unlike feelings of hopelessness and emotional pain. Likely related to this, completed suicides are characterized by altruistic feelings while non-lethal self-injuries are characterized by feelings of anger or self-punishment.
An evolutionary psychology explanation for this is that suicide may under some circumstances improve inclusive fitness. This may occur if the person committing suicide will not have more children (even if not committing suicide) and takes away resources from relatives by staying alive. An objection is that some suicides, such as healthy adolescents commiting suicide, likely do not increase inclusive fitness. One response is that adaptations to the very different ancestral environment often malfunction in the current one."
I've just read that excellent review and agree with including your first paragraph, which seems a clear and neutral expression of the authors' views. The suicide review does not mention evolutionary theory. The evolutionary psychology review says only this about suicide
Another puzzling phenomenon is suicide. In the United States, more than 30,000 individuals intentionally take their own lives each year. It is more common among males than females and shows age spikes in adolescence and old age. De Catanzaro and others argued that suicide is most likely to occur in those who have a dramatically reduced ability to contribute to their own reproductive fitness. In several studies, they found that ill health, burdensomeness to kin, and failure in heterosexual mating were strong predictors of suicidal ideation. Although burdensomeness to kin provides a plausible explanation for some suicides among the elderly, it strains credulity to argue that it would be beneficial to a healthy adolescent’s reproductive success to end his or her life permanently, regardless of the current mating prospects. Such suicides are likely to be nonadaptive byproducts of evolved mechanisms that malfunction. In brief, there are puzzling phenomena such as homosexuality and suicide that remain at least somewhat inexplicable on the basis of current evolutionary psychological accounts.
This seems to me to be saying that evolutionary theory cannot presently adequately account for suicide, so I have removed the second paragraph.
I agree with Mike that burdensomeness does not warrant its own section. We should probably follow the cited review, and include it in a section on psychological factors other than mental illness. But it certainly deserves due prominence in that section. I'll think about it some more. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The evolutionary psychology review does not say that "evolutionary theory cannot presently adequately account for suicide". That is your own incorrect interpretation. The text states that some suicides may be adaptive, with burdensomeness to kin providing a plausible explanation, and that the others are less well explained but may be nonadaptive byproducts. I propose adding back the deleted text.Miradre (TalkE-mail) 15:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Been away for some time and had to change my name due to hard drive failure. The change above sounds good to me. If no further objections I will change the text to it. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please delete the entire following paragraph (including references)
"Suicide is not allowed in Islam;[184] however, martyring oneself for Allah (during combat) is not considered the same as completing suicide. Suicide in Islam is seen as a sign of disbelief in God.[185]"
The second reference (Reference 185) is to a page that does not exist, the website is an unknown/unreliable website (as you can see here: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/submission.org) and the creators of the website are not even Muslim. Much of the information in the above paragraph is not related to the topic of suicide, and may not be completely accurate.
Please replace it with the following:
"Suicide in Islam:
Muslims believe that killing oneself is a major sin, and there are stern warnings addressed to the one who does that, but it does not put one beyond the pale of Islam. When feeling depressed, the Muslim believer has to be patient and to seek the help of Allah (God)."
The references for this are the following:
http://islamqa.com/en/ref/45617/suicidehttp://islamqa.com/en/ref/70363/suicide
This is a very well-known, and reliable source for Islamic knowledge (as you can see here: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/islam-qa.com), and the new paragraph is a much more accurate view of the Islamic opinion on suicide.
Not done: We do not disqualify sources based on the religion of the creators. The BBC site, while brief, presents neutral facts. The other source has been moved or removed. I can remove the latter content if you would like. The text of your second sentence is not encyclopedic but your first sentence is fine, it is just difficult to judge whether these sources are reliable sources. I get the impression of a self-published site in which a single individual answers questions with no independent review. That is problematic in the same way that a blog would be. Can you find another source for that content? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 24 February 2012
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Yes, I do wish the last part be removed. Starting from "However" and ending with "God". Below is the entire part that needs to be removed,
"However, martyring oneself for Allah (during combat) is not considered the same as completing suicide. Suicide in Islam is seen as a sign of disbelief in God.[185]"
You have no references for any of this content, and it is either unrelated or inaccurate.
In English, the verb "commit" is used to indicate that the following action is criminal or socially opposed. While suicide is indeed illegal in many countries, and it is frowned upon by the Abrahamic religions, it is nevertheless a POV issue to present suicide as neccesarily immoral or illegal.
(as matter of acquiring more complete information, directly.)
The article also lacks the very portal on suicide, see fx. Suicide legislation. This should be amended as soon as possible. Please... 62.16.186.124 (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Film: "Who's Life Is It Anyway?"
This is a major motion picture with Richard Dreyfus and a number of other respected actors, positing a sculptor at the.height of his career rendered quadraplegic as the result of an auto accident. His need for assistance in committing suicide leads to a legal challenge when the medical people around him refuse to assist. I suspect it's more mainstream than any other picture listed here, and does a good job on its rather serious topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IGotBupkis (talk • contribs) 03:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Chronic suicidality?
Please refer to the book description here: [10]. That's the only reliable reference where I've seen the term "chronically suicidal patient." But also look here: [11]. That appears to be a discussion forum for the chronically suicidal, and stumbling over that page is what led me to search for the former reference. What I really think we need to do is have a psychiatrist who edits Wikipedia and is recognized as a Wikipedia "staff expert" (yes, I know there is not literally any such thing) wander in here and provide some clarification. Anyone want to help? Guyovski (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Battle of Saipan
Both wikipedia pages contradict one another. In the battle of Saipan wiki, it is stated that 1,000 japanese civilians commited suicide. On the suicide page, it is stated that 'over 10,000' civilians commited suicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.197.244.60 (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I searched the talk archives and didn't find anything on this. Depending on what source you look at, anywhere from 10 to 40% of people with gender dysphoria, transsexualism attempt suicide at some point in their lives. This study by the National Institutes of Health arrived at a 32% figure. Gender dysphoria is a (much) higher risk factor for suicide than anything listed in the article; for example, the article gives the example of 5% of people with schizophrenia dying from suicide. I feel that this risk factor merits inclusion in the article. 32% is a staggering number. Thoughts? MsFionnuala (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Classification
Where does a captain going down with his ship or a soldier taking his own life to avoid providing information to the enemy fit? I'd say at least the former is Dutiful and a good example. The later is a gray area but has been reason for the Medal of Honor.
68.74.67.252 (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Information as means to suicide prevention
I find that the article is lacking by not mentioning information as means to survival, like the direct survival advise on how to deal with underlying challenges that lead to being suicidal in the first place. Can you add this, please? 62.16.186.124 (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I fully support this idea. There is a crucial need to raise awareness as well as to reduce stigma around both suicide and mental health treatment. I've been a volunteer with ASFP and could get a contact send a brief passage we could add here; I also recommend considering the inclusion of this unique initiative: an interactive screening program for college/university students (involving, among others, seven medical schools) and the Physician Depression and Suicide Prevention Project, which works with a range of other groups and professional organizations to address the disproportionately high rates of suicide among physicians and physicians in training. @Doc James : please let me know on my talk page. Ildiko Santana (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
With appropriate references we can certainly develop this area more. We currently have a section and entire page on prevention. [13]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Typically we present the results of the most recent meta analysis as fact. The psychological assessments where done before death so I am not sure how "post-mortem psychological assessments" apply
The second issue is we do not use primary sources to refute secondary ones per WP:MEDRS. Adding "however, only" is not needed as this is simply a judgement call. Our reader can just look at that number and decide if they think it is high or low. Regardless a secondary source should be found.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 16:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The article in question states its own methodology as "We carried out a review of studies in which psychological autopsy studies of suicide completers were performed." It's not a representative sample of suicides, nor is it intended to be.
I don't see how you can justify extrapolating that particular study to the whole population and baldly presenting it as a fact, especially when there are other, contradictory figures available. Addding "however, only" was only done to highlight the variability of estimates. When you have one set of figures implying nearly 90% of suicides are mentally ill, and another set suggesting it's more like 30%, that's a contrast that bears having attention drawn to it.GideonF (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The statement " 27% of suicides in England between 2000 and 2010 had been in contact with mental health services in the year prior to their deaths" is not comparable to the previous one. Therefore we should not used "however". Agree with the first bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 14:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
They're not directly comparable, but they're both being used as proxies for the proportion of suicides who have a mental illness, which neither measures directly. One proxy suggests that the number we're actually interested in could be as high as 0.9, the other suggests it could be as low as 0.3. But I'm not married to the "however".GideonF (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 23 August 2012
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Some medical professionals believe this stems from the fact that males are more likely to end their lives through effective violent means, while women primarily use less severe methods such as overdosing on medications.
Replace with:
Some medical professionals[who?] believe this stems from the fact that males are more likely to end their lives through effective violent means, while women primarily use less severe methods such as overdosing on medications.
71.235.54.248 (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
On the first line: "A review found that 87% of persons committing suicide where diagnosable with a mental disorder..." should be were instead of where. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I just note the charicaturely weak advocacy section in favour of suicide as intellectual position in the World today! Why aren't people allowed their private rights escape from tortureous circumstances, the very escape from inhumanity into DEATH??? Why are they (the opposition) so obsessed with prevention when they can't f*cking get together the aftermath and transition into decent life for "the one they saved"???!!! No, there's something wrong in the World and to put up such ridicule as this "advocacy" is simply not tolerable!!! Lancet or not! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
To the "soapboxists" (WP:NOTSOAPBOX), you´re very good with the WP:NOTSOAPBOX, but let me have a few shots: Wikipedia:Five pillars, that Wikipedia is to provide a discussion presenting both sides, like "Opposition" to "In Favour" (Background for the Intellectual Defence), Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Assume good faith by making the case for people who are suffering, who are weak and vulnerable, Wikipedia:Be bold for daring to stand up to idiots and Jangling Jacks, who do not have the senses it takes to make the clear cases pro- and con- in debates! So this is my answer. Please, stop attacking me for making relevant inquiries into "troubled waters", into cases obscured by hard threats and besieged by deeply crazy people, "you know who". The World is a complex and highly dangerous place. All constructive resources are needed and the idiots are to carry full responsibility for diabolical actions. Likewise, I demand HONESTY from the participants in the debates and I consider this "academic". So I hope you can see this too and let both sides have a voice, where I see this article as defending the "self-righteous" med. doctors and psychologists who are only doing research and who never speak up for the troubled parts of their professional bodies of members. There is a lot wrong in the World. Why are they so silent? Why can´t "Background for the Intellectual Defence" or equivalent be entered into the article? Where are the proponents for Dignitas and the legacy of Dr. Jack Kevorkian? Why are there so few "Jack Kevorkians"??? I think these issues need to be answered honestly and I expect this "accusation of soapboxing" not to be some trick! Nice signature, btw. Cheers! --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Then you should perhaps read these pages because I've tried this once with Background for the Intellectual Defence. Not only that, but in 2 ways! There is something else that goes on in the World and it has to do with the prevailing mentalities. I just say it, LOOK OUT! That these people are so deaf, that even the most blatant applied ethics will probably not hit them until another 3 - 5 years. I'm just very sorry for this and I think that the youngest are to suffer the most under these corrupt people as they/we have in the past! Let's be optimistic, however, and do our best because they are "at failure", they're not good! Maybe there's some hope somewhere out there in time! Cheers! --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe this is what [Olsnes-]Lea is referring to when he says he's tried it before. Just more pedagougery nonsense and violations of WP:NOTFORUM, no effort to find RS or to constructively contribute to articles. [Olsnes-]Lea, it's nice that you seem to want to help people who tend to suicidal ideation, but it would be nice if you realized Wikipedia is not a platform for general discussion of any topic, talk pages are for discussing how to improve articles only. Go write a letter to your local newspaper or something if you want your voice to be heard. Jonathanfu (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
As much as Jonathanfu fails to get my name right (attempt of intimation? his personal psychological theory?), the very text he addresses is right above there, yes, as the very header goes: "Weak "Advocacy" Section". So, Jonathanfu, when I write "weak advocacy", I actually mean weak advocacy and that this touches upon the quality of the article if it can't cross that (little) brain of yours, that mentality that can't get a basic name right even if it says there "in plain daylight", you ¤#¤%#¤%&¤%&%!¤R%!!! --LFOlsnes-Lea08:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
So here you can some of your own WPs, Jonathanfu, for addressing me in that strange way, failing to write my name properly and speaking about me to others in that patronising way, esp. 3rd person, demonstratively, WP:CIVIL, WP:ETIQ that also entails, 1. Direct rudeness, (a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, (...). Also, you follow me around on Wikipedia wherever I write and provide that low-head commenting. You're awful! Get out of my way!!! One may also consider your behaviour WP:HAR. You get that??? Bye! (For the "person" who can't spell pedagoguery correctly: "Just more pedagougery and violations of WP:NOTFORUM, no effort to find RS or to constructively contribute to articles.") --LFOlsnes-Lea09:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
You have made a number of personal attacks against another user in your above comments LFOlsnes-Lea. Please could you remove them? Polyamorph (talk)09:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
My mistake, LFOlsnes-Lea, I'll use the whole username now. I've read the header, I've just been wondering why you haven't even attempted to provide reliable sources for any of your statements, and have instead chosen to complain about the condition of the world in general. If you want the advocacy section to be beefed up, WP:SOFIXIT and use some sources that support any information you add. Jonathanfu (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I'll take on the opposition by strong advocacy. I also note, though, that the opposition part is entirely gone without the fact that I've removed it! Isn't it supposed to be in with all that "slippery slope"? --LFOlsnes-Lea01:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, just realized that you've made changes to the article. Unfortunately, you've not added any sources for any of the claims you've made. Please note that myself and other editors have reminded you that all content needs to be well sourced. When we asked you to be WP:BEBOLD and make the changes you believe are necessary, it was made explicitly clear that sourced must be provided to back up those changes. As such, I'm going to revert your edits. If you find some WP:RS at a later date, then by all means restore the material with the sources. Jonathanfu (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Upon "we-know-who", I have come to the following. Even with request for support there. Well, well, the sentence to support the above, in doing it myself, may be this: There is a logical chain of thoughts here that goes through several arguments of entailment to make this happen.(then references-WHO-Warburton-disciplinary panel from APA and European Psy. Assoc.-crime-stats-suicide-stats-ECtHR-backlog) Are we closing in on them? --LFOlsnes-Lea03:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Almost as we get the feeble voices from the ruins of Nazi-Germany again: We thought you were with us as we had studied New York and the Letters together... (Hah-hah-hah.) --LFOlsnes-Lea03:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
"we-know-who"? Pluralized Voldemort reference? Huh? I know you claim on your user page to have a near-native level of English, but your discourse begs to differ. Are you trying to use a "logical chain of thoughts" as a reference? Because that is almost the definition of original research, just without the research. More of a "original-pulling-nonsense-out-of-thin-air". You need to provide reliable sources. I can assure you with complete certainty that your opinion does not constitute a reliable source. What on earth is this last bit? Nazi Germany? New York? Letters? Huh?Jonathanfu (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Shift of Strategy
Who are the suicide researchers really? Why are they researching so much, but never uttering a word of sentiment? Where are they? Who are they? What are their "respects"? What are their definite current affiliation? Are they fit to do suicide research? Is their integrity in place for the research to be conducted properly? This may also be added as aspect of suicide and the relevant research!!! Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
As the psychologists have something similar, all that it now takes is the question: "are you conducting your research and other work concerning suicide issues according to your professional ethics?" under one or more lie detectors as they have duties to answer it truthfully! Even if you get suspicions that they are relating to a "weird" interpretation of their prof. ethics, you can "narrow" your question and be more specific toward the ethics concerned! Good? LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there are sources on their code of ethics, but are there any sources that suggest academics researching suicide are not following these guidelines? We can't include anything in wikipedia that isn't already written elsewhere in another source. Polyamorph(talk) 09:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
1. Can't you read the (bl*ody) crime statistics, please? 2. Why do people kill themselves in the first place? Can it be that they are unhappy? How far outside common sense do you need to be, Polyamorph? You know, I claim the right to air some possible angles toward "gathering information" so that this article becomes complete in the descriptive sense. Now, if I feel stressed by your "shoving"/"pushing" and some other users almost go without the smallest attention, are you justified? I feel this is going toward unfairness... You refuse the blog reference on an argument I think is one of the best, possibly in the World! If it also proves that YOUare the very small-minded person, how would you like to be punished?Are you risking anything whatsoever for sticking that head up and asking these (impolite) questions??? (You're notified.) Cheers! --LFOlsnes-Lea09:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
"There is currently a backlog of 150,000 cases at the ECtHR in Strasbourg, and costs of taking a case there are high.
According to SCHR [The Scottish Human Rights Commission], that means: "The ECtHR is not and should not be seen as a substitute for the individual's right of access to a remedy from domestic courts in Scotland and the UK."" When you can't balance the article in the first place ("Opposition" to "Intellectual Defence"), how much snottery am I supposed to accept? There are other people who can fill this stuff in too??? --LFOlsnes-Lea11:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Not that I suspect you of anything dishonest, Polyamorph, but I get from your user-page that "This user has a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Physics." and "IoP [of USA] This user is a member of the Institute of Physics" and that I just happen to believe that you know that I have the Photon Theory and that I have (basically) demolished the Copenhagen Interpretation and more. I'm not prepared for any envy play from you! Alright? --LFOlsnes-Lea10:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
What in the world are you prattling about? Please, please read WP:TPG. Also, I don't see anything in the sources you have provided that supports your idea that researchers are being unethical. As you quoted, the article discuses how the SCHR feels about Scots having to take human rights issues to the ECtHR, and not just their Supreme Court. There is no mention of what the backlog of cases is comprised of, and no mention of suicide. Linking to the main page of the ECtHR supports your arguments exactly zero.
"You refuse the blog reference on an argument I think is one of the best, possibly in the World!" Are you referring to a link to one of your own blogs that I removed on grounds of WP:NOTPROMOTION? I looked through some of them and they are every bit as overly oratory, poorly written, and lacking in sources as your discussions on Wikipedia talk pages have been. Those blogs would not have been eligible for inclusion even if they had been well written as per WP:RS; you are not a recognized expert on suicide. And on a slight aside, are you using Google Translate or something? Because phrases like "envy play" really scream online translator. Jonathanfu (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Let me answer the first point by logical entailment and let the rest be answered by others:
1. There is a lot of crime in the World to such extent that even the (principal) ECtHR gets a huge backlog.
2. And given that torture is part of crime then people may be in a World of hurt "here and there".
3. When people are in a World of hurt "here and there", they want to suicide.
4. People suicide, i.e., the suicide numbers, by hearsay, more than one million deaths every year. (You know what a million is Jonathanfu? A fairly big number!) Should I formalise this too? Of course then, as you can read yourself, enter crime -> ECtHR -> Nigel Warburton -> Suicides! Entailment! (Where's that rope?!) --LFOlsnes-Lea01:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so we've established that there are lots of suicides every year. I am with you there, but what does that have to do with researchers being unethical? You've yet to provide a single source for that claim. Also, I'd stay away from prefacing any fact with "by hearsay". Here's an example of how to provide a source for a statement:
The researchers FAIL to communicate the awfulness of it ALL! They produce these f*ck-sh*t reports and, guess what, NOTHING HAPPENS!!! Guess what more: the whole thing becomes a "HATE-SOUP" FOR IDIOTS!!! SO WHAT WAS THE USE OF THIS RESEARCH IN THE FIRST PLACE??? AND THIS IS JUST THE FIRST LOGIC FOR THE INFERENCES THEN ( -> ) WHO ARE THE RESEARCHERS???? This is last to you! --LFOlsnes-Lea02:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
No sources. Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your own opinion. Find some sources. I don't think researchers need to convey how awful suicide can be, any layperson with experience with suicide can probably do that. Also, just to satisfy my own curiosity, what exactly is a "hate-soup"?
This may be WP:NOTFORUM but the point of suicide research is presumably the same as any other medical research - to find out why it happens and how to stop it. See one of the sources already cited in this article, a study that showed that people with depression that went untreated had a suicide rate ~4 times higher than depressed people who were treated with lithium. I'd say that's a good reason to be involved in such research. Jonathanfu (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
High quality sources are required per WP:V and WP:MEDRS. We do not publish original research and we do not allow logical chains of though. Remember we are an encyclopedia simply trying to reflect the current state of knowledge. Look at some of our high quality articles like dengue fever to see how this is done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
First of all, YOU have the duties to balance EVERY article, and that you do not HIDE important sides of any article. These are first and pertain to quality of article. I.e., assume good faith (and comply with duties to this end). I am not an entire organisation of people and I can't be expected to deliver ground-breaking material/"journalism" in a matter of seconds. This is a case that's been meditated over by many people and especially many philosophers. I demand therefore the right to enter these thoughts (i.e., the very Talk-page this is) so that change can finally take place in the World in being communication to larger groups of people (hence, the information society). When I finally get to put it all down myself, this credit goes to me (although probably supported by a large number of people, implicitly) and is to be considered EXTRA! I've stressed for making this happen and the process hasn't been entirely polite (working under some kind of perceived threat and blatant stupidity from "some". Either, I stand by my text 100% and now also feel justified in doing so. This text as answer to you now should now make this clear that your above "objection" has been (utterly) refuted! Alright? Have a nice day! --LFOlsnes-Lea12:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that the section on treatment would be better placed if it were moved to the article on suicidal ideation (which presently has no section on treatment)? By the time someone has committed suicide, and thus come under the scope of this article, treatment would appear to be out of the question. The condition (if that is the right word) whose treatment is discussed in the section is suicidal ideation, not suicide.GideonF (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
As a subsection of the section Prevention it still has its place. I mean, treatment of mental illness is a part of suicid prevention. Lova Falktalk18:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
You'll see that I changed your change of name for the subsection... I thought Mental illness was a funny way to prevent suicide :) Lova Falktalk18:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Use of Word "Commit"
Cryptophreak (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC): The word "commit" as used prominently in the article has a strictly negative connotation and is especially used in connection with crime. Suicide is not a crime in a number of significant jurisdictions including Canada, Ireland, and the Netherlands. It would therefore appear that the article is in error for using the word. Thoughts?
Farber's Theory of Suicide S = f ( PIC.DEC.DIG.TS / Su.HFT ) where the key is ( / = dividend as on the calculator).
S = Probability of Suicide
PIC = Frequency of Production of Personalities Injured in Their Sense of Competence
DEC = Demands for the Exercising of Competence
DIG = Demands for Interpersonal Giving
TS = Tolerance of Suicide
Su = Availability of Succorance
HFT = Degree of Hope in the Future Time Perspective of the Society (Where you are. You can change it.)
As far as I am concerned, committing suicide becomes more and more frequent as the world gets more and more developed. And I think that this article lacks a part where it is outlined that people commit suicide that more often compared to for instance 100 years ago or even better, even further back, but also what the causes are to this. These could be increasing pressure on the individual, like getting an education, people expecting other people to get an education, especially teenagers and people in the beginning of their 20's, expecting people to be a well integrated part of society etc., but sadly I think that many of these data do not even exist.
If we take an example as Greenland, part of Denmark, it has undergone rapid social changes in the last 30-40 years, and I have heard that 100 years ago, Greenland had one of the lowest suicide rates of the entire world, compared to today, where it has one of the world's highest suicide rates! I am convinced that these rapid changes are the causes of Greenlands increased suicides, like I am also convinced that social changes in other parts of the world has helped to make the worldwide suicide rates increase with more than 60 % for the last 45 years. So basically, I would like that this article had a part where it was outlined that many of the world's suicides are causes of the modern world, because that is really what I think it is; if that is anywhere possible to get data about. I couldn't imagine that there would be very many suicides 100, 200 or 1000 years ago/100.000 inhabitants compared to today.
Mrschjerbec (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't completely sure about what the article exactly said, but what you said was what I meant. I have some sources, one of which speaks about Greenland as having the world's highest suicide rates: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dispatches/2009/10/the_suicide_capital_of_the_world.html. In the article, I think it should be noted, that the suicide problems began in 1970, after Greenland started becoming a "modern society". The following is taken from the article: "Peter Bjerregaard from Denmark's National Institute of Public Health has noted that while Greenland's suicide problem began in 1970, almost all the deaths involved people born after 1950—the same year that Greenland began its transformation from remote colony to welfare state, as the Danes resettled residents to give them modern services and tuberculosis inoculations."
Another text, http://en.mipi.nanoq.gl/Emner/~/media/mipi/MIPI_Viden_om_boern_og_unge/Projekter_og_rapportsamling/Opgaver_og_specialer/Modernization%20and%20mental%20health%20-%20Suicide%20among%20the%20Inuit%20in%20Greenland%20-%20Leineweber.ashx, also talks about Greenland's suicide rates. For one thing, it speaks about the transformation from a remote area to a modern society in 1953 at page 6-7, from "In 1953 Greenland had become an integrated part of the Kingdom of Denmark..." to "But the postwar years also accelerated the spread and use of alcohol and, most dramatically, the number of suicides." But there are really many websites about Greenland and suicides, both in Danish and English, also if you only take the most reliable ones. Probably also some about modernization and increasing rates of suicide besides some about Greenland, if you look closely, even though I think Greenland is a perfect example about what can happen if social changes come too quickly.
I can try to find some more sources some time and eventually write something, if I find enough sources. Mrschjerbec (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is very strict with sources. For instance, Peter Bjerregaard from Denmark's National Institute of Public Health noting something, does not qualify as a reliable source. Neither does the report you showed. It is not published in a peer reviewed journal. Please read reliable sources before you start writing something, because otherwise there is a risk that the text will be removed because the source is not good enough. And that is such a discouraging experience when you're new here. (Also when you're not new here, for that matter). Lova Falktalk14:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I will definitely read Wikipedia's guidelines before I start writing anything. Anything else would be a shame, if it gets removed. After I have read the guidelines and if I find any sources good enough, then I may start writing, because I think that suicides in modern society is an important subject. But thx! Mrschjerbec (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
"Once upon time" even the SSB, http://www.ssb.no/english/, ("Statistics Norway", but The Central Statistics Bureau of Norway, given the Norwegian) of Norway reported on 5 year old kids "who suicided". Now, "these" are gone and probably, correctly, IMO, filed as malicious neglect / killing / murder, but it got me thinking H*ll (don't tell the Pope) of a lot, what in the World that could cause these lively people (boys and girls) to get these awful thoughts... THEN it started to roll, Childcare Units, Police, Pediatrics, Teachers, Kindergartens, all the God damn World... So what is it now? What is a suicide now? Care to share your view, please? --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
There are reports of pre-adolescent suicides in the US too [15] (first page I could find - doing this in my lunch break). I'm not sure of your statement 'What is a suicide now?' The definition hasn't changed. Or are you implying that all suicide is purely anthropologically driven? or..? I'm also confused by the suicide statistics. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that link. Legios (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Correlation between smoking and suicidal ideation/suicide attempts
I was going to add some information but I was a little confused as how best to cite it, so was hoping someone else could add some details.
There's been studies that have shown that people with psychiatric disorders are more likely to have nicotine addiction (eg. Nicotine Addiction and Other Psychiatric Disorders Tobacco Use in Special Populations: Psychiatric Disorders. Which may refute some of the information implying that people who smoke are more likely to commit suicide, but instead that smoking may be an indicator of having a psychiatric disorder (diagnosed or otherwise). Thanks Legios (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Good job! I just copyedited a bit. One thing about one source though. When adding the article written by Thomas Bronisch, Michael Höfler, Roselind Lieb, you obviously also copied the notes behind their names, so it looked like this: Thomas Bronischa, Michael Höflerab, Roselind Liebac. Lova Falktalk09:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Proposed empahsis on suicidal thoughts not only correlating with severe mental disorders?
While people with a mental diagnosis (such as schizophrenia) may have a higher probability of killing themselves, this does not mean a rational/intelligent person is incapable of suicide. Notably, patohologizasion is something I avoid completely when conversing with suicidal individuals; it can be phenomenally condescending, offensive (and for good reason in my mind.) LLLookAtYouHacker (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Please sign your talk pages using four tildes (~~~~). I agree that discussing their pathology can be incredibly condescending, however we are attempting to show that there is a strong correlation between suicide/suicidal ideation and people who fit the criteria to meet a diagnosis within the ICD-10 or DSM-IV, not that you should tell someone that "Oh, you're (insert diagnosis here)" when conversing with them about it. It could also be argued that suicide is inherently an irrational act. I don't mean to sound negative at all, and I encourage you to add information to the article - and as Lova FalkLova Falk said to me when I first started putting things here, be bold! (And remember to use citations). Legios (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, you can have a mental diagnosis and still be rational and intelligent. However LLLookAtYouHacker, it is a bit unclear to me what you would like to add or change to the article. And yes, be bold! and use citations. Lova Falktalk08:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Honestly Lova_Falk, I wouldn't be able to provide citations. My concerns originate from sole experience with suicidal/self-harming individuals, as well as my very own depression, sensitive/temperamental mindset and past suicidal tendencies.
"I agree that discussing their pathology can be incredibly condescending."
Oh, I would go as far to say it can be degrading to their situation; avoiding pathology is one of my essential "regulations".
When in the presence of a severely suicidal person, I don’t fabricate an intention to listen, I listen. I don’t fabricate the belief that they’re not "mentally ill" in order to provide comfort, nor do I ever suggest their potential actions are "wrong", I emanate and have genuine compassion for their internal pain. In other words, I approach and visualise them as sympathetic human beings, rather than patients.LLLookAtYouHacker (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi LLLookAtYouHacker! I sympathize with what you write. But this is an encyclopedia, and if you would like to change something in an article, you need to have sources. With friendly regards, Lova Falktalk07:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
"About 15% of alcoholics commit suicide"?
In the section Epidemiology/Alcohol and drug use it is stated that "About 15% of alcoholics commit suicide". This doesn't sound right. Above that it is stated that "Alcoholics are 5 to 20 times more likely to kill themselves". If the average rate of suicide is about 10/100,000, being an alcoholic would raise that rate to 50-200/100,000 alcoholics, not 15,000/100,000 or 15%.
What am I missing?
89.181.215.33 (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Filipe Ribeiro
Yes, it sounds as a very high number. Unfortunately I couldn't access to sources so I cannot check what is written. Hopefully someone else can! Lova Falktalk19:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The cited source actually says 25 percent of alcoholics commit suicide and if memory serves me correctly that was disputed by an editor as being too high and another source was found and it was revised down to 15 percent. The suicide rate is very high in people with alcohol use disorders compared to the general population - probably because alcohol disinhibits people making them more prone to attempt suicide and also because alcohol abuse damages and distorts the brain chemistry and causes major depression and social decline, isolation, and hopelessness etc. I found a good source that puts the figure at between 60 and 120 times more likely to commit suicide than the non-psychiatrically ill general population and puts the percentage a lot lower than the 15 percent quoted at about 2 or 3 percent, similar to major depressive disorder. I have edited this information into the epidemiology section. Has my edit resolved this problem?--MrADHD | T@1k?23:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Honor Aaron Swartz and link to crisis hotlines at the top of the page
I realize this has been discussed; it's time for us to add the link. We've lost a well-known Wikipedian User:AaronSw to suicide, and we shouldn't lose any others. --ESP (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand that; the note at the top of the page kind of conveys the weariness of the people who've participated in the discussion.
I think it makes sense that if as a community we're remembering Aaron Swartz, we honor his memory by taking steps to prevent future tragedies in our community and in the world at large.
Is there any evidence for crisis hot lines preventing suicide? While I agree someone killing themselves is tragic if we do something as a group it must be something we know will make a difference.
One way to honor this gentleman's death would be to bring his article up to FA status and get it on the main page. This could potentially bring greater understanding to the issues he stood for during his life. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
That feels kind of theoretical to me, and the CBA seems askew. If we link to the page and it helps just one person thinking about suicide to get the help they need, immeasurable success. If we link to the page and it doesn't help even one person... we've got a very slightly more cluttered page. Maybe as an organization we've tacitly endorsed something less than useful.
Evan, as far as I know the WMF set up an e-mail address which can be contacted 24h for emergencies, including users who write they're going to attempt suicide (it happens not so rarely). I don't know if this service really covers all geographies, surely not many know about it outside en.wiki; that's something you may want to look into, asking Philippe or otherwise: I think your advice would be extremely valuable.
Do you mean adding hotline numbers to the top of the article or the talk page? I vehemently oppose the former as they're not encyclopedic. The latter is like preferring carpet burn over hemorrhoids: the lesser of two evils. Do we know that he even visited this page in the days or weeks leading up to his death? Jmh649 is right here. Do we know they help? We don't give medical or legal advice. We say "seek a doctor or lawyer" and we don't offer names. All we can say here is "Call a helpline", but that's it. If we went further, who would pick which helplines we list? The community and Wikimedia would get called out for showing preference to one over another. Should we give numbers for every English speaking community? Are we standing by those hotlines by saying these will stop you from killing yourself? It's would be a nightmare to housekeep. Agree with Jmh also about bringing Aaron Swartz to FA in a hat-tip to him, or this article if we want to bring greater understanding to the issues. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 20:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Well I wasn't in support of the blackout either, but wasn't that a decision taken by the Foundation, after discussion and agreement by editors on a wide level? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 20:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
If we spend effort promoting suicide help lines when they have no effect than we are taking away energy from doing something that may help prevent suicide and thus overall having a negative effort so I am not completely happy with the "no harm done argument". Too much like Pascal's Wager.
Now what may help is bring this article to FA status. And thus providing the world with a balanced look at why people commit suicide and what evidence there is to support efforts in prevention. With respect to Aaron's case I am sure the 1 million dollar fine and 35 years in jail that he was up against played a role.
I have recently asked for some ethics advice regarding what I should do when people claim content from Wikipedia as their own in official publications. For example I recently found a master's thesis that was heavily based on a Wikipedia article I wrote in 2009/2010 (large sections word for word with the same refs). I emailed the university about my concerns. One person whom I asked for advice asked how I would feel it the person in question committed suicide after losing her degree / job. I would of course feel horrible. These are very difficult situations.
We do not want to simply do "something simple just to ease our own minds". We want to do something that decreases the rate of suicide even if this something requires more work, more guts and is more difficult.
By the way this article is within the 80 key medical topics (Book:Health care) and will be translated into as many other languages as possible per this project [16] once of high quality. I am willing to work on getting it to GA/FA next if others are also interested.
I've had reputable people in the US and UK confirm that there's special content on Google search results for "suicide", too. --ESP (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes I know Google in the US used to have the number for a suicide help line when one searched for suicide. They however now do not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
This article is packed full of primary sources. One of the first efforts needed will be to remove and replace them with secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Bile bear
The "Bile Bear" anecdote is almost certainly false. While no doubt a horrid practice, this anecdote is an urban legend, appearing in a series of circular articles a few years ago citing a single, unidentified witness as having watched a mother bear "strangle" its cub to save it from a life of misery, and then "commit suicide" afterward by bashing its own brains out against a wall.219.101.196.2 (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Vainamoinen
It appears that this article has a lot of stuff in it that is contradicted by the sited source. For example we have:
Effective diagnosis and if necessary medical testing which may include neuroimaging[1] On page 483 it however states "no indication for routine functional neuroimaging". It is a research technique. Anyway will be aggressively trimming.
Same with this one "to diagnose and treat any medical conditions or medication side effects may reduce the risk of suicidal ideation as a result of psychiatric symptoms.[2]" Nothing in the ref supports the content in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
More problems
We state "The U.S. Surgeon General states that screening to detect the risk of suicide may be one of the most effective means of preventing suicide in children and adolescents" however the ref in question states [17]
"In effect, indiscriminate suicide awareness efforts and overly inclusive screening lists may promote suicide as a possible solution to ordinary distress or suggest that suicidal thoughts and behaviors are normal responsest o stress4" and "Because suicide screening in the general population currently
is not feasible, it is especially important for suicide prevention
programs to include broader approaches that benefit the whole population
Hawton, K (2012 Jun 23). "Self-harm and suicide in adolescents". Lancet. 379 (9834): 2373–82. PMID22726518. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
James, K (2012 Aug). "Self-harm and attempted suicide within inpatient psychiatric services: a review of the literature". International journal of mental health nursing. 21 (4): 301–9. PMID22340085. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Pitman, A (2012 Jun 23). "Suicide in young men". Lancet. 379 (9834): 2383–92. PMID22726519. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Beydon, L (2012 Sep). "[Euthanasia, assisted suicide and palliative care: a review by the Ethics Committee of the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care]". Annales francaises d'anesthesie et de reanimation. 31 (9): 694–703. PMID22922010. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
Rozanov, V (2012 Jul). "Suicide among war veterans". International journal of environmental research and public health. 9 (7): 2504–19. PMID22851956. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Tal Young, I (2012 Jun). "Suicide bereavement and complicated grief". Dialogues in clinical neuroscience. 14 (2): 177–86. PMID22754290. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Cox, GR (2012). "Suicide clusters in young people: evidence for the effectiveness of postvention strategies". Crisis. 33 (4): 208–14. PMID22713976. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Bohanna, I (2012). "Media guidelines for the responsible reporting of suicide: a review of effectiveness". Crisis. 33 (4): 190–8. PMID22713977. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Wu, KC (2012 Apr). "Suicide methods in Asia: implications in suicide prevention". International journal of environmental research and public health. 9 (4): 1135–58. PMID22690187. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Amitai, M (2012 Mar). "Social aspects of suicidal behavior and prevention in early life: a review". International journal of environmental research and public health. 9 (3): 985–94. PMID22690178. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Fässberg, MM (2012 Mar). "A systematic review of social factors and suicidal behavior in older adulthood". International journal of environmental research and public health. 9 (3): 722–45. PMID22690159. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Lester, D (2006). "Suicide and islam". Archives of suicide research : official journal of the International Academy for Suicide Research. 10 (1): 77–97. PMID16287698.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 11 February 2013
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The sentence after citation 58 under "Rational Suicide" contains the wrong form of the word "Their", and uses the word that holds the meaning of a place instead of the proper one.
72.51.134.179 (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I've now read through this nomination quite quickly, but I've not checked any citations nor copyright status of images. However, this article has the "look and feel" of a GA, so I would anticipate that it should gain GA-status by the end of this review.
I fixed a few "trivial problems" whilst reading through it rather than list them here to be fixed by someone else.
I'm now going to go through the article in more depth, starting at the Definitions sections and finishing with the WP:Lead. This is likely to take another day or so and in this part of the review I will mostly be commenting on "problems", if any as I find them. Pyrotec (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Definitions -
I know that Canada is bilingual, so this is more of a "note" than an "action": ref 8 is referenced in French, but the Amazon.ca link goes to the English-language version of what I assume is the same text; and the ISBN (given as an 978-No.-code) appears to be for the English not the French version. No problems in regard of the definition being verifiable, just the fine detail of the citation.
In the Mental disorders subsection, I'm happy with "While acts of self-harm are not seen as suicide attempts, the presence of self-injurious behavior is related to increased suicide risk.[25]", but I do have a comment/question. In Definitions section it states "Attempted suicide or non fatal suicidal behavior is self injury with the desire to end one's life that does not result in death.[8]", again its a verifiable statement, so these two are statements are not inconsistent. My question concerns Attempted suicide, that might have been intended as a "cry for help", and which goes wrong and death does occur: is there information in the literature on Attempted suicides that go too far and should it be in this article?
Some people cut themselves not in an attempt to end there life but as an attempt to deal with psychological distress. This is known as self harm. If someone cuts themselves in an attempt to end their life this is a suicide attempt. The intent behind the act is key and thus the difference is subtle.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a short section with one large paragraph on methods and a much shorter one on the three "most popular" methods used in the USA. In its current form it is compliant, but I believe that some expansion of the second paragraph would improve the article. For instance, ref 82 (WHO: Suicide prevention (SUPRE)) describes Europe and North America as having similar major risk factors, i.e. "Mental disorders (particularly depression and alcohol use disorders) are a major risk factor for suicide", whereas "in Asian countries impulsiveness plays an important role". So, the addition of information, if it exists in print, for "most popular" methods used in Asian countries could provide a useful addition.
This subsection referenced and therefore verifiable, but I found some of the date confusing and/or contra-intuitive. So, I'd ask for some clarification. For instance: Approximately 0.5% to 1.4% of people end their life by suicide.[2][13], to me that seems to suggest a mortality rate of 500 to 1,400 per 100,000, but the mortality rates are suicide is the tenth leading cause of death[1] with about 800,000 to one million people dying annually, giving a mortality rate of 11.6 per 100,000 persons per year.[2]. So mortality rate is about 0.011 per cent . The second paragraph gives the answer, so I "corrected" the first paragraph.
You need to take into account the number of years people live. So if the average life expectancy is 65 years that would be 65 * 11.6 per 100,000 per years or 754 per 100,000 lives or 0.75%. I prefer the previous wording. In comparison about 30% of people die from cancer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifing that. I'd obviously missed the need to consider "whole-life" risk, but interestingly its a linear function so at (say) 80 I'm twice as likely to kill myself as would have done at 40 and four times as likely as I would have done at 20. However, that does not seem to be the whole story. But, I'm not going pursue this any further. DonePyrotec (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Proportional to other causes of death the risk of death in the 20/30 from suicide is higher than in the 80s. Even though the absolute risk is greater in the 80s. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. It's an interesting article. Suicide as "a solution" and/or an academic topic is something of a new avenue for me. I'm quite enjoying reviewing it. Pyrotec (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Gender & Age -
These two subsection are verifiable against reliable sources, so I'm happy in that respect. However, I did come across this paper from the Samaritans writing that men in mid-life, particularly those in a "lower socio-economic position" have the highest risk. Generally, the article and the paper are in good agreement, but this could be a point of departure and it could be relevant with to the economic situation in Europe and possible the USA after the "sub-prime crisis".
Overall, these two subsections are compliant.
Yes a book on suicide in Japan states that economic problems are the second most common reason expressed in that location for suicide. This is a very good global overview by age and area of the world[18]. When one looks at risk one must determine if they are talking about absolute risk or relative risk. Additionally we know that those who have drug problems (including ETOH) and mental illness also have low socio economic positions. We do know that economics in and of itself though has an effect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
By the way we already state "in many countries the rate of suicide is highest in the middle ages" based on a a2012 Lancet paper. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes you're are right it does: I used the browser's "find" facility and its in the first line in the Age Subsection. Sorry I didn't "see it" and I thought that I'd read every word at least once. DonePyrotec (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
This is quite a comprehensive article and the WP:Lead makes a good effort to both introduce the subject of the article and to summarise the main points (as per WP:Lead). At four paragraphs in length, it's complaint in respect of the number of paragraphs and there don't appear to be any major/significant topics excluded. I'm going to accept the Lead as it is and award GA-status. I believe that the article has the potential of making WP:FAC, but for that I suspect that the lead would need some "fleshing out". Pyrotec (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
An interesting, informative and comprehensive article. I learnt a lot about this topic as a result of reading through it several times during this review.
I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on a fine article. I see from the {{articlehistory}} that back in May 2005 this article was an unsuccessful WP:FAC candidate. I believe that the current version of the article could make FA, but to get a wider-view WP:PR might be the next step. Pyrotec (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks. I worked on this push to WP:GA as a tribute to Aaron Swartz who unfortunately ended his life in this manner. [19] A FA push would be excellent but these are typically beyond me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I have found two grammatical errors in the article "Suicide" which ruin the flow of the article.
The following:
Suicide also known as completed suicide is the "act of taking one's own life".
Should be changed to:
Suicide, also known as completed suicide, is the "act of taking one's own life".
The following:
For example suicide rates have been found to be greater in households with firearms than those without them.
Should be changed to:
For example, suicide rates have been found to be greater in households with firearms than those without them.
So if 50% of people have a mental illness at some point[3] and only 30% of people who commit suicide have a mental illness that would mean that mental illness is protective against suicide. Which part of this source supports the statement in question [20] Can you provide a page number? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
So are you saying "During 2000-2010, 13,315 individuals (27% of general population suicides) were identified as patient suicides, i.e. the person had been in contact with mental health services in the 12 months prior to death. This represented an average of 1,210 patient suicides per year" Can be summarized as "30% of people who commit suicide have been suffering from a mental disorder"? I do not think this is fair. Just because someone has not seen "mental health services" does not mean someone does not have a mental illness. Most mental illnesses are dealt with by primary care providers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Pretty much, yes. The number of people who have been in contact with mental health services is a reasonable proxy for the number of people with mental disorders. Certainly no less reasonable than assigning mental disorders to people who are already dead, which is the source of the ~90% estimate, which previously stood with no indication that it was at all contentious. If you have a third source that correlates suicides with actual diagnoses, that would be best of all.GideonF (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
In recent data from Canada (primary analysis by Statistics Canada), most people who die by suicide also confront a mental health problem or illness (see [21]). Further, according to data compiled by the Mental Health Commission of Canada, two thirds of people with a mental health problem or illness will not seek help (see [22]). Markhenick (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
[23] sources its claim that most Canadian suicides have mental health problems or illnesses to [24]. Can you point out which page contains the data to support a claim that a majority of suicides have been diagnosed with a mental disorder?GideonF (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Seasonal Suicide
In the interest of dispelling myths propounded by popular culture and the media, I think its important to borrow certain elements of the "Seasonal Suicide" section in the Epidemiology of suicide sub-article to the main Suicide article. The myth of increased suicide rates during the "winter holidays" serves to misinform behavioral health care professionals and the people in general. This misinformation results in a decrease in vigilance after the winter holidays by the very people that support those that are at high risk for suicide. Moreover, the best available data shows that the suicide rate peaks during spring and early summer, and that is very important to know. I propose that the following is mirrored on the main Suicide article:
Seasonal suicide
The idea that suicide is more common during the winter holidays (including Christmas in the northern hemisphere) is actually a myth, generally reinforced by media coverage associating suicide with the holiday season. The National Center for Health Statistics found that suicides drop during the winter months, and peak during spring and early summer.
There is a problematic division between the categories "Suicide by gas" and "Suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning". The former seems to be intended to cover suicide by town gas, but carbon monoxide is the main poisonous ingredient in town gas. If there is a significant division here it is between people who used town gas (usually by sticking their head in the oven) and who used a car exhaust in a confined space, but in both cases carbon dioxide poisoning is the cause of death. I am not aware of any other poisonous gas which has been used in suicides to any significant extent. I suggest we merge the two categories, but what to? PatGallacher (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I reviewed many of the previous talk items over the years on why the incorrect and non-neutral word "commit" is used so profusely in this article. They are not convincing. Additionally, this debate has evolved considerably in that time. The word clearly has a negative connotation, and is generally rejected among community mental health professionals. See my recently reverted edit, the reversion of which also deleted important counterbalance information on media guidelines for reporting suicide.
That media uses this terminology, or that is has a lot of Google hits, or that you personally do not take offence, are not academic arguments nor ones worthy of an unbiased exegesis. The fact is, one does not say that he or she is going to go commit dinner, or commit some work, or commit a shower. Even in terms of health impacts, one does not commit smoking, or commit a DNR order, or commit a heart attack. "Commit" denotes criminality, and suicide is not a crime for the English speaking populations which would read this article. Even for those jurisdictions where the act of suicide remains a crime, leading organizations are working to make changes.
The World Health Organization, among other expert sources, recommend against the language used in this article.
If someone can provide arguments actually in favor of using the present language (with a little more depth than "because a lot of people do it,") I think that the article would benefit from such a critical analysis.
Markhenick (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Markhenick has given a good rationale for the change proposed. The arguments raised against the change do not seem to have much justification and do not give any authoritative supporting references. Thus I support Markhenick's change. Use of the term commit is not only not neutral, it is in fact negative and judgemental. Language used in an article should not be coloured by judgements based on people's religious beliefs. Djapa Owen (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
At first, I didn't think much of it. After reading some of the pages linked to by Markhenick, though, I agree that we should look at the sentences using "commit" and reword them to eliminate the word. --Geniac (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the word does necessarily have negative connotations - soldiers commit acts of bravery, linguists talk about people committing speech acts - it is just a verb for when one performs a specific act. It so happens that we most often use the language of individuals committing named acts in the context of the criminal law, but it's not a 1:1 correspondence. I'm somewhat in favour of the existing language. "Commit suicide" is the normal, non-judgemental way English speakers refer to killing oneself. You may choose to insist that English speakers are making a judgement of which they are not conscious, but I say that's not how language works: what is said is what is intended, and what is understood. If I say "commit suicide" non-judgementally ad, and you understand it non-judgementally, no judgement has been made or implied. Some people are trying to affect a change in the language, and if they are successful then one day theirs will be the normal way to refer to suicide in English, but so far it is not, and if Wikipedia uses their preferred language then it is, non-neutrally, siding with them and becoming part of their campaign to change the language. Also worth noting is that the "experts" by whose guidelines you think we should consider ourselves bound all have a stated anti-suicide agenda, one not shared by Wikipedia, which is (or should be) neutral on the subject. If we are to change the language, it should be changed to something truly neutral and descriptive, e.g., "kill oneself", rather than being changed to fit the agenda of anti-suicide activists. GideonF (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
That is an interesting argument GideonF and one worth considering, but I still feel that in this context it is in reference to having been a criminal act much like committing adultery. Thus I still do not think it is a neutral term. On the other hand I prefer your suggestion of the direct description 'kill oneself' to the difficult sounding 'complete suicide'. Djapa Owen (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, striving to use language that is politically correct according to some of the suggested authorities put us foul of other authorities' guidelines. "Completed suicide", the term that some prefer to "committed", is itself labelled as stigmatising by others..GideonF (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The term "commit" is related to the term "commitment". The term "commit" conveys a sense of finality and intended irreversibility. Therefore I think "commit" is a good term to use in relation to the act of suicide, which tends to embody those qualities. Bus stop (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I would think that, ideally, Wikipedia would not be an encyclopedia of individual opinion, but rather one of academic or expert consensus. It is, after all, a repository of knowledge. This is the same trap that this discussion had previously fallen into. Do those who disagree have extensive exposure to, or credentials in, this specific topic area which would support their authority to make such a judgement? Have they any credible references, beyond anecdotes and philosophical musings, which advance their position?
It is fine to have a personal opinion on linguistics, and on suicide in particular, but is that position supported by the evidence? If one wishes to be totally and willfully insensitive to those whom stigmatizing terminology affects, at least do so scientifically.
To speak directly to one of the points made by GideonF: Most subject-matter experts agree that suicide is not a desirable outcome. That said, it would be an entirely appropriate counterbalance to include a section which speaks to the philosophical minority opinion which support suicide. However, one ought not to fall victim to the fallacy that neutrality equates to equality for all opinions.
To "die by suicide" or to "attempt suicide" seem to be the most fair possible options in that neither contain any loaded terminology at all. Either one engaged in the act of suicide and died, or one attempted to engage in the act of suicide. Markhenick (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I am reading the following sentence but not understanding it: "If one wishes to be totally and willfully insensitive to those whom stigmatizing terminology affects, at least do so scientifically." How would one "do so scientifically"? Can you give me an example of this? Bus stop (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I apologize for not being clear. I would encourage the use of peer reviewed sources, authoritative references, and perhaps the backing of organizations or associations of related professionals. This would form at least a basic framework for a scientific approach. I have argued that the term should be changed because it is stigmatizing, and provided supporting evidence to that point. If you wish, I can collate and supply as much more as required. If one should argue the contrary, I would expect equally comprehensive and convincing evidence to support their counter-argument. Personal opinion may be a firmly held conviction, but it is not evidence. Certainty is an emotion, not a fact. Markhenick (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point slightly re neutrality. It doesn't matter how many "subject matter experts" agree with you that suicide is morally objectionable: Wikipedia does not make moral judgements.GideonF (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
GideonF that does not make much sense. Markhenick is arguing in favour of removing/avoiding stigmatising language and has asked you to support your argument in favour of stigmatisation with some evidence. Do you have any? Djapa Owen (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
In those terms GideonF, I have provided evidence to support that the term "commit" imposes a moral judgement. In this context, its history and present implicit association with criminality evokes an emotional reaction (which in turn further stigmatizes those who have had this experience). In order to remove moral judgement from this term, and still be grammatically correct, one can easily replace "to commit suicide" with "to suicide". I am yet to see evidence as to how this or a similar change could be anything but more neutral than the present term. Markhenick (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
It is my opinion (I'll not pretend otherwise) that "to suicide" is bad English. I've no objection to either "die by suicide" or "commit suicide", but using the word suicide as a verb is linguistically awful. I think we can find alternatives acceptable to all that don't require such bad style. LadyofShalott14:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Granted LadyofShalott, "to suicide" does sound a little awkward. Grammatically, however, I assure you that it is quite correct (as are the equally awkward sounding "suicided" and "suiciding"). I tend to use "die by suicide" the most in my own professional and academic practice when referring to the completed act. Markhenick (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I did say I thought it was bad style. I deliberately said nothing of grammar, per se. (There is a distinction, as my friend Drmies has helped me learn.) :) LadyofShalott14:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Some of the sources brought up present good arguments, some don't. This says nothing on the topic. This does not convince me of anything. This is an activist newsletter and we shouldn't accept it. I am completely unconvinced by this recommendations from the CDC etcl: we should not edit in a certain way because that way supposedly prevents suicide. This, from the Australian Psychological Society, is much better. As for the previous discussion--the noun "suicide" can be turned into a verb, of course--like Facebook can too ("Lady, I just Facebooked you a picture of Rosie")--but it's not pretty, at least not until we're used to it. The problem with the proposed (by the Australian Psychological Society article) "die by suicide" is that it's passive: "suicide" is some entity that comes along and takes someone's life, like they didn't see it coming. That's unacceptable to me. "Took their own life" is more acceptable to me, grammatically and tonally. I'm still not totally convinced, though, of the need to change, and some of GideonF's statements are persuasive. But note this BBC article--BBC editing guidelines discouraged use of "commit suicide". Such guidelines, style sheets, etc. are relevant and we may choose to agree with their usage. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
"Thousands of poor farmers in India have committed suicide over the past decade as changes in India's agricultural policy set off a widening spiral of debt and despair, one environmental activist said Tuesday."[34] One can assume CNN knows how to use the English language and is not interested in stigmatizing anyone. Bus stop (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Bus stop, your last sentence is ungrammatical. I don't know if you're trying to say that CNN is not interested in stigmatizing etc--if you are, let me assure that CNN probably doesn't care about that one bit. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's utter crap. It's neither obvious nor verifiably true, and at any rate it doesn't matter here. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Drmies—I'm not sure what point you are making. Are you of the opinion that CNN does not know how to properly use English? Furthermore—what is the likelihood that CNN intends to disgrace the referred-to individuals who have committed suicide? "Disgrace" is related to "stigmatization", is it not? Bus stop (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
If I may butt in, I don't think we need concern ourselves overly with CNN's motives, but we should note that mainstream media sources such as CNN, such as The Guardian ([35], [36]), such as the Telegraph ([37], [38]) use the term quite freely, and any change in the language that activists are trying to bring about has not yet penetrated. If it does, and "commit suicide" becomes no longer the normal way to refer to the act in formal written English, then at that point Wikipedia should change its language.GideonF (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Bus stop You make quite a generous assumption with regard to CNN. I'll leave that for others to comment on (especially regarding the volumes of Media Guidelines which have been developed reduce stigmatization of the mentally ill by media). To your point: At the time your cited article was authored (2010), Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code treated suicide as a criminal act. While this remains the case, in 2008 the Indian Law Commission had recommended decriminalisation of Section 309, stating that "the unfortunate person deserves sympathy, counselling and appropriate treatment, and certainly not prison." The World Health Organization supports this amendment. In 2011, this legislative action was taken up with the consent of 25 Indian states to delete the Section 309 from the Code. My understanding is that the matter is presently before the supreme court. In summary, CNN was accurate (however accidentally) to use the term "commit" in this case as suicide was indeed illegal there at press time.
Drmies Thank you for making an actual argument! Although... now I'll pick at it a little (or a lot) :P
The WHO report which you feel says nothing on the topic in fact models appropriate language for this subject by how they use the terms "complete" or attempt suicide, but never "commit".
The second piece states: "The expression “to commit suicide” is morally imprecise. Its connotation of illegality and dishonour intensifies the stigma attached to the one who has died as well as to those who have been traumatized by this loss. It does nothing to convey the fact that suicide is the tragic outcome of severe depressive illness and thus, like any other affliction of the body or mind, has in itself no moral weight." It doesn't have to convince you, as it speaks to the history of the term and the experience of those the terminology affects.
The "activist newsletter" to which you refer is an information sheet from the Centre for Suicide Prevention. Granted, they have an obvious agenda of suicide prevention (which is also philosophically and empirically defensible, but that's a different discussion). However, they also provide some academic sources to support their argument.
The CDC recommendations were coauthored by six other major health bodies, including the Surgeon General, and collaborated on with three other international bodies, including the World Health Organization. Again, you personally may not be convinced, but - respectfully - by what comparative right does that make any difference at all? The biggest point is that they also collectively support the assertion that "commit" has a connotation of criminality or sinfulness - a judgement - which should be evidence enough for the exclusion of the term.
In terms of the grammar, a decision must be made. If suicide is an action, "to suicide" is entirely appropriate. If it is a thing, "to complete suicide" makes the most sense. If it is a cause of death, "to die by suicide" would be accurate. Under no circumstance (except perhaps the Indian example above) is the term "commit" more neutral than the various alternatives.
The proposed change is not an effort to prevent suicides (I also have some issues with media guidelines myself). These sources support the fact that the term "commit suicide" contains a judgement, which thereby makes it not neutral, which is reason to change it. Markhenick (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
The phrase "commit suicide" and related phrases are very commonly used by reliable sources. I think that is the most commonly encountered terminology for the taking of one's own life. I am opposed to the imposition of style guidelines that seem to me to be in direct contradiction with actual usage. For instance: "An elderly couple have committed suicide apparently because of their failure to make ends meet on 500 euros income a month."[40]"A nine-year-old New York girl has committed suicide after apparently being traumatised by the birth of her baby brother."[41] Many sources can be found using this phrase. Bus stop (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Dropping in after seeing the issue raised at DRN: I don't have any reliable sources or such to introduce beyond my BA in English Writing (woo-hoo), but personally I've never considered the "committed" in "committed suicide" to be stigmatizing language, and I would be surprised if I know anyone who has...and I'd probably ask them why they consider it stigmatizing. The notion that that word choice suggests criminality is, to my mind, bollocks; people commit to courses of action both good and ill all the time. I'll be quite curious to see how this develops. Doniago (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I think at this point, we should probably just let the RfC run (and RfCs typically run for 30 days). If that fails to produce a consensus/workable compromise/acceptable solution, then we might need to step up to DRN, but I don't think we are at that point yet. LadyofShalott22:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Request for Comment
Per a request at WP:AN/RFC this RfC is closed. The consensus is that the term commit suicide is acceptable to use. However, depending on the specific situation, other wording may be more appropriate. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC comment. I think "commit suicide" and "die by suicide" are both fine; I would not use "suicide" as a verb. I say that after skimming the talk section directly above. I came here from the RfC notice, and I have no prior history with this page that I recollect, although I do a lot of editing on some pages about specific cases of suicide. I recognize that some people object to "commit" on the grounds that it sounds like committing a crime, but I believe that the widespread use of the phrase in source material justifies its use in a neutral connotation here. Wikipedia reflects what has already been published; we are not here to correct it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment - First a note- I am on the Science RFC due to being an Astrophysics Undergraduate, I have little to no expertise in the fields of language or biology, which I feel are more applicable. Having read the above discussion I have a few comments however. Having had a quick look at the history of suicide, it seems it has been deemed a criminal offence often previously, and assume this is where the term commit originated, but as someone else noted, it isn't necessarily Wikipedia's job to portray the world according to editors, rather as according to reputable sources. This doesn't say anything either way, I'm just voicing my thoughts really.
I'd like to pose a question to editors engaged in this discussion - Do you think the article would be significantly worsened should the wording change to something like 'die by suicide' or 'complete suicide' (as examples)? Samwalton9 (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Commit: In my experience "commit suicide" is a frequent usage and does not carry negative implications inherent to the word "commit". "Die by suicide" or "complete suicide" I would consider more awkward constructions. Doniago (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Media or Academia: Can I comment on this part? Anyway, maybe it would help if we could clarify the intent which informs editing in this case. If the article is to reflect that which is perceived subjectively as "common," or what people are saying and believing independent of fact, then this would qualify as media or, broadly, as journalism. In which case, it would be best practice to follow guidelines set by media organizations all over the world in terms of reporting suicide (in that such a practice appears to be widely adopted as "responsible journalism"). It is a similar standard which discourages the use of words such as "retarded" or various racial slurs. However, if the article is an attempt to reflect objective "fact," whatever that is, then one would expect authoritative references to support why something is a certain way. The burden of proof rests equally with the defending party in this case. You "feel" that something is a certain way (that "commit" ADDS neutrality over other terms). Fine. Prove it. I work with people affected by suicide everyday, and I observe the impact first hand. This is my academic background, and my philanthropic niche. If this is an opinion article (mass opinion or individual), then maybe that should be flagged accordingly. Also if that is the case, it should be removed from any scientific groups. I've yet to see evidence explicitly supporting the term "commit," and I am actively searching the academic databases for something. Though there is plenty of evidence against. Markhenick (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment Am here after RFC bot messsage. The consensus of reliable sources that address the "commit" term directly appears to be against its use, and I see it avoided in medical literature. I can appreciate that perspective now that it's been raised as an issue, but I also agree that "commit suicide" is a commonly-used phrase in lay speech. I find that terminology imprecise, though; for example, "commit suicide" could include "attempt suicide" or "die by suicide". Given that there are reliable sources against "commit", and more precise alternatives exist, I would try to use the alternatives. -- Scray (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
More an opinion than anything else, but I would tend to think that "attempt suicide" suggests that one didn't 'succeed' while "committed suicide" indicates that it was completed. I don't think I've ever heard the latter used with respect to a 'failed' attempt. Doniago (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Doniago here - whatever else might be problematic about the usage of "commit suicide", I do not believe it is ever used to mean an attempted suicide that did not result in death. LadyofShalott17:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I would also agree in respect of the perceived difference between "attempt" and "commit" C....: "to attempt" is "not to succeed", to "commit" is "to succeed". Pyrotec (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Avoid "commit suicide". That expert and specialist bodies recommend this is enough for me. It is simple enough to do. I couldn't care less what Markhenik or bus stop personally think. For the purposes of this encyclopedia, I'm guided by expert opinion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Support "commit". It is the normal way to refer to the act in English, and I see no evidence that any value judgement is commonly intended or understood by it. It's not Wikipedia's job to take sides when activists try to change the language.GideonF (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Support for using the phrase "commit suicide". We should be using whatever language helps us in expressing ourselves in our article on Suicide. That would include the phrase "commit suicide". Bus stop (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
"Expressing ourselves" is an odd term to use here. This isn't a Madonna song; it's an encyclopedic article. Drmies (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Support "commit". I had several relatives who died directly / indirectly at different times by this means, over a century ago, when such acts were illegal. The official verdict for one of them, who died directly, was: "poisoning by <a named substance>. Suicide while of unsound mind". I also believe, that such a narrative would be used: primary cause (in this case, poisoning), and then secondary causes (in this case, suicide), etc. I have no objections whatsoever to the use of the phrase "death by suicide", or just "suicide", but if some one makes a choice to end their life in that way, the phrase to describe the act aught to be "...commit suicide", or "...attempt suicide", dependent on whether they succeeded, or not. Note: I accept any necessary changes in tense. I regarded the aim to impose "suicided", or expressions of that type, should be strongly resisted. Pyrotec (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
You may have inadvertently provided an argument in favor of removing "commit" here as well. Since many on this discussion seem to prefer the language that is "common", many secondary examples of the word "commit" which do not connote a crime are irrelevant (since "commit <a crime>" is by far the most common use of the word). Therefore, we can make a legal argument. If the individual who completes the act is of unsound mind, he or she cannot "commit" anything - legally speaking. That is, the individual may in fact do it (actus reus) but, lacking mens rea, the commission is absent. Given that mental illness is a factor in up to 90% of suicides (someone previously cited the meta-analysis of 20-something studies supporting this, I can provide more), "commission" is absent in the large majority of cases. The individual is not morally culpable for his or her actions ("makes a choice," as you state), as commonly implied by "commit". However, language which suggests moral culpability or a judgement on the individual's decision making capacity is, by definition, not neutral. The phases "die by suicide," "kill oneself," or "attempt to" variations of both, seem common enough and neutral enough to resolve this. Markhenick (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment - can you provide a reference (preferably an inarguably reliable one) for your claim that "commit <a crime>" is the most common use of the word? I find this a dubious claim...and honestly even if that is the most common usage that doesn't preclude there being multitudinous cases where that is not the most common use. After all, at some point the most common use of the word "gay" was not "homosexual". Words evolve over time; even if "commit" had negative connotations at some point (and I doubt that it did, frankly) that doesn't mean it still does. Dictionary.com's entry for "commit" lists 11 definitions; I believe most readers would agree that a minority of them are inherently negative. Doniago (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
In response to Markhenick: I was quoting directly from a death certificate issued at a time when suicide was illegal. The primary cause of death was poisoning, and that was irrefutable, the substance was potassium cyanide bought for that purpose and the quantity consumed, drunken from a tea cup in admixture with water, was known. The coroner gave the secondary cause as "Suicide while of unsound mind" and he was legally empowered to reach the conclusion. The third ancestor attempted suicide (on I think a Friday) but failed to die at that time (sorry to put it that way), was taken to hospital for treatment, was arrested by the police and taken to a police station to await a court appearance early the following week. He died in the police cell over the week end. The cause of death determined by the coroner was "exhaustion following injury to the spine sustained through the deceased while of unsound mind throwing himself over a railway bridge". Note: the verdict this time did not include the word "suicide". I assume that since the act (throwing himself over a railway bridge) was immediately-unsuccessful it was not considered suicide. Just in case, different coroners and different coroners courts since the two deaths occurred in adjacent counties, four year apart. However, why is the word "commit" considered to have negative connotations? Marriage (well in the UK at the moment) is a commitment between a man and a woman, presumably for the purposes of mutual support, procreation, etc and ultimately the continuation of the human race. In this case we don't say they "committed marriage", the common expression is "got married"; but the ceremony is a formal act of "commitment". It's quite possible to argue that such a "commitment" is undesirable, but if everyone signed up to that view and we stopped procreating, the human race would cease in a generation or so. Pyrotec (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Doniago and Pyrotec, both seem like fair enough arguments. I will prepare an exposition of the word "commit," but I will need some time to do so. Perhaps surprisingly, I have a day job. Initially, though, I will suggest that "commit" joined with an action is defined differently than "commit to," or various other formulations (in that the object is different). Etymologically, "commit <action>" is rooted in "to perpetrate" with criminal connotation even in Latin. Just one quick point before that though, Wikipedia on NPOV: "This page in a nutshell: Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." [42]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Markhenick (talk • contribs) 21:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Support for using the expression "commit suicide". I agree with those who, like GideonF (to choose a succinct opinion at convenience) see it as the way we speak, read and write, and have done for generations, even in prim company. I am not inclined to police the article to pillory anyone who prefers "to suicide" or when appropriate, "to attempt suicide" or the like, but to impose non-standard usages as a virtue is repulsive rubbish, even when self-righteously claiming to toe the line of "experts". Commit? Commit to English, say I. A little more of this nonsense and WP will begin to read like the script for the Dead parrot sketch. Can't you see it? My beloved "...is no more! He has ceased to be! ... expired and gone to meet his maker! Bereft of life, he rests in peace..." If we are to banish an unspeakable word, let it be "suicide", not "commit", or soon we shall be refusing to permit judges to commit, or professionals to commit opinions to paper. No one can commit himself more irrevocably than by suicide, and anyone who wantonly commits his personal version of bowdlerism of text meant for the general public needs to be committed. Now, can we get back to work? Please? JonRichfield (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Support "Commit" since this is a common usage and no evidence that this usage is slang/slur (it was an objection I see unsound), and the word 'commit' has more usages other than 'commit a crime' so the parallel is unreasonable (another objection I see unsound) 16:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thinking about various uses of "commit" without objectionable connotations: "commit random acts of kindness and senseless beauty", "commit to quit" (HHS site about quitting smoking). The more I think about this, the less convinced I am that "commit" is a bad word. FWIW, I have lost loved ones to suicide, and am sensitive to issues of stigmatization of mental illness. LadyofShalott17:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Just a comment on the two usages you highlight - the first (..random acts...) is ironic and therefore consistent with the somewhat archaic negative connotation (i.e. "perpetrate") of "commit"; the second is a different meaning (to pledge). As I said, "commit suicide" is a common usage, but I see subject-matter experts (i.e. reliable sources) indicating that it's deprecated. -- Scray (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Support "Commit" - Some fairly valid objections to the use of "commit" have been presented here. On the other hand, "commit suicide" is a fairly prevalent and usually not burdened with negative associations in media or everyday usage. I would argue, therefore, that a systematic replacement of "commit" with some other word or phrase would actually potentially be less (rather than more) NPOV, as it would be subscribing to a particular viewpoint (however valid), rather than a common practice. On the other hand, I don't really think alternative phrasing should be discouraged in newly written text, as long as we avoid excessive awkwardness. — daranz [ t ] 08:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Avoid "commit suicide". We have numerous editors here saying they "feel" we should retain the term commit because they "feel" it is right for various reasons. Well I "feel" that we should follow the practice advised by experts and professionals in the field as laid out in all the references quoted above and avoid using the term. There are perfectly good alternatives like 'kill oneself' which say exactly what we mean without any moral judgement. I do not think anyone has raised a real argument in favour of commit. Djapa Owen (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Experts and professionals in the fields most certainly have said nothing cogent in the context and along the lines argued in this RFC so far, whether about their "feelings" or anything else. If they had, their expertise would necessarily be suspect, to put it politely. It is a poor argument to insist that one's views must be correct because one has derived them from one's own choice of expert, rather than being able to support them compellingly oneself. Using value-free terms is a fine principle, but abusing them in senses that detract from the relevant sense is not. Consider, shouldn't we avoid the word "murder" instead of the words "killing a person", which errr... to coin a phrase, say exactly what we mean without any moral judgement? This would permit us to speak without presuming that the willful, unlawful, and malicious slaying of a victim differs substantially from accidental, approved, or benevolent procedures and circumstances, wouldn't it? So the shooting of a a school mass murderer to stop his shooting rampage would be described in terms suggesting exactly the same obloquy, pity, or praise for the rescuer as for the as the one killing the unarmed children, wouldn't it? And to universal benefit, no? Analogously, what would your experts say when one man, seeing a child drowning, shot himself rather than trying to assist in its rescue, because his delicate senses rendered the scene too painful to bear, whereas another man jumped in and died in the (possibly successful) attempt at rescue? Words have their functions and if you don't like some of the functions of certain words, you don't have to use them. Nor need you sit silent if you feel that some of them might be misapplied on occasion. However, to claim that we should eliminate or bar certain words irrespective of context or intent, because your tame experts, if we are to believe you, say that one of them is a no-no, is going just a bit far. Do you really argue that we should expunge "suicide" from the language? If not, just what are you saying? JonRichfield (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
JonRichfield, your response to Djapa Owen quite tellingly reveals your non-neutral and deeply stigmatized views on suicide. You suggest at various points that such a person must be, to paraphrase, weak, cowardly, and delicate. Would you care to support that? We are not arguing to ban the word suicide - that is not at issue. The word commit suggests it is a crime, which it is not. Grammatically, etymologically, scientifically, legally, and otherwise - to kill oneself or to die by suicide is more neutral. Further, to your statement "It is a poor argument to insist that one's views must be correct because one has derived them from one's own choice of expert, rather than being able to support them compellingly oneself." Well, according to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability [43], "Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." It doesn't matter how compellingly you can argue something yourself. Markhenick (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Terribly sorry; I missed this one. Please forgive. Heartfelt thanks for your assessment of my non-neutral and deeply stigmatized views on suicide. Those are the only views I have and are precisely what led me to contrast in one and the same sentence "...one man, seeing a child drowning, shot himself rather than trying to assist in its rescue, because his delicate senses rendered the scene too painful to bear, whereas another man jumped in and died in the (possibly successful) attempt at rescue..." You will note that either deed might be categorised as suicide and you apparently have inferred that both were assessed as equally praiseworthy in context, right? Otherwise how could your charitable assessment of my "non-neutral and deeply stigmatized views on suicide" be sustainable? Note that I have lost a friend in precisely such an attempt, so it is a sensitive point. You also will note that Wikipedia's policy on verifiability applies to articles, not talk pages. In the latter one should indeed argue as compellingly as one can, not only to establish positions and points, but in courtesy to correspondents who have given of their time and expertise to assist you in your understanding. Any attempt to justify in the article the claim that "experts" excoriate persons who evaluatively use what those same experts interpret as intrinsically demeaning terms such as "commit", should indeed be cited as not only having been determined by previously published information, but published in proper context and not discredited by compelling arguments in other publications. Better luck next time. ;-) JonRichfield (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Support "commit" This discussion needs to be more firmly based in Wikipedia policy, there's too much dancing around with the connotations of "commit". I know WP:USE ENGLISH is about titles but I believe the same principles apply - the most commonly used version of a term should be used. I understand that the mental health community recommends not to use the term "commit"(though a ScienceDirect search for "commit suicide" seems to show that they have no problems using the term themselves). I personally think this is interesting information that could be incorporated into the article, but Wikipedia is merely a repository of information, not a place for its practice. For instance, aspirin is really acetylsalicylic acid or 2-acetoxybenzoic acid, but the Wikipedia article on it exclusively refers to it as aspirin. The article acknowledges that chemists may refer to it as 2-acetoxybenzoic acid, but opts instead to use a word made up by Bayer that has since become the most commonly used term for the compound. Jonathanfu (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
What you say here is true, but equally, just because an article is thoroughly NPOV does not mean that it may not in any sense use anything but neutral terms. For hypothetical example, how about: "Katbol's death has left an indelible mark on the history and traditions of Flinkuitdieveria and to this day it is a matter of hot dispute whether his killing of himself was a deed of heroic self-sacrifice, or simply suicide."[4] I don't think it would have the same sense nor be any less POV if it read: "...his killing of himself was a deed of heroic self-sacrifice, or simply killing of himself", would it? It just might strike some readers as a wee bit sillier of course, but you can't please 'em all all the time, can you? JonRichfield (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I think you may be obfuscating a little JonRichfield. We are talking about avoding the term "commit" not the word "suicide". Writing an article about suicide without using the word suicide would be rather hard. What would we call it? "The Article Formally Known As"? Djapa Owen (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Not completely; someone did mention "killing oneself" as an option, but even ignoring that, the point I was making, in so many words at that, was that one might validly use non-neutral terms even in a NPOV article. You surely are not insisting that "commit" is a more emotive term than either "murder" or "suicide", are you? JonRichfield (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Djapa Owen—I think JonRichfield made a good point: "It is a poor argument to insist that one's views must be correct because one has derived them from one's own choice of expert, rather than being able to support them compellingly oneself." I think the onus is on those who would like others to alter their language usage habits to present the case, in their own words, as to why "commit suicide" is found to be problematic. This has to be thoroughly spelled out. I am reluctant to cave in to vague suggestions of impropriety. Quite frankly I do not perceive any impropriety, and I am a native speaker of English. I notice that the word "commit" closely relates to the word "commitment". I think part of the usefulness of the expression "commit suicide" concerns the parallels between commitment and finality. Language serves many purposes. Language evolves precisely so that we can continue to express ourselves as the world around us changes. Law and religion may have changed in relation to suicide—but has the finality of death changed in relation to suicide? Are we trying to express new views emanating from the realms of law and religion, or are we trying to express the commitment to the end of life that the act of suicide entails? You can't dictate to people that they speak in a way that expresses your preferred thoughts. The language is free and unless a serious flaw can be pointed out, I think you will fail to convince people not to avail themselves of the language as it is commonly used. Bus stop (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Bus stop, this is not about so called impropriety. The term "commit" when used with an action (the context of "to do") contained a sense of "perpetrating" even in the Latin root word (committere), and in English from mid-15c.[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] From the perspective of "commitment," one would need to "commit to suicide" in order to be grammatically correct. That is obviously in poor style. This formulation also assumes that "suicide," or death more broadly, is a place or superior power. According to your argument, one would transfer his or her life over to the power of another. [53] Since death is actually a factual occurrence, rather than a continuing event, you are clearly arguing in favour of a religious idea (which therefore has no element of neutrality). If we want to talk about the meaning of words, I think I'll trust my friends Oxford, Cambridge, and Mirriam-Webster over so called common opinion. Wikipedia policy on verifiability seems to agree on this point.[54]. Despite all of the linguistic, legal, scientific, authoritative, and policy evidence provided, is the only argument in favour of maintaining "commit" still that it is merely "common"? Markhenick (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Markhenick—I did not suggest that the expression "commit suicide" can be equated to "commit to suicide". It would be more correct to suggest that "commit suicide" equates to "commit to death". My reasoning is that when we commit suicide (I tend to do this daily, generally after brushing my teeth) we have wholeheartedly embraced death, with no expectation of returning to life. You say that "This formulation also assumes that 'suicide,' or death more broadly, is a place or superior power." Indeed it is, in the sense that from life we can go to death of our own volition, but the reverse direction is not known to be afforded to us. And you say that I am "clearly arguing in favour of a religious idea". Actually the standard scientific view maintains that the road to death is a one-way street. (Only a few big lottery winners have been able to purchase a certain expensive round-trip ticket, which allows for a return journey.) Finally, you say "this is not about so called impropriety." OK, I tentatively stand corrected. Please tell me what this is about. I am a native speaker of English. I have been known to be insensitive to the plight of others. But I can't detect anything problematic about the locution "commit suicide". Can you please tell me in your own words what special considerations apply to the use of the phrase "commit suicide"? Should we avoid it? If so, why? Bus stop (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Even were that the case, it would be a strong argument. However, the word means more than your suggest. As a transitive verb, "commit" means at its most fundamental level "to carry out" or "to entrust". Consider:
She promised to commit substantial funding to the WIkimedia Foundation.
I committed all my time and energy to the project.
Afraid of burglars, they committed their valuables to the safe deposit box.
We commit ideas to writing each time we press pen to paper.
By the next rehearsal, he'll have committed Act II, Scene IV to memory.
We can all throw dictionary links back and forth at one another (I'm pretty good at that, and I even spell all the dictionaries correctly), but the question here hinges more on usage than on definitions, and ample reliable sources with no religious or legal point to make routinely use the word "commit" neutrally in regard to suicide. Does the word carry certain connotations we might wish it didn't? Sure. Does that mean we should impose our sensibilities on our readers? No. As Fiddle Faddle points out below, context matters. Rivertorch (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I would point out that every example you gave would support the formulation "commit to suicide" as more grammatically accurate, even in common usage, were that the case. Therefore, since nobody says "commit to suicide," that cannot be the context of the use of "commit" with regard to suicide. This supports the idea that the root intention of this word pairing is related to crime - to perpetrate - which is no longer accurate. That others have fallen victim to this common misconception does not seem to support its use. Markhenick (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Excuse those of us who heinously refuse to commit to hooey. The fact that "commit to" is a correct formation in appropriate contexts and syntax need not imply that other formations and meanings are necessarily incorrect or in any way inferior. Moreover, the fact that a usage, once the "correct" or even the only usage, is earlier, need not even imply that it still is correct at all, much less that all other current uses are "incorrect". In appropriate constructions and senses, commit without "to" is centuries old, centuries customary in several senses, and used by writers almost as eminent as some of those here active, in senses that offer no accommodation to the preposition, eg: "...without committing your honour.", "...a fouler fact did never traitor in the land commit.", "...If I unwittingly...have aught committed that is hardly borne...", "Intended or committed was this fault?", "...his committing the army with Buonaparte..." and so on. Note that not all the senses imply anything criminal or improper; that some imperfectly literate parties might suggest it does, is no concern of ours in using the word correctly and naturally. In short, we have no need for recourse to current custom to justify the usage; that usage is centuries older than the US or the UK as countries. And that is old enough. More importantly, the expression is usable enough and convenient enough to require no special justification. JonRichfield (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Support using "commit" as (1) the most common verb used in this context by diverse sources both historically and today, and (2) a word with multiple meanings and connotations, not all of which imply criminality, immorality or anything negative. Using different wording in part(s) of the article would be fine, but not across the board. That the word is deprecated in certain fields should be noted in the article. Rivertorch (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with this contribution, with a slight qualification concerning the final sentence (which for all I know might have been partly intended already): the deprecation you refer to should be noted if it can be satisfactorily demonstrated, and its reasonable relevance to the article can be established as well. (I for one am not at all opposed in principle, but am not yet convinced that these constraints have been met -- yet. JonRichfield (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
It is not as simple as supporting or not supporting a particular phrase. In order to die by one's own hand (an acceptable phrase) one commits to an act which will take one's life and one kills one's self. Some people use the term 'commit' in the older criminal sense. It's a hangover from sillier times, but that doesn't matter at all. Any and all of these and other phrases are appropriate in the correct context. It would be a travesty to close this RFC in any manner other than "Choose the correct phrase for the context." Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Support commit but also other expressions. I have no issue with "commit" for the reasons that have already been stated. But I don't have any issue with other phrases being used too, but commit should be the most common phrase. Andrew32716:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
For now I'm fine with "commit suicide". I do not favor "die by suicide" since in my opinion it removes the (necessary) agency. Style guidelines such as from the BBC carry some weight, as does this advice in an op-ed piece from the Australian Psychological Society (though I don't like their proposed alternatives--and I don't like "suicided" either since I'm just that old-fashioned). But absent more firm evidence of widespread advice against the usage (the NYT, for instance, seems to disagree with the BBC) I don't see a valid reason to discourage the use of a very common term. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I think there are advantages to using a variety of terms. "Died by suicide" might be okay for modern suicides of the variety that everyone says later that the person must have been mentally ill, I guess, but seem out of place for honor suicides or ancient suicides. "Killed himself" seems pretty straightforward and respects the person's agency. (I realize that family members may want to avoid exactly this implication that the dead person could have made a different choice.) I reject the assertion that commit always implies criminality: "We therefore commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust..." is a common statement at Western funerals, and nobody believes that this has anything to do with criminality. I would accept "committed suicide" as common and inoffensive to our readers. I think it's worth remembering the difference between an encyclopedia and a patient-advice leaflet. This article, by nature of being a general article, isn't ever going to be the latest source for copycats, so the benefit of using whatever language is fashionable at the moment is much less than in news articles (or in whatever suicide-of-the-week articles might be going on). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Support commit. It's common English, and I don't see that it is biased against those dealing with depression, or other suicidal motivations. If we are really concerned about the impact our article is going to have on those considering suicide, a link to the Samaritans will do a lot more good than arguing over grammar. Quantum Burrito (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Avoid "commit suicide" A good case has been made here and by professionals that "commit suicide" is not neutral language. The case for using the term appears to be based on unsubstantiated personal opinion of editors and is not compelling. -—Kvng15:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The foregoing unsupported assertion is incorrect and far from neutral, either in language, in context, or in substance.(eg "appears to be based on unsubstantiated personal opinion", "good case", "not compelling"). The biggest howler of the lot is "professionals"; think about it and blush!!! JonRichfield (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Can you point me at any reliable sources that echo the opinions expressed by editors here that "commit suicide" is appropriate terminology? -—Kvng14:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Support continued use of "commit suicide. This is clearly and overwhelmingly the most common nomenclature used throughout the English-speaking world, including amongst the vast, vast majority of medical, psychiatric, and psychological professionals. At this point the expression is very obviously idiomatic and most people use it without the slightest intent of accusation or attempt to malign the deceased party. And while I appreciate that those who have lost a loved one to suicide may sometimes find themselves reacting to the phrase as a more overt condemnation, these are extreme circumstances in terms of emotional stress and semantic focus that do not reflect the more common and practical everyday use of the phrase. Bearing all of this in mind, I would say that it would in fact be a large step away from neutrality to excise the most common-use phrase for this act and replace it with uncommon and awkward constructions that will cause most sections of this article to read in a stilted and ungainly fashion for the vast majority of our readers -- a change which would clearly not be consistent with maintaining encyclopedic tone -- simply because this change has been adopted by an activist minority. Our focus here is to provide information to our readers using the most straight-forward language possible, not to assist in a linguistic shift, no matter how much good its proponents (who are obviously well-intentioned) feel it would do; this would be inappropriate editing even if the change had an empirically proven level of necessity or benefit, which is hardly the case here. This one is about as clean-cut as they get for me as an editor. Snow (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, well said but doesn't say anything that's not already been said here. I want to hear about what's been published regarding terminology choice. Is there a published article, op-ed or even a blog post somewhere that identifies an activist movement to change suicide terminology and backs the assertion that "commit suicide" is an an ingrained and neutral idiom? -—Kvng14:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The reason it has been said before is that everyone with a natural and colloquial command of English on both sides of the Atlantic (and even some in the Pacific) know this. However, well said is worth appreciating well. Furthermore, it was comprehensive; most of the others that said it, said it in snippets. You in particular said nothing, didn't you? If you want to see documentation and citation, why not do what we do; find some, assess it and if it is substantial show us. That was what I did for example, and I was not the only one. Just don't waste our time with heartfelt assurances that the citation says something by an "expert in something or other" or that it says something substantial, when, far from being substantial, it is not even relevant. For example, why should there be a move to change suicide terminology, when there is no general interest in anything so trivial? There doesn't have to be a blog on everything, you know? And why should "commit suicide" be an an "ingrained" (what on Earth do you suppose that means? "established"?") and neutral idiom before we may be permitted to use it where it is appropriate? As long as it is comprehensible to the typical educated Anglophone, that is enough. Are you proposing that we should be constrained to using an updated version of Simon Wagstaff's Introduction to: Polite Conversation? You certainly can hardly get more English than that, can you? And if that idea does attract you, are you willing to write the update? It seems likely that it would be an ambitious undertaking, but you can find the original at [5] and don't let me dissuade you. JonRichfield (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
RfC bot brought me here as an additional voice to help with the discussion. It appears now that further conversation will not be productive. My originally posted opinion is unchanged. My contribution is complete. -—Kvng03:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
support commit per wp:common name. Other reasons/responses: "That media uses this terminology, or that is has a lot of Google hits" may not be academic reasons for using a word, but they are valid reasons for using a word on Wikipedia. Neutrality (or even accuracy) does not generally trump common name arguments, and this is a good thing: We have an article called The Holocaust even though the title (and the article itself) might offend neo-Nazi groups; we have an article called the Great Leap Forward even though it is generally viewed to have been quite a leap backward.
Although I don't think that positive/ negative connotations weigh heavily enough on this topic to consider them, apparently some editors do, so: It has been pointed out already that "commit" also has quite a few positive connotations. Another example would be "commit to a relationship". I don't think anyone has mentioned it yet (TLDR) but killing oneself quite often does carry negative connotations regardless of what the act is called. There are a few exceptions, such as sacrificing oneself so that others may live (which would not be called suicide in many cases) or perhaps choosing a quick death over a long painful one. But when physically healthy people are so emotionally tortured that they kill themselves, it's generally considered to be quite tragic.
I agree with Andrew327 and JonRichfield (immediately above): we should neither prohibit the word "commit" in relation to suicide nor require it. If you can use proper English to describe the act of suicide without using the word "commit", go ahead (if it turns out that some other editor finds it offensive, we can discuss it). If you encounter "commit suicide" in an article, leave it alone.--Wikimedes (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Support I do not see the term as having a negative connotation and do not see sufficient reason to try to adjust our language to avoid it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Evidence Request Can someone please provide the requested evidence which explicitly supports the editorial opinion that the term 'commit' does not contain a negative, and therefore non-neutral, connotation in the specific context of suicide, and suicide alone? Evidence has been provided that it does. The 'it is common' and 'other people do it' arguments against the change have been made and heard and understood. Please reference and verify your position per Wikipedia policy. Markhenick (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
All that is required is the most simple of searches. The verb "To Commit" has meanings which are stated quite reasonably at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/commit which is as good and as imperfect a source as any. The relevant meaning is the first: "To do, perform, or perpetrate". Thus a person who kills themselves of their own volition performs or perpetrates their suicide.
Negative connotations are societal, not ones created by vocabulary, and are based upon the premise that, once, to kill one's self was an unlawful act. They also come from the mess left surrounding a suicide in the minds of those left behind. The word "commit" is a very simple word, devoid of positive or negative meaning. It is an action word, no more and no less.
What surprises me is that people have committed so much time and energy into determining something very simple about the English language. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, this evidence request is a bit of a red herring. No one is claiming that the word "commit" cannot possibly have negative connotations, only that it the word has plenty of positive connotations as well, and that it is commonly used in conjunction with the word suicide without malign intent. Nor is a negative connotation evidence of non-neutralility; suicide itself (both the word and the deed) often has negative connotations. This does not make use of the word (or coverage of the act) in Wikipedia articles non-neutral. (If an editor begins inserting their own negative verbiage, e.g. by calling a suicide a "heinous, selfish act" or some such, you would have cause for complaint, but it doesn't appear that this is the sort of usage you are opposing here.)--Wikimedes (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the foregoing responses to this request. No one denied that the word could be used with negative intent, so could something loving like "sweetiepie". "Commit suicide" simply is how people talk, Anglophones, Afrikaners, Dutch and Germans in particular. We certainly don't need to prove it except to non-anglophones and those who refuse to face relevant facts. We doubly certainly don't need to bend over backwards in case someone somewhere suddenly demands that we all speak dead-parrot-speak because some notional expert has decided that a lot of relatives of victims would cheer up at hearing us speak so funny. If you look in the shorter Oxford dictionary (my copy anyway) you will find the expression volunteered under "suicide", unsolicited and without any overtones, positive or negative, mentioned or hinted at. Happy now? JonRichfield (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
support commit This is all too reminiscent of the contention from experts in another subject, a few years back, that we must call a starfish a sea star, because it's not a fish. The sensitivities of experts are not always germane to our purposes. William Avery (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
<Siiiiighhh!> I can just about imagine. I suppose that people did point out to the errr... experts that a seacow isn't a cow and a seastar isn't a star and its shape isn't a star, which in fact is spherical, not pentacular... It must have been no end of fun; thank heavens I missed it! JonRichfield (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Elevation Tomorrow this RfC will be one month old. Since nothing new is being said, I will be submitting it for a next level in dispute resolution.Markhenick (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Why do that? There seems to be a clear majority in favour of the use of the term "commit suicide". I'm willing to copy and paste my comments from here into the next level: but I don't regard that as a "useful" contribution of effort into wikipedia and will I make that very point. Pyrotec (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that would be desirable, but since Markhenick only appears to have be giving one-day's warning of elevation, that closure action could be done any time between now and then (ideally by the editor who opened the RFC). I'm just asking why elevation is considered necessary - presumably because this RFC has not produced the "right" result? Pyrotec (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Smacks of forum shopping "within the rules" to me. No to escalation, No, no and a thousand times no, until closure. Appeal the result of the closure if you have to, but wait for it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Heyyy! Be nice! Let the poor guy console himself for having made a pratfall in a comparatively private, friendly exchange, by raking it up with folks who are likely to be a good deal less sympathetic. After all, think of the sense of importance it would confer after failure to make a single point! At least wasting the time of a new group would be some compensation for having had the door hit him in ... JonRichfield (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah, my bad. [irony mode]Yes, of course he should do that. It would bring a breath of fresh air to the discussion. Everyone loves the idea of "If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again." And it will be a pleasure to rehash the same arguments again[/irony mode]. Except, of course, there is no dispute here. There is (0.9 probability) a consensus that has emerged. What is needed is someone to close the RfC and determine that. So what he ought to do is put up a request for closure and we all get the medicine and take it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Nothing new is being said because a clear consensus has been reached. No need to abuse the process and waste everyone's time.GideonF (talk) 08:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
While those were all very constructive responses, facts are facts. That the dispute will follow the defined process is a fact. Supposed outcome is not really a deterrent to that. Debate as you will if there is more to debate, but when it naturally comes to a close then it will be elevated. Markhenick (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I should add: unless an ounce of flexibility breaks past this iron curtain of editorial opinion which divides neutral facts from personal reality. I realize how uncomfortable a burden change is, especially when it means seeing things as they are rather than as we think they are. Bringing this to the next level wouldn't be necessary were people willing to admit that maybe, just maybe, there may be a third way forward in which everyone is equally unhappy. If discussion is not your thing, that's ok, you don't have to be a part of it. But I sure will be. Markhenick (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Let me start off by saying that I don't think it's especially charitable or AGF to accuse editors who don't share your opinion of being inflexible, and I don't feel that making such an accusation improves your case. I would encourage you to retract it.
That said...could you please reiterate what third option you would consider acceptable? I'm familiar with your opposition to the word "commit"; I'm less familiar with any compromise that you've proposed short of simply not using the word. If you feel we should all be "equally unhappy", I'd like an explicit statement of the compromise that you would be unhappy with but would accept. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)These uses of rhetoric of yours do not encourage anyone to close this discussion. How about remaining silent until you see what happens? You never know, the closure might go in your favour. I have re-emphasised the closure request. Truly that is all that is needed here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Random comment - Just browsin around and thought I'd throw this out there. For programmers commit means to enact a permanent change. In that context the connotation is neutral. Just a thought. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
---
^Andreas P. Otte, Kurt Audenaert, Kathelijne Peremans, Nuclear medicine in psychiatry: Functional imaging of Suicidal Behavior, pp.475-483, Springer (2004);ISBN3-540-00683-4
^Barry, Patricia D.; Farmer, Suzette (2002). Mental health & mental illness. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 282. ISBN0-7817-3138-0.
^Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, Jin R, Merikangas KR, Walters EE (June 2005). "Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication". Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 62 (6): 593–602. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593. PMID15939837.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Alternatives
I've reread everything contributed here, and there have in fact been various ways forward suggested in the discussion above. Any or all of the other terms (ie. to die by suicide, to complete suicide, to suicide, to kill oneself, to take one's life, etc) may by used in combination with commit suicide where it is appropriate and fits with the flow and style of the existing wording. Another option is just to create a separate section which in one go attempts to reflect the complexity and detail of this discussion. The latter option is probably the cleanest, since it would leave the rest of the article as is. I would be happy to write the initial one, and then you can all have at it.
Regarding the elevation in dispute resolution: I'm sure some are quite adept at bullying others into accepting their consensus - this is well known about these talk pages, and I was prepared for that. I am also sensitive to the fact that it must be quite frustrating for you to encounter someone on whom that has virtually no impact. Let's keep the discussion focused on the issue itself, however, rather than on whether or not it is a worthy cause to continue to push this issue forward. It is. If you don't see that, or don't agree, that's ok. You don't have to. Plenty of legitimate arguments and sources have been provided to support a departure from the present form of this article. That demands deeper consideration, however it comes about. Markhenick (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
As I have said to you on your talk page you have the absolute right to go forward with whatever the next level of discussion is and you should do it well if you do it at all. At present you need to honour the consensus that obtains here. The discussion here is, for now, done. Its course has been run. Your options are to accept that consensus or to go to another level and seek to overturn it. It is not an option to return to banging the same drum with a different stick here. To do so runs the very real risk of being described as a pointy discussion and is, generally, frowned upon. So please move forward in whatever way you choose, but do it well and properly. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll put you in the no column for a compromise then. The RfC decision was a clear numerical majority against article-wide terminology change (although I would argue that this was not necessarily merit or policy based). However, it did not reject a new section detailing these discussions. While total change would have been my personal preference, I accept that this has been rejected by majority rule, and can live with this other option. We'll wait a bit to give others a chance to discuss this other option. We can go to administrator intervention, formal mediation, and/or arbitration if it will be helpful later on. Since we've had such a lively discussion on here, that seems support enough for a new section detailing the debate. Markhenick (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Please do not make assumptions about me. I am simply telling you that re-banging your drum here is not appropriate. Consensus is not made by numerical decision, it is made by assessment of the arguments given. It is not a popularity contest, nor a ballot. Ask the person who came and closed the RfC. This supposed new discussion is just resurrecting the old and closed one by another name. You appear to be mistaken about the role of administrators. They have a mop and bucket, not decision making authority. I doubt that mediation is now open to you after an RfC, there is nothing to mediate. Arbitration? Same thing. There is nothing to arbitrate. Use the advice I posted on your talk page to find out more. Please do not believe me. Find out independently. But do not, please, continue to raise the same topic over and over again on this talk page. Either escalate this or accept the consensus. Not "Their consensus" but the consensus. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The consensus (not merely the "numerical majority") was against a wholesale change in the language used in the article because that was the subject under discussion. If you want to write a sub-section under the "social and culture" heading that documents the existence of an activist movement attempting to change the language English-speakers use to refer to suicide then by all means do so. I for one certainly won't oppose it. Just remember to avoid language that implies approval or disapproval of the movement and the changes it is campaigning for.GideonF (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Such a section will, if created, require full WP:RS citations, of course. WIth those it may be judged to improve the article (a different discussion entirely). Without those it will not be acceptable and is likely to be removed on sight by any editor. I am neutral on the putative section. I will judge it on its merits, or may choose not to judge it at all. What I am not neutral on is an artificial extension of the closed RfC. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm as eager as anyone to avoid re-hashing the same discussion, but this seems to me like a quite different proposal, not the same proposal by the back door.GideonF (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Reflecting on JonRichfield's thoughts, below, great care would be required that such a section was not given undue weight. It seems to me that this would be better as a separate article if such a movement is notable and verifiable. My view on the rehashing vs the newness of the topic does differ from yours, though. I am starting to see a WP:COATRACK. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Yer jes' gotta be jokin' china! The article, even you must have noticed, is about (what was that again? Oh yes!) suicide. It is not about a group of guys disagreeing about whether the nicest way to talk about it is the expression most commonly employed. Can you imagine the expression on a the face of a reader, a poor, tortured seeker after knowledge, reading away like crazy, and suddenly boom! "And now a word from our sponsors... Markhenick thinks that all the rest of these guys are a lot of callous @$%^s wot duzzint talk proper. Don't let them fool you. Anyone who wants to commit suicide should leave a note saying that no one should confuse his action with committing anything; he only died by suicide, so it really is all hunky dory." Look, why don't you spare us all this? Just escalate and have done! JonRichfield (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Having read the article word-for-word several times, I have no objection in principle, for the phrase "commit suicide" to be alternated sparingly where appropriate with other comparable phrases such as "death by suicide", to kill oneself, to take one's life, etc, where this improves "the flow" of the article. What I find more problematical is the suggestion (which appears elsewhere) that since suicide is not now a crime in most countries the phrase "commit suicide" can't be used, since it denotes by inference that suicide is a crime; I also find the alternative suggestion that the appropriate "neutral" term is "suicided" to be a very unattractive proposal. Since Markhenick has floated the idea of writing a new section on neutrality (or otherwise) of language it think it could be quite useful if a draft version could be prepared and made available on this talk page. It would give the rest of us a much better idea of what is being proposed; and it might allay some of our fears that this is a back-door way of changing "commit suicide" to read "suicided". We might even contribute to such a section, if sources are to hand. However, has has been pointed out by Fiddle Faddle, since this article is currently a GA any new section would need to be at the same standard. Pyrotec (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I see no GA obstacle. I think of such things as ephemeral. I simply insist upon three things. That any putative section, subsection, sentence:
is congruent with the topic matter of this article. If not it might be better in an article of its own
Perhaps I'm slightly biased as I reviewed this article at WP:GAN and awarded (an ephemeral as you might say) GA. Yes, I'd accept your three points: any new section /subsection meeting these is likely to be GA-compliant, especially one that meets reliable sources. Pyrotec (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
By way of a progress update: I am working on the preliminaries for a draft section that I will post here for review which addresses this issue. As suggested, this should make the proposal more clear. I've started by compiling a table of 30 or so solid references (the reliability of which being determined by the number of times the specific reference was cited when available, or the relative prominence of the publishing organization). I have extracted relevant quotations, and obtained working links for each. The next step will be to distill this information into a workable draft. Markhenick (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe that the number of times a reference has been cited by others, as well as the ubiquity of the publishing body, are both relevant to WP:RS. Thanks for the heads up though. Markhenick (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
From WP:RS "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". There is scope for discussion, yes, but those criteria you have mentioned do not seem to me to make any difference. A scandal mongering blogger might be ubiquitous, but that does not make it a reliable source. FiddleFaddle11:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed regarding blogs, that's why I haven't used any previously or presently. Although neutrality is not a prerequisite for reliability. The other criteria makes a difference because, according to WP:RS "One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes," and WP:RS, "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation." Markhenick (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes if there are sufficient high quality sources we can look at it. I did not see much in the literature when updating this article however did not look specifically for this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
From the public perspective, journalism and government seem to have some good material. The community mental health and advocacy arenas, while obviously having an agenda, often have well reasoned pieces too. From the academic perspective, I've found that suicidology deals with it more directly than psychology or psychiatry in general. That said, I could use your help on one part. I would like to open this thing by recognizing that "commit suicide" is the most common term, as argued previously in this discussion. I have published sources which explicitly restate this claim, but they are sources which ultimately support my point. It might be useful to find a reliable source which also explicitly makes this claim, but does not support my argument. One that argues neutrally or in favor of "commit suicide" would be great. Could you help in finding one? Markhenick (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
If the WHO recommends against the use of the phrase "commit suicide", this is probably worth a mention in the article, something along the lines of "Although the phrase "commit suicide" is standard English and widely used in (news media, vernacular, etc.) its use is discouraged by (WHO, etc.) because (...)." Given the enormous scope of the article, more than a single sentence on the terminology currently in vogue among professionals in the field would seem to be undue weight. A full section on the recommended terminology and the reasons for its use would probably make a fine addition to the Suicide prevention article, which discusses treatment in more depth. (BTW, beyond reliability, the number of times an article is cited is often used as a measure of an article's influence in a field. I believe such citation counts are often limited to citations in reputable journals. This is an imperfect measure to be sure, for example an article can be cited many times in order to refute it, but Markhenick appears to be doing a pretty careful analysis and should be able to avoid such traps.)--Wikimedes (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Your point is reasonable, but I would want to have a clear citation of their given reason, and if it is no more literate than the material that has been advanced in this discussion, then I would add that for example the OED explicitly recognises the expression and without suggestion of unfavourable overtones. The fact that some jack-in-office in WHO has imposed his synthetic view on the language is not as such a sanction or stricture for everyone else to kowtow to. JonRichfield (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
That document from WHO intentionally does not mention the phrase that we are discussing. Rather, it refers to "attempted and completed suicide". This document from WHO states: The phrase ‘committed suicide’ should not be used because it implies criminality, thereby contributing to the stigma..."
I've finished a draft of the proposed section, but am in the process of formatting the references for Wikipedia. I am hoping to get through this today. Although I made an effort to be as tight and strictly reference-based as possible, it is still a lot longer than one sentence. I would not necessarily oppose putting it in a different article, or it's own article, with the condition that a truncated paragraph is included here (as is the case for the sections on Methods, Suicide Prevention, Epidemiology, Gender, Legislation, Religious Views, Philosophy, Advocacy, and Locations).
To Wikimedes suggestion, suicide prevention is certainly present in this, but is only one of the motivators for terminology change (others include linguistic precision, scientific/clinical accuracy, legal clarity, and ethical objectivity). That makes me think there might be enough here for an independent article. I'll put up the whole thing when ready and we can go from there. Markhenick (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Language of Suicide
According to Fairbairn, “The most common way of speaking about suicide is to talk of its being ‘committed’.”[1] In fact, “committed suicide” or similar descriptions continue to be the norm in both scholarly research and journalism.[2][3]. Advocacy groups have suggested that this phrasing has become so entrenched in English vocabulary that it has gained “a naturalness which implies a deceptive harmlessness.”[2] Fairburn further acknowledged the difficulty in finding alternative means of referring to suicide which “are neither clumsy nor misleading,”[1]
However, while common, Lebacqz & Englehardt argue that referring to suicide as an act committed may be hazardous to ethical clarity.[4] Others have also argued in favour of more exact language regarding suicide, both in the interest of moral and ethical precision,[3][5] as well as scientific and clinical clarity.[6][7] A United States Navy report urges against the use of the term “committed suicide” on similar grounds, asserting that "suicide is better understood when framed objectively within the context of behavioral health."[8]
The lack of clarity in English suicide terminology has been attributed to the connotations of crime, dishonour, and sin that suicide carries.[9]Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). The German term Selbstmord begehen is similar, denoting an act of commission.[5] Common language “portrays suicide as a ‘crime’ to be ‘committed’ as is, for example, murder.”[4] This is despite the fact that suicide is largely no longer a crime,[3][10] and that, as noted suicidologist Samuel Wallace wrote, “all suicide is neither abhorrent nor not; insane or not; selfish or not; rational or not; justifiable or not.”[11]
Canadian suicide prevention activist, P. Bonny Ball, commented that criminal implications of suicide are a carryover from the Middle Ages when suicide was considered “both illegal and sinful by the laws and religions of the time.”[12] Sommer-Rotenberg had similarly argued that “the act of self-killing was considered criminal because it was perceived as transgressing the moral authority of God and the righteous feelings of humankind.”[5]
Since “committing suicide” was akin to committing murder or rape, it has been argued that they continue to be linked in some languages.[2] However, this common English expression is not universal: “By contrast the French se suicider and the Italian uccidersi are reflexive. Likewise in Hebrew: l’hit’abbed, ‘to self-destroy,’ is something one does to oneself, with no implication of criminality.”[5]
Various alternatives have been proposed to clarify the language regarding the act of suicide from a variety of sectors – including government, journalism, community mental health advocates, and the scientific community. Terms such as “death by suicide,” and “non-fatal suicide attempt” have been suggested to be more objective.[8] The World Health Organization has agreed that these terms “are more accurate and less open to misinterpretation.”[13] The National Institute of Mental Health, the largest research organization in the world specializing in mental illness, also recommends such phrasing is “completed suicide,” or “kill him/herself.”[14]
As it applies to a direct clinical context, the widely cited Beck Classification of Suicidal Behaviour exclusively uses the terminology of “complete suicide.”[15] This classification was revisited in a number of notable documents (such as the Operational Classification for Determination of Suicide, the ‘Tower of Babel’ nomenclature, the WHO/EURO definitions, the Columbia University suicidality classification, the CDC self-directed violence surveillance system, and the Denver VA VISN 19 MIRECC self-directed violence classification system).[16]
A consensus is gaining momentum that suicide is a public heath concern to be prevented, rather than a criminal one to be punished, either by law or by language.[17][18][19][2] To that end, many other options and guidelines have been suggested.[20][21][22][23][24][25] As it concerns media reporting of suicide, a key indicator of guideline influence on language as it is practiced in that context reports including one by the Annenberg School for Communication's Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania suggests that there is "evidence of a change in reporting practices following the release of the new media guidelines”[26]
^ abLebacqz, K.; Englehardt, H.T. (1980). "Suicide and covenant". In Battin, M.P.; Mayo, D.J. (eds.). Suicide: the philosophical issues. New York: St. Martin's. p. 672. ISBN978-0312775315. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
^ abcdSommer-Rotenberg, D. (11 August 1998). "Suicide and language". Canadian Medical Association Journal. 159 (3). Retrieved 15 May 2013. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
^Silverman, M.M. (2006). "The Language of Suicidology". Suicide and Life-Threatening Behaviour. 36 (5). Retrieved 16 May 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
^Wallace, S.E. (1999). "The Moral Imperative to Suicide". In Werth, J.L. Jr. (ed.). Contemporary Perspectives on Rational Suicide. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis. pp. 48–53. ISBN978-0876309377. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
^Ball, P. Bonny (2005). "The Power of words". Canadian Association of Suicide Prevention. Retrieved 16 May 2013.
^IASP Task Force - Suicide and the Media. "Media Guidelines & Other Resources". International Association for Suicide Prevention. Retrieved 15 May 2013.
A subpage is reasonable. For this article however, given how much information is available (more than some of the sections presently in the article), more than a sentence here is warranted. A section here comparable to the sections on Methods, Suicide Prevention, Epidemiology, Gender, Legislation, Religious Views, Philosophy, Advocacy, and Locations (which all link to subpages) seems to make sense. Markhenick (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Most review article and major textbooks do not comment on this. While I agree there is some room for mentioning the above is a little out of proportion for inclusion here. Some of this also already discussed in the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd say that this is a strong start for a stand alone article on the recommended language of suicide. I'm an inclusionist at heart and I think it would be great if someone's interest is sparked in what the current recommendations are and why, they can come to Wikipedia and find an article that tells them all about it. "Language of suicide" is in fact much broader than this, and unless Markhenick wants the discussion of whether "commit" is kosher and other such nuances to be swamped with detailed discussions of the various synonyms (off one's self, make the ultimate sacrifice, etc.), their etymologies, suicide in other languages, fine distinctions between hari kari and sepakku, etc. I would suggest a more restrictive title.
I still think that a single sentence on the topic is sufficient for this article, with a link to the new article so that anyone who is interested in the details can find them. Markhenic has pointed out that that beyond prevention, this touches on "linguistic precision, scientific/clinical accuracy, legal clarity, and ethical objectivity", which is fair enough, but again the language of suicide is a small subset of scientific/clinical accuracy, legal issues, and ethics.
It's reasonable to propose a separate section on the language of suicide. Much of my work on Wikipedia involves China and Tibet, and many of the names have different local names, with different scripts and transcriptions, which can be in turn be different from one or several words that have been adopted into English, so sometimes a separate section on terminology is warranted. I'll have to leave it for others to decide whether such a section is warranted for this article, but a section on language would be broader in scope than Markhenick's proposal above.
It looks like the difficulty in getting the reflist to show comes from it being the second reflist on the page. Deleting the first reflist is not an option, but Markhenik could create a subpage on his/her user page, place a copy of the proposed section/article there, and link to it here for those who are interested. Anyone who is really interested can hit edit and look at the markup.
Separate page, linked from a sentence in this article. The topic is substantial but inclusion of the entire work in this article is undue weight. FiddleFaddle07:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree. As a matter of personal opinion I think that the philosophical substance of some of the views quoted in the text is classically a case of much cry but little wool, but as a sociological phenomenon it would be no less substantial than many articles, so why not. However, as it has little to do with the subject matter of suicide, it certainly should be in a separate article, with adequate cross-linking of course. JonRichfield (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
We have to be careful of not turning sources into Wikipedia:Advocacy. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Finding a dozen sources saying that "commit suicide" implies criminality doesn't make it so. This article can allude to the fact that there is a movement afoot that attempts to influence media reporting about suicide. My personal feeling is that this is not necessarily a bad thing—but I don't think these recommendations know any boundaries. We should not be repeating in Wikipedia's voice that every pronouncement on the significance of language has been vetted in anything approaching an objective way. These pronouncements seem to be little more than opinions. A separate article can expand upon the recommendations of some current thinkers in the area of suicidology. But I think such an article would have to exercise restraint in its own wording. I think most of these recommendations are merely untested theories and opinions albeit sometimes emanating from and supported by reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to sound tediously echo-chambrous, but I agree here too. I don't object to the principle of such a (separate) article, but I was intending my support to take proper quality control of the product for granted. Apart from suitably constipated reporting of the views of the portentious sources in question, there should be balanced reporting of the views opposed to artificial terminology, in case anyone has bothered to express such views, for which I must point out, there has been no real call for expression to date. So far plain English has been adequate, without any need to invent errr... deceptive harmlessness or fancied hazards to ethical clarity or behavioral vitamins (urrrp... 'scuse me!) I can't wait to see what the article comes up with. JonRichfield (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
My concern at this point is clarity. I would like any resulting article to be written as if it were intended for the Simple English Wikipedia. Keeping it simple would be an ideal here, in my opinion. Assumptions should not be built into sentences. I read a sentence such as: "A United States Navy report urges against the use of the term 'committed suicide' on similar grounds, asserting that 'suicide is better understood when framed objectively within the context of behavioral health.'[8]" The assumption that I feel is built into that sentence is that "committed suicide" is not objective. We can tell the reader what some authorities in the field of suicidology are saying about the term "committed suicide". But we should not allow it to be implied that Wikipedia agrees with any such assertions. More obviously phrases such as "hazardous to ethical clarity" are not clear and should not appear in any article we produce. Even if this is sourced I think it should be rejected because, in my opinion, it fails to be clear. Bus stop (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. So who will create the article? It does need to be separate from this one, there is a consistent opinion so far about that. The only real discussion is over what is in and what is out, and what is, of course, shaken all about. (Ja, das Hokey Cokey - Knien geborgen, Arme gestrecht, - Ra ra ra) FiddleFaddle22:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the proposed article as it has been submitted has multiple severe POV issues. It repeatedly uses the word "clarify" in the editorial voice to refer to the proposed changes, implicitly endorsing the view that the current language somehow lacks clarity, and even refers directly to "The lack of clarity in English suicide terminology", flat-out stating that such a thing exists.GideonF (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
May I suggest a pause, followed by examination of the presumably yet to be created final article, and then a discussion of the sentence? It is beneficial to see the end product before designing the link. Do you have a hyperlink, please to what I presume to be an Articles for Creation article? FiddleFaddle19:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
It's going to take a while to flesh out and get up to standard. Since we can't really determine what to include or reference on this page until that time, this discussion will probably continue as dormant for a bit. Markhenick (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Not done, we're not going to add your entire paper to Wikipedia if thats what you're requesting. If it is published somewhere credible then it may be used as a reference if someone wants to use it--Jac16888 Talk 17:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Not done: We do not disqualify sources based on the religion of the creators. The BBC site, while brief, presents neutral facts. The other source has been moved or removed. I can remove the latter content if you would like. The text of your second sentence is not encyclopedic but your first sentence is fine, it is just difficult to judge whether these sources are reliable sources. I get the impression of a self-published site in which a single individual answers questions with no independent review. That is problematic in the same way that a blog would be. Can you find another source for that content? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Done I've removed the claim because it no longer has a verifiable source. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Fixed Thanks, LadyofShalott 15:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Lova Falk talk 09:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Done — daranz [ t ] 01:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Done: Minor edits only. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)