Talk:Self-harm

Images of self-inflicted injuries

I understand that Wikipedia tries to provide as much information as possible, and of course, to someone who self-harms, the entire text of this article could potentially be triggering (i.e., inspire further self-injury), but does the image of self-inflicted cuts really add enough to the article to outweigh the potential psychological impact? Many people find pictures more viscerally affecting than words, and the image doesn't convey any information that isn't already covered by the text. I see that this issue has been discussed in the past, and as I'm not a frequent contributor to Wikipedia, I won't go so far as to remove the image myself, but I was taken aback by its inclusion. Images of cuts and other injuries can be found at Wound; this page is about a phenomenon that's as psychological as it is physical, and I don't think it's unreasonable to try to avoid unnecessarily harming people who come here for information. 174.60.25.64 (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The image is an example of self-inflicted cuts. It is there purely as an example of what self harm typically looks like for educational purposes. It is not designed to be a trigger and I personally do not see this article or the images included in it as triggering. I think the article deals with the subject in a very professional manner and see no reason to remove the image. Polyamorph (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jdrewitt. Wikipedia is also not censored. The article on beer on could argue could trigger drinking in alcoholics. The one on cigarettes smoking in smokers. The one on food eating in obese people / food addicts ( and we have a whole Wikiproject on food ). We must keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the image isn't intended to be triggering, and I completely agree that it isn't possible (or desirable) to protect against every single possible trigger. But I suggest that self-inflicted cuts are a rather rarer sight than alcohol, cigarettes, or food, and that it doesn't make sense to treat them in quite the same way. No, Wikipedia isn't censored, but I think there's room for discretion; I find that the article on Capital punishment, for example, includes two photographs of executions, but that the thumbnails are actually less graphic than the one in this article. The issue, as I see it, is that the picture poses a real risk of harm to a small but vulnerable portion of the population, while presenting only a slight benefit to other readers. 174.60.25.64 (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

But seeing that cigarettes kill 50% of the people who smoke them cigarettes are a bigger concern IMO. They are also the number one leading cause of death in the world. I am still not for banning image of them on Wikipedia however. You could get my support for banning their sale. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in banning images of cigarettes on Wikipedia, either, because as far as I know, pictures of cigarettes have next to no bearing on the difficulty of quitting smoking. Images of self-inflicted injuries are known to be triggering; I'd be happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of any evidence that images of cigarettes have a comparable effect. 174.60.25.64 (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean that tobacco companies have wasted billions of dollars over the years on cigarette advertising that does not work?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The image presented in the article is not the most graphic example of self harm that we could show. It does not show someone actually cutting or blood flowing which I agree would be very triggering. Instead It simply shows some moderate scratches, I think it is important to show this image as an example of what self-harm typically looks like. I think it would be preferable to obtain a better quality image at some stage but this image is fine for now. It's not going to be removed because as Doc James points out wikipedia is not censored. Polyamorph (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually you have just completely dumbfounded your argument by saying that this (from the capital punishment page) is less graphic than our image of self-harm. There is nothing wrong with our image, if it causes you offence then that is not our problem, the team of editors that have written this article have previously mutually agreed on it's suitability. Polyamorph (talk) 08:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear: I was referring specifically to the thumbnail which appears as part of the article, not to the full-size image. In the thumbnail of the execution, I have to look fairly closely even to figure out what's going on. The image at the top of the article on self-harm, on the other hand, is perfectly recognizable even in thumbnail form as a picture of an arm with multiple cuts. You're right that the picture could be more graphic; I'm glad it isn't. But since you mention the possibility of eventually replacing it, let me ask, would you be willing to accept a black-and-white diagram of an arm with cuts as a substitute, if one could be obtained? That would illustrate the concept of cutting without the immediacy of a color photograph. 174.60.25.64 (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Thumbnail? Which one? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The OP is referring to the thumbnail on the Capital punishment page of a person being sliced to death. Apparently that is not graphic but our image is!Polyamorph (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Even in the thumbnail on the capital punishment page it is pretty clear to me what is going on in the image to me. When I said we were looking to replace the image I meant a better quality image. The current one is a little blurry and not fantastic resolution. This has been discussed before. But no, I would not accept a tamed down black and white diagram because as I have already stated this image is by no means extreme and I see nothing wrong with including it in the article.Polyamorph (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that is the tamest picture of SH that I've ever seen. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Guerillero. Also what is the point of having a diagram when we have a photo of the real thing? Also as mentioned before we do not censor. Peter.C • talk 00:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW there is a site called encyclopedia dramatica that allows user contributions. They also have a page on self harm / suicide. Would recommend people who wish to decrease triggers go there and try to improve things. They also have a great deal of hate speech, etc. Not SFW. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thats a worse then sending them off to a pro site... --Guerillero | My Talk 13:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, there are sites out there that actually intentionally provide triggering images and belittlement of sufferers. This encyclopedia article simply provides information on the disorder in a predominently medical context. The image of self-harm is absolutely necessary to educate readers as to what self-harm looks like. We can't just assume all readers self-harm themselves or know people that have done so. So for the sake of having a complete encyclopedia article we should have an accurate image. Any suggestion that the article causes harm to its readers is absurd and comes from some naive sense that we have a responsibility to protect people from themselves. We might as well propose Suicide at AfD (articles for deletion) lest someone read the article and do themselves in. Polyamorph (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus among registered users, so unless anyone wants to discuss the matter further, I'll concede the point and withdraw. I understand that Wikipedia is not censored; I also gather from articles such as Sexual intercourse (and for that matter, Suicide) that judgment is used in selecting images for inclusion in articles. I defer, however, to the judgment of those more familiar with the culture of Wikipedia. 174.60.25.64 (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

:I suggest you take time to read WP:TALK and maybe think about removing the personal attacks you have made above. Polyamorph (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not the author of the unsigned comments I think you're referring to; see the revision history for that user's IP address. 174.60.25.64 (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about the mix up. In this case I have removed the comments above which aimed to misrepresent your views and contained personal attacks. Normally we don't remove comments by other users but in this instance I think it is valid to do so. I just want to clarify my use of the term "naive" in my comments above was not meant as an insult, I used it in terms of naivity of wikipedia policy and nothing more. Best regards Polyamorph (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's triggering. Please take it off. I can't read a single thing on this page without fear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.84.160 (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't find it triggering. At any rate, this is an encyclopedia, censorship does not apply here. This is not really a matter of opinion or consensus. 95.109.102.252 (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article and for completeness it is appropriate to show an image of the article's subject. This article is written in a predominantly medical context and is not designed to "trigger" readers. The image itself is a very moderate example of self harm. The article is designed to provide knowledge on the subject. A useful side effect is that the article could also improve general awareness of the condition. However, I do suggest that any readers who find the article content distressing or triggering in any way to contact a health professional. Polyamorph (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that, Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, the information presented in the article should not be edited (picture included), I still can't help but feel as if something should be done to prevent triggering. Because while, yes, this is an encyclopedia, people who self-injure could easily find their way here through Google unaware of what they'll see. As an internet website I believe more responsibility is necessary both because of it's far greater accessibility compared to real, tangible encyclopedias as well as Wikipedia's popularity as a universal information source. Would merely adding a disclaimer warning that some of the articles' content may cause triggering at the top of the article itself (leaving empty space between the warning and the article) be too much to ask? Some peoples' safety may literally be at risk because of this article, and with that in mind the fact that this is an encyclopedia comes off as resoundingly unimportant when discussing whether or not it should be modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.170.233 (talk) 10:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

On wikipedia we don't add disclaimers, since there is already a general disclaimer at the bottom of every page. I don't see that this article is triggering and I cannot see how anyone's safety is at risk from reading an article about the condition in a predominently medical context. Polyamorph (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

illogical distinction

"men more frequently report burning and hitting themselves, whereas women are more likely to report cutting and burning themselves." They can't both report burning themselves more frequently than the other. Noloop (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I checked and it was written like that in the source "Kerr, P.L., et al. (2010), Nonsuicidal Self-Injury: A Review of Current Research for Family Medicine and Primary Care Physicians, 23, pp. 240–259". However, I have clarified the statement.Polyamorph (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

I have (finally after finding some spare time) been through the peer review comments kindly made by Finetooth. I've addressed all of his comments and made most of the suggested changes, where appropriate. I believe the next step is for the regular editors (or anyone else who fancies it) to check the entire article for coherency and completeness prior to submitting to WP:FAC. Polyamorph (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it addictive like listening to loud music?

A while ago i read about a study that found that listening to loud music is addictive because of the micro lesions to the eardrum and other parts of the inner ear caused release of endorphin (natural painkiller that feels good and can be addictive), and the brain start getting desensitized needing more and more for the same effect. Is self-harm, or at least some forms of it, addictive in a similar manner? --TiagoTiago (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please add photo

Hello,

I'm not an expert on anything, and will never edit ten articles, or figure out how to add an image to a page. I just uploaded a photo I took today (automutilation-cigburns.png) to wikicommons to be added to the automutilation page. It is under the category: automutilation.

Thanks in advance Shankus (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)