This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Using the word committed to refer to someone who died as a result of suicide is dated, and frankly offensive. Suicide is not a crime that one commits. I have gone through the article and replaced it with things such as 'died by' 'carried out', 'sought/seeking a death by' etc. A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a perennial matter. Perhaps someone will find it on the talk page previously. Do we really have to go through this every few months? FiddleFaddle 22:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I do not have a strong opinion one way or the other. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
We had a lengthy discussion of this and consensus was against wholesale removal of "commit".GideonF (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Is the consensus you are citing the one I just read from 2004? I don't think that old consensus should trump new consensus. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps before a rfc I could read some articulated reasoning against my bold? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
This is similar to not changing text from British to American and vis versa with a good reason. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@ACanadianToker: Perhaps you would look through the archives, then? Perhaps you would also look at the multiple meanings of the verb 'to commit'. Of course you can go to an RFC. Of course we can all discuss it again. IT has, however, been done to death. FiddleFaddle 06:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The consensus I am citing is the current consensus, unchanged since exhaustive discussion in April-May 2013. If you want to try to overturn the consensus that is of course your prerogative. But you are not presenting any new arguments that were not presented and found wanting previously.GideonF (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd certainly not prefer to go through this again so soon, but if other editors feel another lap around the track is merited, I suppose I can copy and paste my previous arguments... :p DonIago (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I would appreciate a link to the relevent section of the archives. I can't seem to find the one you're all talking about. Thanks, - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Just searching on my name would have turned it up, but here you go. Enjoy! DonIago (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the link, Doniago. Considering the perennial nature of the issue I brought up I would like to propose the following as a compromise. 1. Replace committed in the lead with carried out. 2. Expand the Definitions section to include discussion of the debate about terminology. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
"There is discussion about the appropriateness of the term commit and its use to describe suicide. Those who object to the use of commit argue that it carries with it implications that suicide is a criminal, sinful or morally wrong act. There is growing consensus that it is more appropriate to use "completed suicide," died by suicide or simply "killed him/herself" to describe the act of suicide. Despite this, “committed suicide” or similar descriptions are the most prevalent in both scholarly research and journalism." - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, very nice. Now look up all the other contexts in which the word "Commit" is used. Crime is just one of them. FiddleFaddle 22:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Anyone who thinks the word "commit" implies criminality doesn't know what the word means and should commit to learning its full definition. DonIago (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of snark and sarcasm on this talk page. It is unhelpful. While dictionary definitions are important its also important to reflect broader sources and discussions - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
No snarking at all. Please do not make accusations about other people. The word means many different things. Cherry picking the one you dislike is a great tactic for oratory but does not work here. We have been down this road many times. Suicide is a desperate act, and one commits to it in despair, often. That it was once criminal was based on antique religious sentiments. The world has grown wiser. FiddleFaddle 16:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I would argue that as the definition of 'suicide' consistently refers to the 'intent' to end one's own life, 'suicide' is not an appropriate term for someone who died as a result of a mental illness, succumbing to the effects of that illness rather than any intention on their part. Biographies of those who have struggled with mental health are replete with examples of those who 'fought' their condition and in many cases, lost the fight. Clearly people such as this did not intend to end their own life, and their death should not be attributed to 'suicide'. Following that logic, even 'Died by Suicide' would not be appropriate, but something akin to the manner in which death by a medical condition is reported, such as 'Died of/from <mental illness>/mental health difficulties'. I think it's imperative that perception of mental health be steered away from the misconception that those who suffer from it do so by choice, phrases like 'committed suicide' and 'took their own life' should be discouraged as much as humanly possible. The term 'suicide' should be reserved for those who unquestionably did so by choice, such as suicide attacks used in warfare. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Not the way the sources use the term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll admit my perspective on this is perhaps at the extreme end of the scale, I guess it depends on how you define 'intent'; by 'intent', I'm referring more to what a person would want if they were of sound mind. I guess 'intent' in the generally accepted definition of suicide refers more to the expected consequences of a person's actions, regardless of what prompted those actions. Anyway, the key point that I'm absolutely certain of, is that someone who dies as a result of mental health problems should NEVER be considered to have chosen to do so. It's frightening how many among the medical profession, even in psychiatry, that assume a person with mental health difficulties can choose to not suffer from the consequences of their condition. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
^Ball, P. Bonny (2005). "The Power of words". Canadian Association of Suicide Prevention. Retrieved 16 May 2013.
^Beck, A.T.; Resnik, H.L.P. & Lettieri, D.J, eds. (1974). "Development of suicidal intent scales". The prediction of suicide. Bowie, MD: Charles Press. p. 41. ISBN978-0913486139.
WHY on earth is this article riddled with "commited suicide", suicide hasn't been a crime for a very long time, so people cannot "commit" suicide. All mental health charities advise against using the work "commit". Please edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete5677 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, and thanks for this. In the second paragraph of the article, there is the following sentence, with a source: "Rates are higher in men than in women, with males three to four times more likely to kill themselves than females." Is there some reason that that's not good enough? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I think IP might be referring to the perception that women are more likely to attempt but not die. I remember seeing researcher about that, i.e. women more likely to attempt as a 'cry for help,' and that men are more likely to opt for methods that lower their likelihood to survive an attempt. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
"The focus here is on suicide, the self-inflicted intentional act designed to end one's own life, not on martyrdom, which involves using one's death in a defense of one's homeland by inflicting losses on an enemy" per Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
In secondary peer reviewed journal articles and encyclopedias, "suicide attacks" is a common term. These sources call it a suicide, when suicide bombing kills innocent civilians. Why not include religious views on such acts of suicide, from all sides, in a few sentences? Do you want me to cite secondary and tertiary reviews, per WP:RS? While "martydom" suicide when it is in defense of one's homeland during war may not belong in this article, an NPOV summary of religious views on suicide terrorism that hurts innocent civilians is relevant. Isn't it? Latifa Raafat (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Gearing and Lizardi paper is as much secondary as the articles in peer reviewed publications that you just deleted: ISBN 978-0415770309, , , . I have read the Lester paper. The summary here of Lester is incomplete and poorly done. Same for Gearing-Lizardi. Alternate scholarly reviews on suicide in Islam have been published, that differ from Gearing-Lizardi. Please consider , for example.
The current section on religious views, presents one POV. It does not include summary of different views from highly cited peer reviewed scholarly publications on suicide in Quran and Hadith. This article is thus taking sides and has an NPOV problem. We should include summary from Gearing-Lizardi as well as others from peer reviewed secondary and tertiary sources. But before I attempt to do so, I await comments.
BTW, for "religious view on suicide", papers from medical journals may not be the best source. Review papers from journals and other WP:RS sources specializing in religion, sociology, anthropology and related fields are more comprehensive, more appropriate source. Latifa Raafat (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes happy with reviews from other sources. Please provide and we can discuss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2015
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In section 8.1 Legislation, the statement "Physician-assisted suicide is legal in the state of Washington" is misleading and should say "Physician-assisted suicide is legal in the state of Washington for people with terminal diseases" (or any other grammatical arrangement of this you might feel is better = GAB).
The statement that follows it "In Oregon people with terminal diseases may request medications to help end their life" should then probably say "Also in Oregon people with [...]" (GAB) so that of course the statement doesn't sound ignorant of the other and vice versa. Lxxdr (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)