Talk:Suicide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Suicide has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Death / Suicide  (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by the Suicide task force (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Crime (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine / Translation / Psychiatry (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Translation task force (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Psychology (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Contradiction on precipitating factors[edit]

The section "Substance use" says "Substance abuse is the second most common risk factor for suicide after major depression and bipolar disorder" but the chart captioned "The precipitating circumstances for suicide from 16 American states in 2008" shows "Intimate partner" being the second most common factor after "Mental illness". This apparent contradiction should be resolved or at least explained. -- Beland (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@Beland:
Information icon Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Fiddle Faddle 19:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Sorry, I don't have time to do that. I'm working on drought and water supply articles today instead. Just leaving this note here in case anyone else is interested or if I circle back around to this article in the future.-- Beland (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I can't find that figure or chart in the source: Karch, DL; Logan, J; Patel, N; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (CDC) (Aug 26, 2011). "Surveillance for violent deaths—National Violent Death Reporting System, 16 states, 2008". Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries (Washington, D.C. : 2002) 60 (10): 1–49. PMID 21866088.
The source is about violent death, not suicide. It includes some suicides but not others. Suicide is not necessarily violent death. In this report, suicide is defined as a death resulting from the use of force against oneself. By that definition, poison or drowning would not be violent death or suicide.
But unless someone can find the actual source of that chart, it must be removed. --Nbauman (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The one is about 18 US states. The other is more general. And drug misuse is a mental illness. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Addition to Rational Subheading[edit]

Proposed change to Rational subheading : As proposed in the classical work Suicide (book), there are three main rationals for suicide, egoistic, anomic, and altruistic. [1] Egoistic Suicide is committed by individual's who feel alone in a world without support and alienated from others in that world. Anomic Suicide is committed by individual's, who after experiencing a major change in their place in society, feel disoriented.

References
  1. ^ Durkheim, Emile (1997) [1951]. Suicide : a study in sociology. The Free Press. ISBN 0-684-83632-7
Not sure what text you are proposing to be added were? Book is a little old. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Doc James, I'm proposing the addition of that text underneath the subtitle of Rational. I'm an undergrad student and this is for an assignment, so I'm very new to Wikipedia and I'm sorry if I was unclear. I understand that the book is a little old, however it still seems very relevant to me due to its in depth mention in my abnormal psychology textbook along with these other "types' of suicide. I do believe that the addition of the definition of egoistic and anomic suicide could help readers understand more the rational behind why individuals could choose to commit suicide. Thank you for your input. Ermoore (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

1897 is too old. We need to use newer refs. From the last 5-10 years anyway. Egoistic is discussed in other sections and is not deemed to be rational anymore. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay I understand. Thank you for your help with this. 70.171.35.134 (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay added to the psychology section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Tautology[edit]

Didn't expect to have to bring this up on the talk page, but if anyone wants to present a defence of of saying "unethical and immoral" (two words which mean the same thing) in preference to saying "unethical" please do so here.GideonF (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

These words are by no means exact synonyms. There are things that are immoral for you, me, to do that are not unethical when we are not bound by a code of ethics. Morality is also subjective. My morality and your morality are not congruent, though they may intersect. Perhaps an individual word should be chosen when one is required which may be neither of the two you mention, and more than one word be used when circumstances dictate it.
I have deliberately not read the article before answering you, preferring a technical answer without the benefit of context. Fiddle Faddle 15:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I did view the usage in context and still very much agree that morality and ethics are certainly not absolute synonyms. Our articles note the distinction (though the sections that do so could use some work), but regardless, the difference is one that is routinely considered in a vast array of social contexts, especially as relates to professional contexts. Morality is the broad term, more apt to refer to widely-applicable, innate, and non-contextual beliefs; it is generally the term utilized in the case of religious standards and other personal ideologies which are applicable in every aspect of life (as used in the sentence "He took 'thou shalt not kill' to be the supreme morale commandment of his faith."). Ethical standards are typically much more narrow, referring to how an individual perceives and applies general codes of conduct applied to a specific social context, often a professional obligation and is defined and utilized explicitly as such in fields such as law, medicine, military service, politics and business. So, for example, "The prosecutor was disbarred for ethical violations after he knowingly suborned perjury." Or, consider this statement to further contrast the two "It was a deep moral challenge for the the doctor to perform abortions, owing to his religion, but in the end he decided he had an ethical obligation to provide his patients with the care they requested." Needless to say, there is a lot of cross-over between the two terms, and in many contexts both terms may apply, but they are not directly analogous concepts and are more commonly used in somewhat mutually exclusive contexts and a person can an ethical obligation that they find morally objectionable, since ethics tend to be more collaborative standards that can conflict with the individuals morals (though of course morals too can be socially constructed). Some people who have never had to commit to a professional code of ethics may not be as familiar with the distinction as others and may use the terms interchangeably, but this does not change their formal and more widespread usage, which is strongly reflected in Wikipedia's sources on the matter. Snow talk 16:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I can see that in certain circumstances a thing may be described as unethical in terms of a professional code of ethics that is only debatably immoral; but professional codes of ethics are outside of the scope of philosophy. In philosophy, "ethics" is that branch of philosophy that concerns itself with morality and the terms "unethical" and "immoral" are synonyms in philosophical vocabulary. And this sentence does appear in the "philosophy" section.GideonF (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The problem I see with that argument is that philosophy is both a formal field of epistemology which you are referring to and a general catch-all for considering ideological concepts and it is more the latter than the former that is being used in the context of this page. Even putting that aside, I have many, many, many times heard the distinction between ethics and morality explored within a discussion of philosophy in an academic context. It's true that the formal treatment of ethics in philosophy is often called "moral philosophy", but this is largely a matter of historical terminology and philosophers are actually as engaged as any other profession in existence in exploring the nuances between the two terms. I should return for the moment to the actual content being debated though and say, for the record, I don't think it's particularly well written, that sentence, and might be changed to flow a little better; putting aside the question of duality between ethics and morality, the sentence awkwardly subordinates moral considerations as a subordinate class of morality, and it stands out. On the other hand, there just aren't many synonyms, partial or otherwise, that fit in this context, so it might be unavoidable. Snow talk 16:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Leaving aside the wider question of definitions in other contexts, on which we may well have to agree to disagree, do you think any information is conveyed by "unethical and immoral" in this context that would not be conveyed either word on its own?GideonF (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I do, but given the contrast is not as strong as it might be in most contexts, that the difference is not earth-shattering to the general understanding of the topic, and that there are other syntactic and semantic factors to consider, I do think an alteration is in order. What do you think about this:
"Arguments as to acceptability of suicide in moral or social terms range from the position that the act is inherently immoral and unacceptable under any circumstances to the perception of suicide as a sacrosanct right of anyone who believes they have rationally and conscientiously come to the decision to end their own lives, even if they are young and healthy."
Snow talk 17:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy with that except that I'd change "the perception of" to "regarding" for stylistic purposes.GideonF (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Except rather than change that segment to "the regarding of suicide" I used "a regard for suicide" as it seemed to read better that way. Nice working with ya! ;) Snow talk 18:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate that this may seem as if I'm nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking, but if you really don't like constructing that sentence with a participle I'd rather go back to "a perception of" or recast the whole phrase than have "a regard for". Having a regard for something isn't the same as regarding it. Consider the following two sentences: (1) I regard Boris Johnson as a barefaced rogue; (2) I have a regard for Boris Johnson as a barefaced rogue. (2), unlike (1), suggests that I hold barefaced rogues in general and Boris Johnson in particular in a certain esteem. How about:
"Arguments as to acceptability of suicide in moral or social terms range from the position that the act is inherently immoral and unacceptable under any circumstances to the position that asserts suicide as a natural right of anyone who believes they have rationally and conscientiously come to the decision to end their own lives, even if they are young and healthy."
or
"Arguments as to acceptability of suicide in moral or social terms range from the position that the act is inherently immoral and unacceptable under any circumstances to the position that asserts suicide as a natural right.
GideonF (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the new wording, but replacing "unethical" with "unacceptable under any circumstances" feels like it has offered a stronger interpretation of the stance than what was previously provided. I can see something being immoral and unethical, but still the only acceptable option when faced with a worse choice. If we're ok with that then all is good, but the new phrase isn't the equivalent. - Bilby (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I see your point that it's not an exact equivalent to what was there before, but still, if the point is to delineate the full spectrum of perspectives on the matter via the two most polar positions, I think this works, since there are those who would say suicide is never an acceptable option, regardless of context. That was my thinking, anyway. Snow talk 03:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
It does seem like a very strong statement, though. The problem with taking such an extreme deontological position is what you do when there is a major conflict between core principles. If there is, it might still be the case that other principles are considered to be marginally more important, so given a choice between two evils, suicide becomes the only acceptable choice, even if it is morally and ethically wrong. I'll do some reading - I'd be interested to see what Glover has to say about the topic. :) - Bilby (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, while I can't personally fault that assessment, surely there are hardliners out there who hold to positions where they at least believe (without being forced into the moral quandary themselves anyway), that there are no exceptions to the rule and that, as morally unacceptable on principle, the act is wholly unacceptable in practice, regardless of context. That is in fact why I phrased the statement as I did -- "inherently immoral and unacceptable", implying that the two are different (if linked) evaluations and that the most extreme position on that end is that the act is never acceptable. That being said, if your research can turn up a statement that is sourceable, or even just suggest more verifiable phrasing, that would certainly be a superior option for our purposes here. If nothing else it would stop us from chasing our tails in semantic circles. ;) Snow talk 05:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Committed Suicide vs Died by Suicide[edit]

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? Fiddle Faddle 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)

EDIT: Talk:Suicide/Archive_2#NPOV_effect_of_the_term_.22commit.22_suicide 05:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talkcontribs)

Maybe try a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:16, 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. Fiddle Faddle 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)