Talk:Suicide

The first suicides in humans: when it appeared ??

Can somebody write a section concerning why suicidal behaviour appeared in humans? Searching through the web, i found that there is no suicide for animals, only urban legends. I would like to know why it appeared. It is the sedentarisation (developement of the agriculture) the main factor? The man suddenly realised that he is less worried about gathering food and started having suicidal thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.45.40 (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are several species of insects that undergo a form of suicide. For instance, there are several species of spider where the male feeds himself to the female to provide protein for the developing eggs. Spacecase610 (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Spacecase610

Examples

Why is there a section on 'examples of dutiful suicide'? No other section has this, it could easily be sourced as part of the text, and there are no references. The whole section also seems suspect - it's unsourced, and the examples could easily fit into the other sections (most notably, judicial suicide). Seems like there's unnecessary duplication. I'm tempted to say all of the categories in the 'other reasons' section could be rolled together. Goal-directed suicide? Purposeful suicide? But I'm not familiar enough with the subject to do more than suggest. WLU (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Animal Suicide

I was wondering if anybody knows anything about Animal suicide, I would have thought it doesn't occur but have since heard otherwise. Either way, perhaps a section discussing it may be added? OoohOoohAaah (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC) HOLA WATS UP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.68.220 (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's an odd and interesting question. Here's a link to the Straight Dope answering the question. I'm not sure if others think the topic is noteworthy enough to add to the article. Fritter (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A recent PBS program about tarsiers suggested that these non-domesticated animals may commit suicide by drowning themselves in their water dishes or striking their heads against their cages when kept as pets. Whether this behavior is truly suicidal or something else seems open to debate, but it may be worth investigating. I have also heard apocryphal stories about dogs refusing to eat after their owners' deaths and eventually starving to death. Again, even if such stories are accurate, the animal's failure to eat would be difficult to definitively attribute to an intended, conscious suicidal motive. Perhaps one of the big questions for this subject, then, is whether any self-originating behavior which results in an animal's death (refusing to eat, etc.) counts as suicide, or if a consciously expressed wish to die (whatever that might look like) has to be present. Practicallytrue (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are implying that animals are non-conscious beings, which is actually not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.217.93 (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A Request

In the UK we have had a number of high-profile cases involving children and young adults whose suicides have followed involvement on internet suicide discussion sites and searches for information on methods of attempting suicide. In my opinion it is highly likely that, in addition to those interested or researching the subject, this page will be visited by individuals who may be contemplating suicide. I am clearly aware that Wikipedia exists as an encyclopedia only to present the unbiased information about its topics; however, in this light I strongly urge that information is clearly made available regarding charitable and other organizations who provide support to potential suicide victims. Perhaps it would be possible to add a small banner at the top of the page with some suitable links, such as the Samaritans. Please can I have opinions on this suggestion. Jackocleebrown (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and was going to make the same suggestion.

This article is ranked number one for the term "suicide" in the Google search results — in other words, this is where you get directed if you search for "suicide" and click on "I'm feeling lucky". With this in mind, perhaps a single sentence with a relevant link (Wikipedia already has an article on suicide prevention, and another on crisis hotlines) could better direct such people to the help they need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Gray (talk • contribs) 11:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"...in other words, this is where you get directed if you search for "suicide" and click on 'I'm feeling lucky'." How many people considering suicide are feeling lucky?

I also agree. How about something like this:

If you or someone you know is contemplating suicide, you may find help at The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline website.

69.221.175.220 (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think anyone who was think anyone thinking about killing themselves , a big "STOP" sign isn't the way to go. I think Wikipedia is about giving a balanced viewpoint. Of course I'm like you and don't want anyone to do this, but at the same time I think this is an excellent article and perhaps allowing them to read it with no "stop" signs might actually help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.156.106 (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with the commenter above in the sense that this is not an issue of stopping someone suicidal reading this article, which is as they say is of excellent quality and balanced viewpoint, but rather ensuring that clear links are provided to helpful & supportive sites. I think that a more subtle banner might be more suitable - the large stop sign is probably too much but I think that the message and look (without stop sign) is on the right track. There is also clearly an issue of locale here, the Samaritains originally suggested is a UK site and the National Suicide Prevention organization is US only. Perhaps a wikipedia sub-page of "list of suicide prevention organizations" by country would get over this problem.--Jackocleebrown (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Among others, this would probably run into problems with WP:NOT and WP:5P. This is something to be brought up at the village pump before making the change I think. WLU (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments WLU, I see that this is a difficult request to reconsile with the WP:5P but nevertheless I personally feel that this is the right thing to do and would like to see it accomodated. In-fact I feel that it is quite close to wikipedia's general socially responsible approach. It would be very helpful if you could give us an idea, as a much more experienced editor, of whether you think that this is a good idea and if you think it is worthy of inclusion. Many Thanks, --Jackocleebrown (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd made that suggestion above. Of course, anything could be used, even a sentence in italic type. I agree with some other comments, though. It basically does go against WP:NOT; I wonder if this would be an instance to make an exception, however. I also recognize that I used a U.S. link, and there would need to be some variance for different countries. Maybe a {{seealso}} linking to Suicide prevention? 69.221.114.153 (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added a section on the village pump for discussion of how the addition of a banner can be reconciled against wikipedia policy, please contribute your thoughts to this discussion Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Talk:Suicide. --Jackocleebrown (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a random website or a suicide hotline. No disclaimers in articles, especially no disclaimers that obviously violate the neutral point of view. Prolog (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Prolog. This is not a disclaimer, it appears in the same place as a disclaimer but it does not have the contents of a disclaimer. I do not believe that this banner conflicts with this requirement. Neutrality in terms of Wikipedia means: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves I have tried to make the contents of the banner fall withing this requirement. The banner is unconventional placement of information, but no more than that. I am suprised how much resistance there is to this pretty reasonable proposal. Wikipedia is ina unique position to make the "right" decisions about topics like this and I would be very disappointed to see petty bureaucracy get in the way of that. I apologies for reverting your edit without proper explaination. --Jackocleebrown (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The banner is unencyclopedic, out of scope of this project and conflicts with many of the projects's policies and guidelines. You are not the first one to propose a box like this. The community has rejected the idea again and again, and I believe our current policies reflect that well. What you believe is "right" is your point of view and you are entitled to that, but Wikipedia neither encourages nor discourages suicide. Prolog (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with you that it is unencyclopedic, so perhaps that alone is enough to rule it out. I also accept that it is my definition of "right" to which I refer and that may not be shared by all. The banner did not encourage nor discourage suicide - it merely provides information - I do not agree with the neutrality argument based on the contents of the banner that I added. The request is hard to reconcile against the policies but I have not seen any policy which explicitly precludes this addition. The fact that I am not the first to suggest it should be an indicator that there is a desire in the community for it to exist. Jackocleebrown (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It may not have been your intention, but the box promoted a point of view from the perspective of the reader. Similarly we could have an equally unencyclopedic box for an assisted suicide website, write "...provide suicide assistance around the world..." and recommend to contact them. There are also many editors who object to the images on penis and Muhammad, and to the lack of spoiler warnings in fiction-related articles, but the community has still managed to form policies intended to apply to all related issues. Prolog (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish I had followed this discussion earlier, but want to say I strongly support Prolog's position. Another analogy: suppose we go to Islam and put up a banner linking to an evangelical Christian website. Would it be intellectually honest to say the banner "merely provides information"? (When in fact it is a particular type of information from a particular point of view). Most readers would infer Wikipedia is endorsing Christianity and implicitly suggesting Muslims have chosen the wrong religion -- even if the banner itself does not say so. Similarly, the banner I saw on this page implicitly endorsed the point of view that suicide is the wrong choice, but whether it is the wrong choice depends on a person's philosophy and life circumstances. I'm not saying there is no right answer, just that Wikipedia should not be telling the reader what that answer is. Fritter (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input to this discussion, of course you guys are right. I had hoped that this proposal might be seen as an exception (if carefully done) and following the early contributors above I thought that consensus had been reached. Fritter, I have removed the villiage pump topic as I don't see that it is needed now (edit: can't seem to remove it). The Be bold policy really does seem to start the real debate on controversial additions. I will not add a banner to this page nor to suicide methods. It would appear that this is a topic which comes up frequently on this page, perhaps it would be an idea to leave some indication of such discussions here on the talk page. Jackocleebrown (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

All sides in this discussion could be satisfied with a link to "The Samaritans" - they are explicitly NOT a suicide prevention group. But it might be better to have a list of suicide prevention groups linked to from this article, which would fit better with policy. People might even agree to have that as a "hat link"? Dan Beale-Cocks 13:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The "see also" section links to Samaritans (charity) and some US organizations. Hatnotes are for disambiguation purposes and in some rare cases for notifying the reader of technical issues, so I would object to using those for anything else. Prolog (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To list a suicide prevention group or national hotline is not to suggest the "right" choice or to try and get people to go down a certain path. It is to list, in an article about suicide, the world of suicide and all that it entails--which is very encyclopedic, no? Wiki lists methods, impact, ideation and, interestingly, views on suicide. Wouldn't one of those views be that suicide can be prevented and that people try to prevent it through organizations and crisis lines? Why is suicide prevention purposefully left out amongst all other references? To list everything would promote neutrality where as this article seems subjective as it represents the interests of Wikipedia, not the public. Wiki should look at the abundant research among mental health professionals which suggests that listing methods can lead to suicide contagion. Media guidelines have been developed by the CDC to support the belief that if methods are listed so should help--A balance Wiki should strongly consider. The methods listed act as the how-to, so list the how-not-to... please. LoiseLaner (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I find your comments somewhat disingenuous. There are links to articles on suicide prevention, crisis, and intervention prominently displayed in the info box on the right hand side of the screen, which should be visible in the first screenful of text. The footnotes contain many references about or in favor of suicide prevention, including a link to the Good Samaritins. Thus, your comments appear factually without merit; I can't see how you think suicide prevention has been "left out." I stress that the objection here is not to providing information on suicide prevention, but to providing or linking to such information in a way that endorses one point of view -- such as using a banner at the top of the page.

In addition, Wikipedia should not defer to the opinion of the CDC or other members of the public health community (though such opinions should, of course, be given due space in a neutral way). The notion of "suicide contagion," for example, strikes me as an ideologically loaded term that presupposes suicide is comparable to bacteriological or viral infection. The problem is that (1) while just about everyone is against sickness, people have differing views about suicide; and (2) getting infected is not a voluntary choice one makes, but committing suicide does require a voluntary choice, so the mere availability of information about suicide is not comparable to receiving a contagion. It's not surprising that members of the public health community would try to couch their ideology in neutral, scientific terms, but such rhetoric should be recognized for what it is: opinion. Fritter (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe what I meant was, suicide prevention is not represented on the same level as suicide methods within the content of the article. There are internal and external links, meaning one would have to navigate away from the page to see information on suicide prevention. This implies that they are seperate. I think suicide prevention, and how to get help, belong in an article about suicide alongside of suicide methods. Also, I understand why Wiki won't do a banner but, I'm still confused as to why Wikipedia took out the external links.

Suicide contagion is very real, it isn't a matter of opinion. The CDC is not in the business of distributing opinions but facts based on research. Yours is the opinion. Furthermore, suicidaility is indicative of a mental illness, or sickness, 90% of the time. Do you believe that people voluntarily get bipolar disorder? And perhaps the final act, or the end, can be perceived as voluntary but the means are involuntary and should not be overlooked.LoiseLaner (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the volatility of the issue of suicide, the costs to family and peers, and the sociology that follows it I think that it would be prudent to put a banner discouraging suicide and/or providing a link to professional help. It might also be helpful for some to put in one of the many hotline numbers that exist in that banner. Although this might seem to cause bias, suicide is often an impulsive act and that researching it might be the "cry for help" for that person. Wikipedia is not a help service for these people, so it might not be bad to point them to locations and sources that are. Motosierra (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not therapy or a how-to manual. If there is a suicide prevention or article on suicide intervention, they should be reflected on this page. There are several applicable wikilinks, sections should be expanded, but we really aren't here to convince people that suicide is bad, good or anything else. There's no disclaimers on other pages, I see no reason to apply one here. WLU (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The CDC are experts on the subject matter. I think we should give due deference to their opinions on matters within the scope of their expertise, even to the point of inviting them to contribute to the article itself. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because a handful of kids in the UK killed themselves and the tabloid newspapers turn the event into a mass hysteria, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia should too. Suicide is one of the leading causes of premature death. Hundreds of thousands of people do it every year, and hundreds of thousands will continue to do so, internet or no internet. This is an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide or advice page. You won't find banners in scholarly articles about suicide. Why put them here? Cambrasa (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I getting this wrong, or are people arguing that they wouldn't like wikipedia to discourage people from slicing their fucking wrists open, because doing so would be biased? I know about NPOV, but this is seriously fucked ... the discusion should rather be about whether the abovementioned box can save lifes. --Kasper Hviid (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

---

I don't know but perhaps a "Why do people commit suicide" page or something like that, that actually elaborates on why and how people committed suicide would help as much. The point is that we all may face the point where we may end our lives, as it lies within our genes. The reason for not doing so is to show that we can always retain a grip on reality and try to make the best out of it, by learning from those who never tried to learn in the first place. We don't actually need those samaritan organisations out there. Extrinsically induced help is no help. Learning by reading is the actual thing in that case, not by doing so. And yes, I know that there is a section about that topic in the very same article, but actually, it is of little help, as it is not elaborate enough but simply a list of links to various other articles. I think that some additional information should be provided with the links in order to follow them as they are, by their psychological nature, rather technical and far beyond the reasoning of persons inclined on committing suicide.

Substance Abuse

Substance abuse was mentioned as a cause. This seemed odd to me; I can see intoxication due to substance abuse making a bad situation seem worse, and/or lowering inhibitions against suicide, but I don't see it as a root cause. I checked the reference listed and substance abuse was mentioned nowhere. I decided to remove the substance abuse claim. If it returns, that would be fine, but I think a refrence is needed if it does (and not a fake one this time!)

74.77.128.175 (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC) (Emesis)

I actually came to this article just now to see if there was anything about suicide while intoxicated, prompted by someone asking if a man who threw himself in front of a subway train was "drunk" or a "legit jumper." I've actually known someone who earnestly attempted suicide, with a note written and out of depression, and later claimed to be "just drunk." I also went to college with someone who walked into a body of water and drowned while purportedly abusing hallucinogens[1], probably without any real intention of killing himself. Which of these two cases, if either, would count as (attempted) suicide? I wonder if any moral or legal authorities have ever postulated on the gray area of a self-induced death by a heavily intoxicated person, who would not have even considered suicide while sober. -VJ (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fino-ugric blood

There are higly controversial hypothesis, that genetic fino-ugric ancestry means suicide risk. That is, all northern russians have some fino-ugric ancestry, and in northern Russia there is hudge suicide rates. Ewen if this hypothesis is higly controversial, but I think it is worth mention. Maybe in some article like suicide and culture or somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.205.130 (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Alterations to "Other Reasons" heading

The final paragraph under the "Other Reasons" heading seemed to require some editing. Here it is in its former state:

People who commit suicide are not always depressed or in a bad situation, sometimes the philosophical implications of life lead people to kill themselves for the purpose of experiencing life after death or discovery. Many people feel that life on Earth is not the end and that death is only scary for others because society tells them to be afraid of it, our modern world is bent towards valuing material things and living for the moment, but in fact death it is a natural part of life and nothing to be feared. To say that suicide is bad or good, right or wrong, for anything besides yourself is ignorant.

Its primary contention that suicide may be committed for reasons other than mental illness or despair is beneficial to the article. However, its somewhat informal style and tone conflicted with those of the rest of the article. I have altered that for the sake of flow. Some editing for grammar and usage (the "you" statement in the final sentence) was also needed. Finally, some of the material was phrased in a highly subjective and/or overgeneralized manner; I've attempted to alter that as well.

I do not pretend to think my alterations are perfect, or perfectly capture the essence of the original argument. I strongly encourage others to edit it, improve it with further research, restore it to its former state, place it in a new or different section (attitudes toward death? suicide and philosophy/ontology?), or get rid of it entirely, as is seen fit.

Practicallytrue (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Prevalence of Suicide Notes

"A written message left by someone who attempts, or indeed dies by, suicide is known as a suicide note. The practice is not common, occurring in approximately one out of three suicides in the United States"

1 out of 3 seems pretty common to me... 68.166.65.62 (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like un-reverted vandalism to me, I'll change it. Eve Hall (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Suicide of animals

Expand the section "Suicide of animals". It is obviously a high contraversional matter! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.230.226 (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Myths of adolescent suicide

Who wrote this paragraph of drivel? I've removed it, it's out of place. Anyone disagrees with this decision please discuss on my talk page. 92.232.121.101 (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Questionable statement

in the West it was regarded as a serious crime and offense against God due to religious belief in the sanctity of life Is this considered a crime against God or towards God, if against God, what is saying it is considered a crime against God? I don't mean to knit pick but i feel there is a big difference here and needs to be explored. Steve (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)