Talk:Suicide

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)

Image RfC

Henry Wallis's The Death of Chatterton, 1856.

1. Should Henry Wallis's painting The Death of Chatterton be used to illustrate the article Suicide?
2. Should the article Suicide contain an image depicting suicide? 23:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Support illustrating the article with The Death of Chatterton

• Support I do not find the argument that this image will increase the risk of suicide credible. These are the same arguments that where put force during the attempt to WP:CENSOR the Rorschach ink blots. First of all people who are depressed and suicidal will not be reading Wikipedia. Secondly we have movies such as Romeo and Juliet that romantise suicide to a much greater extent. I do not see people picketing William Shakespeare performances or trying to get his books removed from schools. This image is like a drop in the bucket. It relates to the topic at hand and images in the lead are recommended. Thus for all these reasons I suggest we keep it.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you get the award for Most Transparently Desperate Denial of Moral Responsibility for your statement "[P]eople who are depressed and suicidal will not be reading Wikipedia". (And even if this was true, people who read Wikipedia talk pages will likely become depressed and suicidal after staring into the vaccuum of jejune amorality found therein.) I give you extra bonus points for achieving the Wikipedia equivalent of Godwin's Law, the invocation of WP:UNCENSORED for no discernable reason. And the Shakespeare invocation shows promise, but your failure to work in the term "jack-booted thugs" disappoints. Herostratus (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Around 100 studies have been conducted to examine the ‘Werther effect’ – the phenomenon whereby there is an increased rate of completed or attempted suicide following the depiction of an individual’s suicide in the media. These ‘media influence studies’ provide strong evidence for the existence of the Werther effect in the news media, and equivocal evidence for its existence in the entertainment media."[1] Thus it appears that announcing suicides as current events increase rates but art work does not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Your link points to a login page so I don't know what you're quoting, but it is clear from the quote that the evidence for the Werther effect in entertainment media is equivocal, not that art does not affect suicide rate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet

Edouard Manet 059

There are a number of other images we could look at like Romeo and Juliet or the image from the cover of this book [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The notion that this image somehow has the totemic power to make viewers kill themselves is ridiculous, as evidenced by the absence of a pile of bodies outside Tate Britain. However, even if it were true it would be irrelevant. Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia is neither pro- nor anti-suicide. Just About everybody who is opposing the use of this image is arguing for its removal on the basis of their personal anti-suicide bias, and many are citing guidelines that are explicitly for the POV purpose of suicide prevention, and editing Wikipedia with the intention of preventing suicide is exactly as POV as editing Wikipedia with the intention of encouraging suicide. The "risk" they speak of is the risk of someone disagreeing with them.GideonF (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Your first proposition is correct. No one is arguing it though. The picture certainly romanticizes Chatterton's suicide, and experts believe romanticizing suicide may cause people to identify with the victim and "contribute to" teen suicide.

You make an extremely important point with your second proposition. You adopt the "So what?" stance. So what if our association of suicide with a romantic image contributes to some crazy person topping him- or herself? Not our job. I disagree. But I've seen this question, whether editors should exercise moral judgment when real actual harm may issue from our gratuitous actions, arise in two other fora in the last month. I'm very curious to see what the community position is here.

Finally, I really don't know how to respond to your criticism of people with an anti-suicide agenda. I'm anti-mental illness, and see suicide as a terminal symptom of that in most cases. For the record, I'm in favor of the right to die but against encouraging it or glorifying it, or doing anything that might help persuade a vulnerable person to choose it over seeking medical care and social support. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

While no-one is making the case as starkly as I have put it there, people are arguing that including the image may incline readers towards suicide, something for which evidence is absent.

If you disagree with the position that it's not Wikipedia's job to advocate one course of action or set of beliefs over another, I just don't see how you can believe that is compatible with NPOV. One of Wikipedia's most important founding principles is its commitment to neutrality. That doesn't mean remaining neutral until you find a subject on which you have a really strong opinion that you believe is self-evident, it means remaining neutral all the time.

You may see suicide as a symptom of mental illness and an outcome to be avoided, the prevailing view in contemporary Western culture, but other cultures, other periods in history, and other individuals have viewed it differently, and Wikipedia can't prefer your POV over theirs. It's fine that you have the opinion you have, and I'm not asking you to abandon it, but I am asking you to put it to one side while editing Wikipedia.GideonF (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

We're agreed that the statistical evidence hasn't been brought to this discussion by any of the amateurs involved, but the expert opinion is clear, unless you've found reliable sources opposing their view about romanticizing and depicting suicide.

The key questions I see here are: Might associating suicide with a romantic image increase suicidal behaviour? If it may, should we avoid making that association in this article? To me it's a no brainer: if there's the remotest chance that a valueless image in the article might do harm, you get rid of it. I want to continue this discussion but perhaps we should take it to the threaded discussion below, rather than fill up the !voting. I'm going out now, but will continue down there when I get back, if you haven't started something. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is more "if people identify with the person who committee suicide" and the suicide is presented in a positive / romantic way than that could increase the risk of suicide. I view Chatterton as safe a few people would identify with an 1800s poet. Art, movies and plays are entertainment and I have provided a study which found that the evidence regarding these is equivocal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support If there is going to be a not-taken-from-real-life depiction in this article, I see no reason why this one shouldn't be it. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

2. Oppose illustrating the article with The Death of Chatterton

• Oppose The present image does not increase the readers' understanding of the subject, as prescribed by WP:IUP, but it may be harmful, because it romanticizes suicide,^[1] and romanticizing suicide may encourage others to identify with the victim, and contribute to the suicide rate among teens.^[2]

  The media guidelines of the American Association of Suicidology and the American Suicide Prevention Foundation recommend using no pictures when discussing suicide, in order to reduce both the risk of romanticizing suicide and the risk of promoting contagion suicides.^[3] I oppose any depiction of suicide in this article because such images add nothing to the readers' understanding and may do actual harm.

1. "... Henry Wallis, whose The Death of Chatterton (1856) surely serves to romanticize the suicide of the 17-year-old poet." p. 993. [3] "Wallis, the painter, romanticizes the early death of a young poet ..." p. 51. [4]
2. "Research suggests that inadvertently romanticizing suicide or idealizing those who take their own lives by portraying suicide as a heroic or romantic act may encourage others to identify with the victim." p. 1277 [5] " "Also contributing both to the suicide rate among teens overall, as well as suicide pacts, young people have a tendency to romanticize suicide." p. 218 [6] "... media reports should highlight suicide as an outcome of psychiatric illness that is treatable, rather than romanticize the act or the victim which tends to heighten the likelihood of imitation." p. 6 [7]
3. "These guidelines are used to help reduce romanticizing suicide and reduce the likelihood of contagion suicides. Examples of these guidelines are [...] avoid use of pictures." [8]

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per my comment in the "Oppose illustrating the article with depictions of suicide" section. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am unconvinced that this picture helps to contextualize suicide for unfamiliar readers. Rather it seems to require the viewer to already have an understanding of suicide in order to interpret the painting. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hofmann Lehrbuch suidide

• Oppose only if alternate image can be found - I am very skeptical that a troubled person would visit WP to look at this ariticle, and see a "romantic" painting, and get pushed over the edge because of the lush colors. On the other hand, if utilizing another image saves even one life at some point in the next decade, I guess it is worth it to find another image. My suggestion is to find a candid public-domain photo of an actual suicide: something very gruesome. I'd wager that it would have a beneficial effect: it may actually dissuade persons from taking the step. I found this illustration at right as an example. But I'm not sure that it is quite right: better would be a photograph. --Noleander (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  WP:NOTADVOCACY. Also, that image has its own problems, as it's got this artistic "white field" background like it's ripped straight from THX1138 and a lot of weird green stuff that's not on most real dead bodies. Ultimately, it's just a picture of a dead body, and other than the caption implying a cause of death, it doesn't illustrate the topic at all. SDY (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree that pic not not good (I think I said as much above). But I continue to assert that a factual, representative photograph of an actual suicide would be appropriate and encyclopedic, and would not run afoul of the issues raised by the psych. community. --Noleander (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

  The question is: a picture of what? Someone "in flagrante"? Those will be hard to find (art of Mr. Montague or Ms. Capulet, maybe a still from a film depiction a likely suspect). Again, the objection is that an image of a dead body doesn't really illustrate the topic very well. SDY (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Per external professional advice on the use of pictures. Per Anthonyhcole's comments above that the image isn't actually a realistic depiction of arsenic poisoning (so might at best suit an article/section on "suicide in literature/art" but not a lead picture). Colin°^Talk 08:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the people who's business is suicide prevention think its not such a good idea, that's a pretty strong reason not to have it. Incidentally, the accuracy of the picture is debatable. According the lede in Thomas Chatterton: "He died of arsenic poisoning, either from a suicide attempt or self-medication for a venereal disease". Herostratus (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I find the idea that the image is going to motivate someone to commit suicide dubious at best, if nothing else it's the same or greater risk exists in the textual description of suicide. However, the image is just a gratuitous "hey we needed an image for the lead" image, so there isn't much point in keeping it. Use one of the images from the epidemiology section, maybe? If the image were a cultural touchstone, something that a reader would relate with, it might be different. The Romeo and Juliet image suggested above might also work: it's a story that readers of an article in English are likely to be familiar with. Images associated with seppuku would also work, as it's clearly suicide and it's likely something that our readers will identify from the image alone as suicide. I don't think an image of a dead body is meaningful as a depiction of suicide: people die for many reasons. SDY (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The image seems more decorative than illustrative. Isn't it a bit melodramatic? Personally, I don't really think the article needs a lead image as the subject covers a lot of different areas which would be hard to address with one illustration. Kaldari (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

3. Support illustrating the article with depictions of suicide

• Support Images are an important part of the lead. We should try to use them when possible. If a better image can be found I would be happy to consider it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Anthonyhcole has helpfully provided links to professional guidance. However I'm not sure that this guidance is based on any actual evidence. In my opinion, it might be possible to find a depiction of suicide that is helpful for this article. In particular, I think that a depiction of medically-assisted suicide would be helpful (although not for the lead/infobox). Although I cannot think of a specific picture that would be appropriate for the lead, I'm not going to refuse all pictures out of hand. I would consider any proposal on its own merits. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  Perhaps the second question should have specified "gratuitous" depictions of suicide, depictions that don't add to the reader's understanding. Mike suggested that formulation but I disagreed and went with all depictions of suicide, since that mirrors the press guidelines. Would you support excluding images depicting suicide that add nothing to understanding, Axl? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

  I am surprised that you mention this. I hope that all editors would oppose the inclusion of "gratuitous" depictions of suicide. It is self-evident that "gratuitous" pictures should be avoided everywhere on Wikipedia. That's the definition of "gratuitous". From WP:Images: "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information." Also from the same guideline: "images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner." The existing guidance is clear on the matter.

  The first point of debate here is whether The Death of Chatterton helps to inform readers in an encyclopedic manner. In my opinion, it does not.

  The second point is this: Is there any possible picture that could inform readers in an encyclopedic manner? In my opinion, there could be such pictures. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification. I asked because editors have proposed 6 alternative pictures on this page that relate to suicide but which, in my opinion, add nothing to the readers' understanding. That's the kind of thing I had in mind when referring to "gratuitous" depictions. Can I assume you don't support the use of those images in the place of Chatterton? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

  The question of whether a given picture is "gratuitous" is a matter of opinion. You (Anthonyhcole) might believe that an image is "gratuitous" while Doc James does not. That is a difference of opinion. If an editor proposes an image for an article, it is self-evident that the editor believes that the image is not "gratuitous". Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

  I stopped arguing this point because I've learned that, although emblematic images at the top of articles fail the "improve readers' understanding" test, no one cares. It's just a given now that iconic images at the top of articles are not only okay, but virtually mandatory. I've proposed an update at WT:IUP that would reflect that consensus. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - The Good Article and FA criteria both list illustrations as characteristics of great articles. Even sensitive subjects like suicide warrant illustrations: WP:NOTCENSORED and so on. As for the notion that an illustration may prompt a person to commit suicide, I would point out the contrary: if the image were off-putting it may actually dissuade a person from committing suicide. (I assert that there cannot be any valid scientific evidence one way or another to prove such cause-and-effect: no experiment would be ethical, nor would control groups be feasible). In other words, a public domain photo of a traumatic or gruesome suicide in this article may actually actually cause some at-risk persons to avoid suicide. --Noleander (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support in general though The Death of Chatterton seems not to be a good choice (as it does not appear realistic). CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support "Should the article on [x] contain an image of [x]" wouldn't even be asked of any other subject. The only reasons to treat this subject as an exception are based in POV. GideonF (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I am not convinced by the argument that the current picture or ones similar to it would contribute to a person's decision of whether to take their life or not. People take their own lives due to extreme psychological or sometimes physical pain. suffering, hopelessness, not because they saw an art drawing of suicide. The article is about suicide, thus we should have a picture of suicide; I support an art drawing, not a real life picture though.Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This is an important topic and should get an image. I have seen a number of postmortems on suicides. I think a photograph would be appropriate. Gory stuff should be avoided -- I think the truth about suicide can be told without turning the stomach. Personally, I think the one of R. Budd Dwyer is interesting -- though probably not the best one for the subject. A picture of a jumper might be good. [[:Image:Dddr66.jpg|thumb|100px|R. Budd Dwyer.]]

  

  A jumper.

  Nephron  T|C 02:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia is comprehensive and includes content that may be disturbing to some. The right criteria to consider are relevance and informative-ness, not morality (indeed, whose morality could we possibly choose while obeying NPOV?; c.f. #Anti-Suicide Advocacy and NPOV), and such images clearly meet those criteria. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support Weak support based on the fact that those googling suicide have access to a number of pro-suicide sources, a NPOV article with images (even 'romanticised' images) is comparatively harmless. As an aside, I think it is beyond the remit of an encyclopaedia and its editors to attempt to influence (even in an anti-suicide way) the minds of people contemplating suicide Jebus989^✰ 09:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support I support the inclusion of an image provided it is an artistic rendition of the concept of suicide without any link to a real person who may have living descendants. If ever images such as an artists sketch of a real person similar to sketches submitted at trial or depicting a trial, showing a victim who once lived, I hope we would not find educational value for such inclusion. My76Strat (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support Articles should have images. Even articles on suicide. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support These images should be part of the page for reference purposes. After all, the images are not particularly nasty at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acereiner (talk • contribs) 02:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

4. Oppose illustrating the article with depictions of suicide

• Oppose Per the media guidelines of the American Association of Suicidology and the American Suicide Prevention Foundation. [9] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I note that Wikipedia is not censored and there is precedent for ignoring advice of scientific bodies regarding keeping out relevant images (see the Rorschach images coverage in the Signpost), I would not feel comfortable ignoring the advice of the experts in this case. I would rather Wikipedia not be seen as helping to romanticise suicide in any way. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The image does not add anything to the article. Eomund (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

  This section isn't about any image in particular, but images of suicide in general. Maybe you meant to put this comment in the "Oppose illustrating the article with The Death of Chatterton" section above? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Per external professional advice on the use of pictures. Colin°^Talk 08:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Colin (and suicide prevention professionals). If there were illustrative pictures that were not depictions of an actual suicide victim I could accept those. I have a weaker opposition to artistic representations of suicide as suggested. But then again I don't feel it is worth the risk. If a suicidal person wants to look at pictures of good-looking corpses let them find them somewhere else. --MTHarden (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose There is no reason whatsover to include any depiction of a suicide beyond "decoration". Wikipedia is a source of online medical information, for better or worse and no reputable medical resource uses images of death for "decoration" it's tacky, it's cheap, pandering and unprofessional. Nobody is being a simplistic twit and suggesting that looking at the image is going to cause them to kill themsleves, but it does add an unecessary maudlin tone to the article. If it was a pathology article on suicidal injuries, then images depicting depicting those wounds would be in order, because they serve an informative purpose. Three-year-olds know what "dead" looks like, to suggest that an image of a body is necessary to elucidate what "dead" looks like for the viewers is tantamount to saying the article is being read by a bunch of imbeciles. And where does this information come from: "First of all people who are depressed and suicidal will not be reading Wikipedia". Really? Depression is the most debilitating condition, it effects at least 17.6 million in the U.S. alone. Depression does not, as far as I know cause an inability to understand English and use the internet. Depression, whatever it's underlying cause may be is often a precipitaing factor in suicide, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7mike5000 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I just haven't seen any images that would make a good lead image for this article, and I actually doubt that one exists. The topic is so broad it would be very difficult to illustrate well with a single image. Kaldari (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The article purports to be an informative, scholarly piece and the pictures do not support that voice, and in fact, take away from that effect.Coaster92 (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, simply because suicide does not have a representative image. Unless I'm wrong, one would either have to have a collage of images which together might be generally representative, or use art which is supposed to be about suicide but is only relevant because it's famous art. One could as easily illustrate with an image of Hell, as that's where suicides are supposed to go, or Godhika perhaps? B^e——C_ritical 02:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose using a lead image. I don't think it's in line with how the subject is presented in reliable sources; see e.g. [10] --JN466 08:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I'll make a comment that because it is a free image, there is less of a requirement for having the image help increase the reader's understand than there is for non-free media. It's clearly not flat out decorative or out of place, and it's not non-free where we would be more critical of such inclusion. I've no other comment and whether the image is actually appropriate otherwise, but it's certainly not against IUP. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED vs POINT

Citing WP:NOTCENSORED in an image debate should have a sort of Godwin's Law effect. If your only/best argument for keeping an image is to make a stand against censorship, then your argument isn't building an encyclopaedia and could fall into disrupting Wikipedia to make a point territory. That policy section seems to be regarded as some as an excuse to reject all pleas to common sense, reasoned argument or tact. Yes we don't remove images just because some people find it objectionable but we also don't keep them just because some people find them objectionable and so must be protected at all costs. Colin°^Talk 08:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that any of the supporters have used this argument? If you are, I believe that you are mistaken. If you aren't, your point is irrelevant. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That policy has been cited numerous times on this page (read also above the RFC, where the merit or otherwise of the policy generated some heat). Perhaps folk think NOT:CENSORED's use of the word "objectionable" means that any objection to the use of an image is of no merit. That anyone saying "I don't think we should use this picture / any picture" is trying to censor Wikipedia rather than perhaps just using good judgment or wisdom. The policy is meant to cover distasteful or offensive images: issues of emotion and cultural sensitivity. Nobody is making such statements about the image. There are rational arguments why this picture is unsuitable and there are rational arguments from experts in the field that any picture should be used with caution. IMO the arguments for illustrating this article with a picture aren't particularly compelling and don't warrant rejecting such expert advice. Since nobody finds the picture objectionable or offensive per se, citing NOT:CENSORED is inappropriate. Colin°^Talk 11:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to refer you to a more in-depth exposition of the anti-censorship side of the argument: WP:COMPREHENSIVE. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors choose to omit images, opinions, and certain facts like everyone else. Citing NOT:CENSORED is a technique used by editors against other editors who take a less liberal (for want of a better word) view towards content inclusion. But those editors will have their own thresholds, opinions on taste and decency like anyone else. Just as that essay cites many cases where WP has stood against censorship and won, there are opposing cases. At the risk of provoking a WP:BEANS effect, some examples include:

• We don't illustrate photosensitive epilepsy with a flickering GIF, even though such an image would have high EV. When such edits are removed from epilepsy-related articles, this doesn't provoke cries of NOT:CENSORED or accusations of editors having a moral anti-convulsant POV. Creating such an image gets you blocked.
• We don't illustrate toilet with a lead image of me wiping my hairy bum while sitting on one. Surely readers need to know how to use one and an image of a porcelain bowl isn't sufficient.
• Many folk here have stated that any alternative image for this article should not be gory. We wouldn't choose to illustrate this with a photo of someone's head half blown off.
• The shocking image in the lead of smallpox has never been suggested as a lead image for infectious disease.
• Per WP:MEDMOS we don't give drug dosage or titration on drug or disease articles.
• We're unlikely to follow the German WP's example and have genitals on the front page. Certain featured pictures and articles will never get front page exposure.

-- Colin°^Talk 08:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Toilet ≠ defecation. Is smallpox a typical infectious disease? --Cybercobra (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The flickering image is just poor editorial choice. I do not see how any of the rest apply to this situation. Drug doses are not generally notable for our audience.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Professional advice vs amateurs

I'm a big fan of taking advice from professionals who have to deal with these issues as their day job. We can all have our own opinion on the effect of this picture or that picture, or on whether suicidal people might be reading this article. Our opinions might be useful, harmful or of uncertain value -- we have little way of knowing. For example, the suggestion of using a shocking picture to deter people. Often, well meaning measures can have a paradoxical effect and what may deter one person may encourage two others. Note: taking advice is different from being legally pressured into doing something -- as happened with the Rorschach images. Whether or not the professional guidance is based on mere expert opinion or is the result of statistical analysis or even some randomised controlled trial, it is worth more than the opinions of Wikipedians IMO. We should not reject it lightly and certainly not just to make a point. Colin°^Talk 08:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Even professionals are required to provide evidence. This is how science works. Expert opinion is no substitute.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a fairly hard-line view and one that doesn't address the limitations of evidence-based medicine. I agree it is the gold standard but expert opinion has an essential role to play in medicine and its valuue is far above the opinion of amateurs. If the guidance linked to by Anthony was of debatable value, then it should be possible to find experts who disagree with it. We're arguing over a hypothetical anyway because nobody has shown these guidelines are mere expert opinion, they've only suggested they might be. Colin°^Talk 10:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Found some evidence "Around 100 studies have been conducted to examine the ‘Werther effect’ – the phenomenon whereby there is an increased rate of completed or attempted suicide following the depiction of an individual’s suicide in the media. These ‘media influence studies’ provide strong evidence for the existence of the Werther effect in the news media, and equivocal evidence for its existence in the entertainment media."[11] Thus it appears that announcing suicides as current events increase rates but I would consider this image entertainment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an educational resource. Current affairs and entertainment overlap education to a degree but I suspect few would consider this article as entertaining. Perhaps an article on suicide in art and literature could be "entertainment" in a sort of dry academic fashion, and would merit this image. So I'm not really sure what that summary has to say for Wikipedia. Still, I think it is good that we're searching for external research, viewpoints and guidelines on the topic and encourage more of this rather than for all of us to fall out arguing with each other. Colin°^Talk 12:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the image in question not to Wikipedia. This is a piece of art work done by a well known artist.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow the logic. The quote you gave surely covered whether the publication was news media or entertainment media, not whether the depiction of suicide was done with words, photographs or art. We're not debating whether commons should host the image, but its particular use as the lead image in this article in this encyclopaedia, which is educational media. Do you think that a "for schools" publication on teenage suicide would use this picture on its cover? Colin°^Talk 13:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

We have this picture on the cover of this book [12] which would work equally well. History is an important part of any article and historical images should occasionally be used to illustrate the lead of articles. Using a historical image for hypothermia [13] which I feel adds to the piece and do not consider this one much differnt.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That image has less problems than the supposed arsenic poisoning one, if Anthony's description is correct. And it could be argued that an academic work may not suffer from the Werther effect to the same degree as a widely available and popular educational resources like WP. Wikipedia's lead images are generally crap because we somehow feel compelled to have one yet have a stock photo library that is seriously deficient. A normal publisher would not choose to use many of our lead images.

My stance on the "images in the lead" issue is swayed by what experts have to say on the matter. If we can show that experts are divided or that their guidance isn't relevant to WP (but only to newspapers say) then that argument falls. Colin°^Talk 15:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I tried looking for evidence to demonstrate whether pictures/artwork depicting suicide have any influence on incidence. I couldn't find any studies investigating this. (However some newspaper/media stories have caused an increased incidence.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I've looked for hard evidence of an effect of images on suicidal behaviour or ideation and there doesn't seem to be any, one way or the other, because the rigorous studies haven't been done. The evidence concerning the effect of romanticizing is that it may cause readers to identify with the victim. I can't tell you what these guidelines are based on. The word "may" appears repeatedly when discussing them, which leads me to think these restrictions are probably based mostly on expert opinion. The difference between me and James is I'm happy to go with the experts' opinion, especially when depiction adds nothing of value to the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The professionals have their own POV and bias (c.f. the Rorschach debacle), whereas Wikipedia doesn't/musn't (insofar as its ethos is merely to be neutral and informative). And since we're talking about an editorial decision as opposed to an issue of informational accuracy, WP:RS isn't applicable. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic value

This particular picture, as Anthonyhcole notes, is not a realistic depicture of suicide. It is romantic art. It is therefore not encyclopaedic for an article on suicide. It would suit an article discussing suicide in literature and art (something, that from a brief scan, this article doesn't cover).

Suicide is not a concept that requires illustration in order to be understood, nor does a picture help in any significant way towards understanding it. Possibly one could argue that seeing a picture of someone after they have hanged themselves aids ones understanding of hanging but most people would consider such a shocking picture voyeuristic rather than educational. Our article on toilet doesn't have someone sitting on one wiping their bum. And it would only deal with one method, so using such a picture for the lead would place undue weight on that. Colin°^Talk 08:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

One could use this argument for many images such as that found in the lead of pregnancy. In that everyone know what a pregnant person looks like. Images quickly provide visual confirmation of the subject matter of the article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A "visual confirmation of the subject matter of the article" isn't necessary for many of our articles. The title words "suicide" and "pregnancy" aren't so complex that I need an illustration to know what they mean or that I've found the right article. We don't have a lead image on Murder. Actually, this image doesn't orientate the user in any way as the thumbnail could be of a chap in a drunken stupor. Wikipedia articles get lead images because other articles have them or because of some erroneous thinking about FA requirements. They get particular lead images because they are free rather than because they are good or totally appropriate. Your argument above in support of this image largely consists of opinion as to why it shouldn't be removed. The only positive argument is "It relates to the topic at hand and images in the lead are recommended". However there is no guideline on Wikipedia that recommends images in the lead. Being "related to the topic in hand" isn't a strong enough argument for a lead image, though might be sufficient for further down the article. Colin°^Talk 12:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I think appropriately chosen images add to articles. Showing an image of a pregnant women is better than leaving the lead blank as is showing a reasonable image of suicide. I think both add to the educational value of the article. A historical image of suicide put it into historical perspective. That this is not a new phenomena. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree on disagreeing. That's absolutely fine. The pregnancy image RFC got unhealthy because folk were determined to change other people's minds (or just insult them), and the WP:NOTCENSORED policy was also deeply unhelpful there. Colin°^Talk 16:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Suicide Advocacy and NPOV

This continues the discussion above between myself and Anthony, which was taking up space in the voting section. I don't think the key question is about what the image may or may not do (it may do anything. It may contain a coded message to Al-Qaeda sleeper cells), I think it's about whether Wikipedia cares. Most of the opposition to this image comes from people who, like yourself, have a moral objection to suicide. I'm not here to debate the morality of suicide, it's simply my position that a diversity of opinion exists on the subject and that Wikipedia shouldn't favour one view over the other, per the "Non-negotiable" NPOV policy. Imagine, for a moment, that you do not have any opinion either way on the question of whether being alive is better than being dead. If you did not, would you be making the same arguments you're making now? GideonF (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I'm an Epicurean. Neither state, life nor death, is intrinsically "better" than the other in the moral sense, like "more virtuous", that depends on how you live; or in the hedonic sense, like "pleasanter", that depends on how life's treating you. So I have the view that some lives (most) are better than being dead, and others not. Depends. I shall try over the next few days to assume the view that I cannot discern such a difference. Any help you can offer with that would be welcome. Do you see what I'm not getting here? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see what you are or are not getting at at all, which I'm sure is my fault. Anything you can add to clarify would be a help.GideonF (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking for a good reason to leave trivial content in the article that may tip a person whose judgment is impaired by mental illness toward taking his or her life. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A bit late for this to matter, but just because someone disagrees with you it doesn't mean their "judgement is impaired by mental illness".GideonF (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You thought you were late responding. Are you saying mental illness doesn't impair judgment; or the frequently quoted claim that 90% of completed suicides are mentally ill at the time of death is wrong? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The decision by a person to shorten their life is always, always tragic. It may be a rational one or a mad one or a perverted one but ultimately there is tragedy there. Asking does Wikipedia care is like asking if my computer cares. Do editors care? Sure they do. We are humans, not robots.

WP:NPOV applies to articles and editors are expected to follow it. They are not expected to not have a POV. For some subjects, to not have a POV implies you haven't really thought about it. The world is not split into pro- or anti- positions either. Suicide is a complex subject and simplifying the argument to just "moral objection to suicide" isn't helpful. All that matters for NPOV is what the article contains or lacks in terms of balance in proportion. Does the article without a lead image conform more or less to NPOV than one with the lead image? The motive behind the addition or removal of the image is irrelevant wrt NPOV. Only the resulting article matters.

In any sane editing environment, if an editor was writing an article on suicide and a colleague mentioned to them that certain professional bodies suggest that such articles best avoid pictures of suicide, do you think the response would be (a) a shrug and "well, my lead picture wasn't that important" or (b) "I find that hard to believe, what do those guys know anyway" or (c) "I don't give a damn, begone with your censorship and points of view!" -- Colin°^Talk 18:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I happen to think the decision to go to war is always tragic but I don't, as a result of my belief, edit the Wikipedia article on war because I find its tone to be insufficiently anti-war. To do so would be to impose my POV on the article, which is only there to describe war, not to pass judgement on it, and not to prevent it.

There are professional bodies who suggest that it's best to avoid pictures of people smoking on the basis that it may encourage more people to smoke. If Wikipedia started following this advice for that reason, don't you agree that it would amount to Wikipedia taking an anti-smoking position? And don't you agree that that would be a violation of NPOV?GideonF (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a great picture for our purposes, it really has little value for the article since the only way we know it's related is through the caption. There's a very low bar for replacing it, but using the argument that "Wikipedia might theoretically kill people because it included a vague image" is moral panic material and we shouldn't get too worked up over this. Sure, we can be cautious, but let's not overreact. SDY (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet

@Colin: Would you recommend that Romeo and Juliet be removed from libraries around the world? The book has teenage protagonists that commit suicide, in a very romantic fashion. It makes suicide look positively wonderful. And the play is widely hailed as great literature. Is there a risk that suicidal people will read it and get pushed over the edge? What about suicidal persons watching the play? These are rhetorical questions, of course, the point is we should not overreact because some experts have urged caution. Instead, we should work to find an encyclopedic illustration that does not run afoul of the legitimate professional concerns. --Noleander (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You confuse me for someone who gives a damn. The "shrug" is the key point. There are reasonable discussion points about expert suggestions and their applicability and about the EV of this image. Both could go either way and I'm fine with that. Everything else is just silly. Colin°^Talk 21:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Which image to use in the lead

Consensus is against the use of the "Death of Chatterton" and I agree that this it is not an accurate image of the subject matter is not the most appropriate picture for this article. There does seem to be support for a image however. "The Suicide" does not appear to romantize the subject and is a more accurate depiction while still not being gory. Thus I hope it addresses many of the concerns raised.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I would support that new illustration That new illustration is a small (very small) improvement over Chatterton, but I'm not sure it would be worth the trouble to insert it: it is similar in so many ways. I still maintain that an actual photograph of a real suicide would be the most encyclopedic image for this article. But, in my brief searches, I have not yet found such a photo in the public domain. There is a photo above in this section showing a person sitting on a ledge of a building, and I think that is going in the right direction, but without a lot more factual information about the person (who are they? did they commit suicide? how reliable are the sources?) that image is not an improvement. --Noleander (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC) --Noleander (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I could check with pathology. It might be hard to find an appropriate real image. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The ideal photo, which would satisfy most editors I think, would have the following characteristics: (1) someone notable; (2) suicide facts supported by Reliable sources; (3) not too gruesome; (4) not obscene (no nudity); (5) shows the dead body (not before, e.g. before jumping from a building); (6) in the public domain freely available. But that is a tall order. --Noleander (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting list. I don't find (2) or (4) desirable, and I would actually prefer that an image not meet (1). Also at least some above have expressed a dispreference for a photo (rather than an illustration of a different type). While I agree on (6), I don't expect this preference to be widely shared (though I don't think anyone would mind).

Frankly I wouldn't mind using a photo of, say, an actor (surely there is some such depiction?) provided it is realistic. That's just one example of why I don't find (2) important. Another possibility would be a photo of an attempted suicide; while I would find this less good (per your (5)) it may be easier to find.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with many of your thoughts. That list of criteria is not my personal preference, but rather is designed to be the "lowest common denominator" that would satisfy most editors thus reduce drama in WP and help us reach consensus. --Noleander (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure (5, postmortem) is really a good idea, frankly. If it's only an image of suicide because we're telling the reader that it's an image of suicide, that doesn't really depict the subject. I'm going to concur with CRG that (1) isn't desirable, though it isn't necessarily a problem. Honestly, the image in the article isn't great and I'd prefer to replace it, but I haven't seen any proposal that's actually an improvement. Something that shows the history of it (i.e. artistic depictions, maybe even of Greek myth) might be useful to give a reader a sense of it. Another idea to kick out into the pool to consider, though it does involve some WP:NOTCENSORED I think it's unlikely to cause a stir:

The suicide of Ajax

SDY (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Great, you've offered an image that is bound to offend some editors on several levels ;-) --Noleander (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Regardless, it does (1) clearly depict suicide witout forcing the concept through captions, (2) provide a sense of the history of the subject. It also directly contradicts the lead, which I'm fixing either way, since "West" is such a vague concept and suicide was fairly acceptable in the Classical era. For the record, I am specifically opposed to a photo of a dead body, which is just voyeuristic and distracting: suicide isn't about bodies, it's about death. The metaphysical is far more important than the physical on this topic: people don't ask "what did they do with the body?" but "why did he kill himself?" SDY (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the proposed risk of reader suicide and whether we care, etc, etc... SDY's comment brings us back to the fact that this subject neither requires a lead image nor is it easy to find one image to lead with. It is a similar topic to murder, which has no lead image and is none the worse for it. Colin°^Talk 15:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The consensus so far in the poll above ("Should some image be used or not?") is strongly in favor of an image. --Noleander (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There isn't consensus that we absolutely must have an image of a suicide in the lead. There was a vote (which is strongly discouraged because they restrict discussion) on "illustrating the article with depictions of suicide". Whether such an image is chosen for the lead, and whether this article should even have any lead image are separate discussions, and one I hope would be made editorially rather than due to some supposed policy or guideline requirement. A healthy situation IMO is that folk accept we are not compelled to have a lead image (it's a "nice to have"), that this is a controversial issue, and that therefore we need a convincing editorial reason to chose a particular one. The worst outcome would be running some sort of popularity contest and picking the one with the most votes. Colin°^Talk 08:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree we should have some sort of image, but I don't think any of the options that have been presented so far are ideal. Allusions to Shakespeare (e.g. Ophelia) or famous real life victims are useful educationally as part of the culture and history of suicide, much more so than gratuitous "hey here's a picture of a dead guy." The image doesn't even have to be the person dead. Socrates is another example where the manner of death is an important part of the individual's history and we even know his fairly complex opinion of the act. There's even a notable painting of the event, The Death of Socrates. SDY (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the image of Ophelia I am sure there will be the same concerns as Chatterton.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ophelia's death was an accident. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The new infobox image, Manet's The Suicide is not relevant to the article, and doesn't advance the reader's understanding in any meaningful way. WP:IMAGE says

Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information.

And WP:IUP says images

should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter.

(My bolding.) This policy is moderated by this recently added to WP:IMAGE

Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience (which includes visual learners), images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions (in accordance with the details of this page), rather than deleting them - especially on pages which lack visuals.

This policy does not say "Any picture is better than no picture." Since Edouard Manet, The Suicide is related to the topic but not the article, and does not add to the readers' understanding in any meaningful way, I have deleted it. If someone can defend its inclusion on policy grounds, please do so. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the Manet image is relevant: it depicts a person who committed suicide. As for "providing information" it shows an artist's rendition of what a suicide victim may look like afterwards, and shows that shooting with a handgun is sometimes done. I'm not saying it is a great image for this article, but it is relevant. Also, deleting in the middle of an RfC is not appropriate, especially when there is a poll above ("Should some image be used or not?") is strongly in favor of keeping some image. --Noleander (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It is relevant to the topic, and I've come round to it being relevant to the article. I was thinking it needs to reference something specific in the article, but now think it meets that criterion, as it is emblematic of the article's entire contents. Can you persuade me on the third point. I'm not convinced it tells the reader anything a 4-year-old television-watcher doesn't already know about suicide. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is the "third point"? --Noleander (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was being opaque. 1. Relevant to the topic 2. relevant to the article and 3. Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information and should increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You are correct: the Manet image is weak on point #3. I can imagine other images that would be far more informative. One could argue that it has some informational value ("suicides sometimes happen alone; in bedrooms; with a handgun") as well as meta-information ("Notable impressionistic painters considered suicide a valid subject"; "there are famous paintings of suicide"). I guess my interpretation of the policies is that images are super important for articles (see FA and GA requirements), and that trumps the fact that an image may be not-very-informative. I guess I endorse that policy you quoted above: "Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions ... rather than deleting them." --Noleander (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Images are often beneficial to an article and encouraged if appropriate ones can be found. But there are no requirements or encouragements anywhere on WP for an article to have a lead image. That the info box template has a image parameter doesn't mean we have to use it. We need to have a stronger reason for picking an image for the lead than that it turned up in a Google image search and we had some white space at the top-right of the article. Colin°^Talk 18:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, we're certainly making a serious effort. :) But that policy you just cited does not say "a picture that does not conform to policy is preferable to no picture." And I'm pretty sure GA and FA guidelines don't trump WP:IMAGE and WP:IUP policies. I'm not familiar with the GA and FA guidelines but if there is indeed a conflict, the policies and guidelines will need to be reconciled. And any 4- (maybe 6-) year-old television-watcher knows that suicides sometimes happen alone; in bedrooms; with a handgun. And the picture does not say notable impressionistic painters considered suicide a valid subject. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(undent) I don't think the Manet is a terrible image to use for the article, but we could do better. I'm a little concerned that "educational value" might be construed to mean "blood and guts and gore" which really aren't all that educational. Dead people are messy, not exactly a useful or necessarily on-topic lesson (i.e. the article isn't about anatomy or corpses). What can we provide visually that's actually educational? I've proposed either something from history (e.g. Socrates) or something from literature (e.g. R&J), which both have specific educational value. SDY (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

But how would an image of Romeo and Juliet add to understanding? Or a picture of Socrates? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

History and culture are both important elements of a comprehensive article. We should be covering more than the clinical aspects, especially for something that's such a common event in drama and tragedy both real and imagined. SDY (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point. That reminds me of a recent battle in the Astrology article over some material, and another editor pointed out that 99% of the article focused on the scientific veracity of astrology, but the article had virtually no mention of the huge influence of astrology on society/culture (e.g. daily newspaper astrology columns). I think the gist of the comment was: "Maybe you guys should stop battling over this scientific dispute, and start trying to fill in the missing material". --Noleander (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I would like to see thoughtful erudite coverage of suicide in history and culture. But this had better not turn into a bunch of dudes who've never shown any interest in suicide before, slapping some shit together after a frenetic afternoon of googling, just so you can make some point. Provided you can reassure others that the authority/ies you base the section/s on is/are respected and uncontroversial, you should have no problem. That will justify a picture or two, for sure, as far as Wikipedia policy goes. Remember, images should be inside the major section to which they relate. Manet would still be inappropriate for the infobox here.

As far as looking yourself in the mirror goes, I recommend including no images at all, until we have a better understanding of their potential impact on the vulnerable. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

" But this had better not turn into a bunch of dudes who've never shown any interest in suicide before, slapping some shit together after a frenetic afternoon of googling, just so you can make some point. "

— Anthonyhcole

Your thinly-veiled ad hominem attack is unhelpful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing remotely inappropriate in what I said. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you do not "like" this image suggest a better one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I like the image. It doesn't conform to WP:IUP or WP:IMAGE. Images are primarily meant to inform readers and should increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. This image does not. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes and this image informs, it is only your opinion that it does not. Consensus is that we should have an image. We have agreed not to use one that romanticizes the subject matter.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What does it tell the reader? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"I see nothing remotely inappropriate in what I said."

Duly noted. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Illustrates a common method of suicide. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What does it tell the reader he or she doesn't already know? That is, what does it inform him or her of? How does it increase his or her understanding? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, I have come the conclusion that you are here to promote your own fixed agenda, regardless of the consensus reached by the editors as a group. This is evidenced by the contempt that you display to opinions that vary from your own (the quote above and your response) and by your questions to Doc James when his statement is the very answer to the questions the you followed it with. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What does Manet's The Suicide tell the reader he or she doesn't already know, as prescribed by WP:IMAGE and WP:IUP? It appears to inform the reader of nothing and so does not comply with policy. Local consensus does not trump policy. Contempt? Not at all. I respect you all and have made that very clear in all my dealings with you here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It does inform the reader of a number of things as mentioned (guns are a common medthod of suicide, the most common in the USA if I remember correct) there is a long history to suicide. This image does comply with policy.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it meets the expectations of those two policies. I think we can find a better image, but that's more of an editorial question. SDY (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Everybody knows guns are a method of suicide. This image does not inform, or increase the understanding of the reader. Saying it does doesn't make it so. Tell me one thing it tells the reader that he or she doesn't already know, if you can. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree. I guess you could start another RfC to see what community consensus is.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

So you can't name one thing this image informs the reader of that he or she didn't already know? Can anybody? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have stated a couple of things. You could try to get consensus. Current consensus is that we should have an image. This one here does illustrate suicide. Therefore it does give information. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

7 : 10 does not represent a consensus position. But I'm discussing whether the Manet image conforms to policy. To do that it should improve the readers' understanding, it should inform the reader. Just tell me one thing it tells the reader that he or she doesn't already know. Everybody knows what a man lying in a bed with a gunshot looks like. What use is this picture? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've had advice from several editors now along the lines of "Yes, images that don't increase the readers' understanding are contrary to WP:IUP but nobody cares." So I'll drop this stick, with regard to this article. To be clear, I won't be pursuing the line that, because Manet's The Suicide is counter to policy, it should be removed. I actually favour emblematic images for leads, provided they don't do harm. I should also point out that I appreciate James' concession with regard to Chatterton. And I agree not enough evidence regarding the effect of images on suicidal behaviour and ideation has been brought to this discussion yet to justify removal of all depictions of suicide. I'd like to keep this request for comment open for a few more weeks to see if such evidence can be found. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Just like how everyone know what a Table_(furniture) looks like yet there are six in the article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've been thinking about chair for a bit, and have concluded an emblematic image for a topic isn't necessarily a bad thing. I still feel creepy about having depictions of suicide here but have no problem with you holding another view. I've emailed Prof. Keith Hawton's Oxford Centre for Suicide Reasearch asking for any input they may like to offer on the questions under discussion here but also on the article itself. Hopefully they'll take a look. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC):

Are the Tables, suicidal tables possibly suffering from major depression, bipolar disorder etc? Just curious. 7mike5000 (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the image of Manet's le Suicide because:

• It's in the same vein as the Death of Chatterton.
• Consensus is for an image not that specific image
• Nobody was awarded the exclusive rights to choose the image.
• Considering it is a point of contention if an appropriate image can be found then others should be allowed to weigh in
• Would you expect to see an image like that hanging on the wall of a mental health clinic? Of course not, you would think the people working their are twisted. Relevance here? The type of people trying to receive help at a mental health clinic i.e. clinically depressed, bipolar, suicidal etc. are the same type of people who seek information on the internet and the first spot in the search engine is Wikipedia. So why be twisted here? For decoration purposes? If it means so much for some people to decorate this page then find an appropriate image and put it up for discussion and can the acrimony and b.s. already. 7mike5000 (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to propose a better one.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the "tables" analogy was a specific reply to Anthonyhcole's statement "Everybody knows what a man lying in a bed with a gunshot looks like. What use is this picture?" Replace "man lying in bed with a gunshot" with "table". Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

To User:Jmh649: Just curious how is it that you seem to believe that you somehow have more authority than other users? Is your game plan just to wear people out so they say eff it and you get your way? Comments like this:

• "If a better image can be found I would be happy to consider it". How is it that you have to be made "happy"?
• "First of all people who are depressed and suicidal will not be reading Wikipedia." No offense this shows a marked lack of knowledge of the subject matter. Major depressive disorder got 102k hits in September[14]. Suicide got 104k hits[15]. What type of people are reading these articles.? Art connoisseurs who appreciate the fine art which decorates some of Wikipedias pages? Or people that are suicidal and depressed? And speaking of art connoisseurs, and again no offense, but how is it that you've appointed yourself Wikipedia's interior decorator? 7mike5000 (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

  

  Oh, the humanity, “Can't we just all get along?”

• Googling suicide: Surfing for suicide information on the Internet.[16]
• Suicide and the internet[17] This is from the British Medical Journal 7mike5000 (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost. The argument of supposed "harm" is the same as the one raised for the Rorschach test. It is the argument that while professionals are "safe" to look at these images the general population or certain subsection of it need to be protected from this information. This is plain and simple censorship and paternalism (not the business we are in). Currently reading an excellent book on the topic [18] We do know that 50-70% of physicians are using Wikipedia in clinical practice. People with severe depression typically have "Loss of interest in most or all activities" and decreased activity/catatonia. Thus not typically surfing the net reading academic articles about depression. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The previous image is better as it shows suicide not someone who is sad such as the current image.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Socrates is a great subject for a picture but this one here does not display well at its current size.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

We have a detail from the same picture as the image in Template:suicide. I don't think we should re-use it.GideonF (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you should stop already GideonF. I'm concerned that nobody is going to let you join in any reindeer games and then you may feel sad and alienated, which may cause depression which could lead to thoughts of suicide. 7mike5000 (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Mike, I'm not sure why you've decided to make a mockery of this process instead of taking part constructively or what it is you think it's going to achieve, but if you want to do something that actually increases the odds of the article ending up the way you want it to end up then let me give you some advice: your side of the argument was better served when you were letting Anthony represent it.GideonF (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Dragging this conversation back from the brink... As long as the image doesn't actually appear twice in the same article I don't think re-using it is a problem. There might actually be some logic to having the lead article have the same image as the template. Given that only someone looking very closely at the images would even see that the goblet is from the same painting, I don't think this is a big deal. SDY (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Gideon. Can I give you some? Enough is enough already. It's not a matter of "increases the odds of the article ending up the way you want it to". That's the way you see it; it's not "my way" it's a matter of doing what is right. What is right in this case is making the article into a reputable encycylopedia article and you don't achieve that by posting images of what, taken out of context appear to be dead cartoon characters, that's besides the termites blowing themselves up, pea aphids, sticky goo, referring to people as organisms and the advertising section for how to kill yourself books.

Your arguments don't hold water, you have referenced lions, cigarettes, and war yet the article is about suicide. The novella that's been written on this page is because two people are hell bent of posting a cartoon of a dead body, not my "anti-suicide pov pushing". I'm the one that posted the chart on circumstances and methods as well as an example of a suicide prevention poster because they are directly relevant to and supported by the text.

Since this little debate began on September 4 at least 3,000 people have killed themselves in the United States alone, so I take the topic pretty seriously. As far as being an advocate it is entirely possible to advocate what is right without interjecting a POV. You do that by writing an encyclopedia article and providing information that is "relevant" and not worrying about decorating. Here is an example from the article on von Willebrand's disease, I added the information on coagulation laboratories and lab errors[19]. What POV am I pushing there? How about this one on pitutary incidentalomas[20] No POV just the facts. So get off it with that. Now someone finds an image that is not contentious yet you have to complain about that too. The time wasted on this Alice in Wonderland black is white debate could have been spent doing something productive for everyone involved. Go do something productive and spare the Dear Abby routine. 7mike5000 (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, any time you feel like taking part instyead of sneering from the sidelines, that's fine.GideonF (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Death of Socrates

Socrates, a famous philosopher who appeared in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure

This picture is fine. It has artistic merit so it should satisfy the interior decorators on Wikipedia. It depicts somebody famous who committed suicide. And it doesn't look tacky and asinine. Socrates was a philosopher so we have the whole cerebral thinking deep thoughts thing, Cogito, ergo sum". Plus he had some cool quotes like:

• “I am not an Wikipedian nor a Geek, but a citizen of the world.”-Socrates...and some enlightened people on Wikipedia.
• "One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing." -Socrates...and some people on Wikipedia.
• "“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”- Socrates ...and some people on this page
• "“Be nicer than necessary to every organism you meet. Every organism is fighting some kind of battle.” -Socrates, according to the person who wrote the lead on the Suicide article
• "““There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse and listen to Mike"-Socrates

Plus Socrates was also in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7mike5000 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Which photo should we use

There are currently three main photos porposed for the lead. Which one should we use?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo 1

Photo 1

• 1st choice Depicts suicide by a common method. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. It depicts the subject, it's a well known painting by esteemed artist, it doesn't need to be trimmed or distorted to illustrate the article, and it avoids re-use.GideonF (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Depicts an actual common method. These are already paintings, not photos. So I cannot see how we need to be any less graphic than this. The 2nd doesn't imply suicide, and the 3rd is only good as "artistic", not as identifying the subject to a general reader. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The vast majority of suicides are sad, private and sordid. The Manet painting captures this in a way that the suicide of Socrates does not. Socrates is very much out of the ordinary, especially in our modern culture where there is no tradition of political suicides. Option 2 is arguably neutral in the sense of being a "medical" image but to my mind is an illustration of a dead body rather than a suicide. SpinningSpark 17:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support, unless a better image is found. #2 is a particularly poor choice as there is no immediately obvious indication of homicide, much less suicide. #3, while a noteworthy historical event is too busy to obviously depict the general action and, for the general reader, is unlikely to quickly bring to mind suicide. Those unfamiliar with this particular suicide have no chance to discern why it is shown here (before reading the caption, of course). This brings us to #1. Not a great choice but it looks like suicide to me (unless it's one of my students returning to their dorm after "a few"). I readily admit I would be easily swayed to image #4, if someone were to come up with one (someone holding a gun to their own head would be -- gulp! -- nice. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support this one. The other images smack of WP:CENSORED. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please focus on the content, not the wikipolitics or assumptions about the motivations of other editors. SDY (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Haven't all editors above commented on the value of the photo and not other editors? Is there a particular issue you see? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that was a reply to Hmwt's comment about WP:NOTCENSORED, and it appears that it was displaced. I've moved it back to where it was. Choosing an image that depicts a different aspect of the topic isn't necessarily an attempt at censorship, and accusing editors of attempting to censor the image is more or less an assumption of bad faith. SDY (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Illustrates the main body of the topic well as per WP:Image#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature without being too unnecessarily graphic. The naked body one is not obviously about suicide. The one of Socrates is really a western version of seppuku rather than the main version of suicide in the world, it also fails straightforward recognizability as about suicide and is just some artists imaginings and very likely is not at all like what happened. Images should look like what they are supposed to be illustrating. Dmcq (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support 2nd and 3rd choice aren't as easy to connect to suicide. II | (t - c) 15:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Photo 2

Photo 2

• 2nd Choice Depicts suicide. The nudity though adds little. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo 3

Photo 3

• 3rd choice Does not illustrate the issue at hand very well at the usual size of a lead image.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support For the following reasons: depicts a known act of suicide, provides historical and cultural context, disrupts modern Western assumption that suicide is necessarily linked to depression. Importantly, it depicts the act of suicide. If all else fails, it's a fairly banal picture that won't distract readers from the text, which is a real concern for the second option. The purpose of the article is to inform, not to persuade, and shocking images are tools of persuasion. I agree with Jmh649's concerns that the image doesn't display well at that size. One possibility is to crop the image to remove some of the negative space that's important artistically but doesn't add to the utility of the image. In all likelihood there are other portrayals of the same event that would have the same value and might work better as images. SDY (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes if cropped would be an improvement.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Would this be an acceptable crop? Trimmed out a lot of space on the top, some on the left, and a sliver on the bottom. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Luna Santin, I just noticed this comment. Are you OK with the cropped version I posted yesterday? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that I think about it some more, your crop focuses on the subject more directly and will probably read better at infobox size. I like it. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Per SDY ... if there has to be an image. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Per SDY and Anthony ... "if there has to be an image." 7mike5000 (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support, I am all for an image and have been fine with the past few. This one personally attracts me since it looks like Socrates is giving the bird to the world one last time before he goes(I am a fan of Socrates). Besides that it is tasteful and not very gloomy, allowing the reader to take away some sort of visual reference to the article in their memories without being too morbid and depressing the reader.AerobicFox (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No photo

(Added Rich Farmbrough, 21:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC).)

• Oppose, I see no point in making this a special tiptoey article circumscribed by fear. Wikipedia is in the business of providing straightforward information. So we should just describe things factually and illustrate them factually without the high drama of say the Socrates photo with loads of people around showing their anguish. Suicide is well illustrated by the first choice here. Dmcq (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Issues are very similar to those brought up during the Rorschach ink blot debate... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support It has not been demonstrated that an image is required. IRWolfie- (talk) 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I am all in favour of illustrations to any acceptable WP article or topic whatsoever, from sexual techniques to murder, taking in suicide on the way. However, I cannot see what any of the proposed pictures have to do with the price of parsnips. Except that some of them are better pictures than Chatty, they add no value and they suffer the same objections of irrelevance. If we present a picture in an article, its presence should leave readers better informed than its absence would do. Which of those pictures would do so in the proper context? They might do for an article on art in communication, but what do they tell anyone in an article on suicide? JonRichfield (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The whole discussion is off the point. The first thing required is to write the article in a proper logical structure. Having achieved that, decide which points in the article would profit from pictures, and if so, of which nature and for what purpose. Then consider whether any picture adds the appropriate value. Saying: "Oh dear, some people didn't like that pic; let's propose a few rival candidates" is waaaayyyy off track. Don't ask the authors' opinions, ask the article. Ask the logic. JonRichfield (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of use think these images add to the article. Look at the article on chair we all know what a chair looks like but there are more than 10 of them.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to be rude but there is no logical connection between an article on chair and suicide. One concerns an inanimate object; nothing in that article is going to have an effect on a persons mantal well-being unless they have some kind of perverted chair fetish. The article on suicide and what's on that page can most definitely have an effect on the mental well=being of the persons reading either positive or negative. To what degree varies on the individual. I didn't know that Dialectical behavior therapy is an Evidence-based treatment for reducing suicidality. Did you? If you did I'm sure you would have added it. So if somebody reads that and discovers and switches to a therapy that actually works they have derived a benifit from the article. And depressed suicidal people are not lolling around apathetic and listless they do visit websites related to depression an suicide. The author Iris Chang metioned that before sh killd herself:<blockqoute>I promise not to visit Web sites that talk about suicide</blockqoute>

As far as User:JonRichfield's comments: "The first thing required is to write the article in a proper logical structure" they are 100% on the mark. I tried to make the article more logical and on topic but we can't even get passed whether or not the article should have an image just for "decoration". The lead itself is ludicrous:

Suicide (Latin suicidium, from sui caedere, "to kill oneself") is the act of an organism intentionally causing its own death. Suicide is often committed out of despair, or attributed to some underlying mental disorder which includes depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, alcoholism and drug abuse. Pressures or misfortunes such as financial difficulties or troubles with interpersonal relationships may play a significant role. Over one million people die by suicide every year...

Is the article about humans or "organisms"? Do organisms kill themslves because they are alcoholics or have financial difficulties etc. And if "organisms" kill themselves per year? Is it a disambiguation page? It looks like it. For example, I deleted Metaphorical suicide yet it was put back. The whole article needs to be cleaned up. Starting with canning the nonsense over the picture in the infobox. 7mike5000 (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Question: Anthonyhcole linked to this excerpt as an example of expert opinion advising against the use of images in this context; were there any other examples cited? This one in particular seems to refer only tangentially to the situation we have, here: this is an encyclopedia article about the topic of suicide in general, not a news article about one specific, recent suicide -- the disconnect is even more clear at the actual website of the American Association of Suicidology. Other than that, I take it as a significant point that many editors who have opposed the inclusion of images, above, are now voicing a preference for the Socrates painting in this thread. In particular, the painting is historically noteworthy and seems to satisfy several criteria that have been mentioned, previously (not a photograph, not sensationalist, not overly distracting, no immediate living relatives, and so on). I also have a hunch that some of the editors expressing concern over the question of harm are less concerned by this particular image. Seems like a good candidate for compromise? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No it's not a preferance for the image of Socrates per se it was actually an attempt at sycophancy, at least on my part. Socrates is not as innapropriate as Le Suicide, The Death of Chatterton etc. I personally don't think any decoration is necessary, professional or "encyclopedic". 7mike5000 (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "preference" wasn't the best word, but I had to get to a meeting; I think I get your meaning, though. Perhaps you don't think an image is helpful, but it's clear that a considerable chunk of editors do. In my own experience, many readers strongly prefer illustrated articles. If I might redirect the question a bit: do you think an image would be actively unhelpful to a reader's understanding of the topic? I realize that you'd rather not have an image, but I'm not sure why you're acting as if one would be damaging. – Luna Santin (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The advice not to use illustrations in articles covering suicide appears in many national guidelines but they all refer to newspaper and magazine reports. No one has brought to this discussion any guidelines covering encyclopedia articles, or any expert opinion on this advice's appropriateness to an encyclopedia article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, that. Wanted to be sure I hadn't missed something (looks like you all have been at this for a while). Regardless, I'm glad it was brought up for discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I came in from RFC. I really wonder what value a picture of a dead or dying person would have in the context of this article. Perhaps I am not a very visual person. Greglocock (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you have common sense.7mike5000 (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a sidebar mostly about the discussion above about "expert" recommendations. The book linked above says that experts say to "Avoid use of pictures". The actual recommendations from these experts are more complex—and, BTW, appear on an image-containing website directly controlled by these very experts. The recommendation is not "zero images, thanks, guys, you saved a life today." The actual recommendations are to not show dramatic or graphic images of a specific, recent suicide when reporting news events. The list specifically names images showing "the location or method of death, grieving family, friends, memorials or funerals". That's a fairly narrow recommendation, and I'm not convinced that it applies to any of the historical artwork contemplated here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. I believe gratuitous or emblematic images are inappropriate for this article but no one has brought an expert opinion to this talk page to support that. I'm settling for Socrates and pulling out of this discussion unless someone brings new evidence. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I am a new editor on this article and my impression right away is that I appreciate the factual information provided in the article. The pictures do not seem like they add to this and might be better placed in an art history article?Coaster92 (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You hit the nail right on the head, unfortunately not everybody seems to see what is to others plainly self-evident. It's a deadly serious subject that doesn't need artwork, historical or otherwise for decoration. 7mike5000 (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The vote above to see the state of concensus then appears to have been flawed since no image was not an option. I came to this article from the RFC and presumed a choice was needed but I think having no image is best. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I would vote for no image, if that could be an option. The article as it stands has a more scholarly approach as I read it, which I think makes for a valuable reference piece. My opinion-- the pictures would detract from that.Coaster92 (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"Oppose illustrating the article with depictions of suicide" was on of the options above in the Rfc.[21] but your both right "no image" should be an option at least if it is not directly related to the accompanying text and with the express purpose of elucidating the subject material not for gratuitous decoration. 7mike5000 (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

How do I vote and/or add "no illustration" as an option?216.175.109.139 (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

there was actually no option for "no image", the closest was: 4. "Oppose illustrating the article with depictions of suicide".

There would probably have to be another "Rfc". It's asinine to have any image but Socrates is a vast improvement over the crap that was up there. You could see all the B.S. necessary to remove the previous image "The Death of Chatterton". 7mike5000 (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I added "no image" as an option. I am not convinced that the thumbnails are harmful, however I share the feeling of other editors that the images in question add nothing to the article as it stands. If there were a section on "romanticisisation of suicide" or 2suicide in art" then they might have value. To understand suicide better maybe this illustration might be apposite. And for those who doubted it, yes people suffering clinical depression do read and even edit Wikipedia. Rich Farmbrough, 22:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC).

Yet another person confirming that the article needs to have a non-depression related image in the lead. Yes, suicide is often related to depression, but it is not synonymous in any way, shape or form. SDY (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Suicide and HIV Antirretrovirals

Some new antriretrovirals used in first line treatment of HIV/AIDS have suicide thoughts and actual suicides as common side effects. These include Isentress® (saltegravir)http://www.isentress.com/raltegravir/isentress/consumer/patient_product_information/index.jsp; ATRIPLA that contains three HIV medicines in one pill: SUSTIVA® (efavirenz), EMTRIVA® (emtricitabine) and VIREAD® (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. The mechanism of action for this tragic side effect is unknown and the suicidal thoughs, the acts and the depression and insomnia contribute to a state of desperation described in some patients.http://www.atripla.com/atripla-side-effects.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpenarosas (talk • contribs) 19:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably worth noting that some of that may simply be correlation rather than causation: HIV/AIDS is such a terrifying disease because of the massive social stigma that suicide might have nothing to do with the medication, but rather an escape from a new diagnosis, a change in medication because a previous treatment regimen failed, or poor quality of life from side effects. Serious Adverse Events (death obviously a serious event) during clinical trials tend to end up on the drug labels even when there isn't any proof of a causal relationship. The relationship between medications and suicide is much better studied (though I wouldn't say understood) with antidepressants in adolescents, and the general concept of "suicide related to medication" might be an interesting subsection to add to the article, with the proper caveats that there isn't really any proof of a link, just temporal associations and a lot of caution. SDY (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Can't really work on it right now, but this would be an excellent source to use for that section. We can throw in comments about other medications (e.g. antiretrovirals) but the big dispute there is really over the SSRI's, and we should follow the sources for what we focus on. SDY (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Almost all medications contain "thoughts of suicide" or "depression" as potential symptoms, this is mostly because typically people testing medications have these problems at a higher rate than the general population, but drug companies still have to report this as a potential side effect. I would like to see something that specifically sets retrovirals apart from typical medications with this warning since I can't think of any reason a retroviral would cause depression. A section on medication though would be a good addition.AerobicFox (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

One other drug I need to do some legwork on is mefloquine, which has gotten quite a bit of press for psychiatric side effects. At any rate, if it's commonly listed but only done so in a defensive fashion, we should be able to state and cite that in the article. I know that overuse of black box warnings and the 'crying wolf' problem has been brought up. SDY (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Many things are used as defensive labeling, and while sources would probably be able to be found that discuss defensive labeling with regard to suicide, there would likely not be a source for each product with defensive suicide labeling specifically calling the suicide warnings on that label defensive. It would be better to find a source which discusses psychiatric side effects of a specific product then to look for a specific reference for each product which labels itself as potentially causing depression(which would consist of thousands of drugs).AerobicFox (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Prevention

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)

Evolutionary cause

See this edit: [22] 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 (Talk E-mail) 12:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You have now deleted even more, removing both criticism and counter-criticism from the original text.[23] Miradre (Talk E-mail) 12:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I created a separate section for greater clarity. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 12:42, 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:

• Criticism of evolutionary psychology
• Nonsense on stilts: how to tell science from bunk By Massimo Pigliucci[24]
• Science fact and science fiction: an encyclopedia By Brian M. Stableford, p.41[25]
• Evolutionary psychology as maladapted psychology By Robert C. Richardson, p.76[26]
• The handbook of evolutionary psychology By David M. Buss, P. 152[27]
• The Monkey in the Mirror: Essays on the Science of What Makes Us Human By Ian Tattersall p.170[28]

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 (Talk E-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 (Talk E-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 (Talk E-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 (Talk E-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 (Talk E-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 (Talk E-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."

Miradre (Talk E-mail) 09:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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 (Talk E-mail) 15:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)