Jump to content

Talk:Suicide

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LFOlsnes-Lea (talk | contribs) at 01:26, 25 September 2012 (→‎Weak "Advocacy" Section: Strong advocacy coming to a town near you!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured article candidateSuicide is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 25, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted

The Case of Suicidal 5 Year Olds

"Once upon time" even the SSB, http://www.ssb.no/english/, ("Statistics Norway", but The Central Statistics Bureau of Norway, given the Norwegian) of Norway reported on 5 year old kids "who suicided". Now, "these" are gone and probably, correctly, IMO, filed as malicious neglect / killing / murder, but it got me thinking H*ll (don't tell the Pope) of a lot, what in the World that could cause these lively people (boys and girls) to get these awful thoughts... THEN it started to roll, Childcare Units, Police, Pediatrics, Teachers, Kindergartens, all the God damn World... So what is it now? What is a suicide now? Care to share your view, please? --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of links more: http://www.ssb.no/english/yearbook/ , http://www.ssb.no/dodsarsak_en/tab-2011-10-14-01-en.html and with "Suicides" on the 7th category row down from the top! --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information as means to suicide prevention

I find that the article is lacking by not mentioning information as means to survival, like the direct survival advise on how to deal with underlying challenges that lead to being suicidal in the first place. Can you add this, please? 62.16.186.124 (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Saipan

Both wikipedia pages contradict one another. In the battle of Saipan wiki, it is stated that 1,000 japanese civilians commited suicide. On the suicide page, it is stated that 'over 10,000' civilians commited suicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.197.244.60 (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A new review

[2] Lancet 2012 Doc James (talk · contribs · email)(please leave replies on my talk page) 21:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gender dysphoria/transsexualism

I searched the talk archives and didn't find anything on this. Depending on what source you look at, anywhere from 10 to 40% of people with gender dysphoria, transsexualism attempt suicide at some point in their lives. This study by the National Institutes of Health arrived at a 32% figure. Gender dysphoria is a (much) higher risk factor for suicide than anything listed in the article; for example, the article gives the example of 5% of people with schizophrenia dying from suicide. I feel that this risk factor merits inclusion in the article. 32% is a staggering number. Thoughts? MsFionnuala (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

Where does a captain going down with his ship or a soldier taking his own life to avoid providing information to the enemy fit? I'd say at least the former is Dutiful and a good example. The later is a gray area but has been reason for the Medal of Honor. 68.74.67.252 (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mental health and suicide

There are a number of issues with this edit [3]

  • Typically we present the results of the most recent meta analysis as fact. The psychological assessments where done before death so I am not sure how "post-mortem psychological assessments" apply
  • The second issue is we do not use primary sources to refute secondary ones per WP:MEDRS. Adding "however, only" is not needed as this is simply a judgement call. Our reader can just look at that number and decide if they think it is high or low. Regardless a secondary source should be found.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 16:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question states its own methodology as "We carried out a review of studies in which psychological autopsy studies of suicide completers were performed." It's not a representative sample of suicides, nor is it intended to be.

I don't see how you can justify extrapolating that particular study to the whole population and baldly presenting it as a fact, especially when there are other, contradictory figures available. Addding "however, only" was only done to highlight the variability of estimates. When you have one set of figures implying nearly 90% of suicides are mentally ill, and another set suggesting it's more like 30%, that's a contrast that bears having attention drawn to it.GideonF (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statement " 27% of suicides in England between 2000 and 2010 had been in contact with mental health services in the year prior to their deaths" is not comparable to the previous one. Therefore we should not used "however". Agree with the first bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 14:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're not directly comparable, but they're both being used as proxies for the proportion of suicides who have a mental illness, which neither measures directly. One proxy suggests that the number we're actually interested in could be as high as 0.9, the other suggests it could be as low as 0.3. But I'm not married to the "however".GideonF (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Word "Commit"

Cryptophreak (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC): The word "commit" as used prominently in the article has a strictly negative connotation and is especially used in connection with crime. Suicide is not a crime in a number of significant jurisdictions including Canada, Ireland, and the Netherlands. It would therefore appear that the article is in error for using the word. Thoughts?[reply]

This is the term I commonly use. What are you proposing be used instead? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the most frequent phrasing. Another common phrase is "committing acts of bravery". Brave crimes, by your reasoning?
Learn English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric12 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 23 August 2012

Some medical professionals believe this stems from the fact that males are more likely to end their lives through effective violent means, while women primarily use less severe methods such as overdosing on medications.

Replace with:

Some medical professionals[who?] believe this stems from the fact that males are more likely to end their lives through effective violent means, while women primarily use less severe methods such as overdosing on medications. 71.235.54.248 (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 14:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in Risk Factors

On the first line: "A review found that 87% of persons committing suicide where diagnosable with a mental disorder..." should be were instead of where. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Thanks, LadyofShalott 15:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lancet 2012

Some good reviews

  • Yip, PS (2012 Jun 23). "Means restriction for suicide prevention". Lancet. 379 (9834): 2393–9. PMID 22726520. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Weak "Advocacy" Section

I just note the charicaturely weak advocacy section in favour of suicide as intellectual position in the World today! Why aren't people allowed their private rights escape from tortureous circumstances, the very escape from inhumanity into DEATH??? Why are they (the opposition) so obsessed with prevention when they can't f*cking get together the aftermath and transition into decent life for "the one they saved"???!!! No, there's something wrong in the World and to put up such ridicule as this "advocacy" is simply not tolerable!!! Lancet or not! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTSOAPBOX Jonathanfu (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Am I supposed to have this Jonathanfu hanging over me? Are they supposed to be able to object against everything? LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To the "soapboxists" (WP:NOTSOAPBOX), you´re very good with the WP:NOTSOAPBOX, but let me have a few shots: Wikipedia:Five pillars, that Wikipedia is to provide a discussion presenting both sides, like "Opposition" to "In Favour" (Background for the Intellectual Defence), Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Assume good faith by making the case for people who are suffering, who are weak and vulnerable, Wikipedia:Be bold for daring to stand up to idiots and Jangling Jacks, who do not have the senses it takes to make the clear cases pro- and con- in debates! So this is my answer. Please, stop attacking me for making relevant inquiries into "troubled waters", into cases obscured by hard threats and besieged by deeply crazy people, "you know who". The World is a complex and highly dangerous place. All constructive resources are needed and the idiots are to carry full responsibility for diabolical actions. Likewise, I demand HONESTY from the participants in the debates and I consider this "academic". So I hope you can see this too and let both sides have a voice, where I see this article as defending the "self-righteous" med. doctors and psychologists who are only doing research and who never speak up for the troubled parts of their professional bodies of members. There is a lot wrong in the World. Why are they so silent? Why can´t "Background for the Intellectual Defence" or equivalent be entered into the article? Where are the proponents for Dignitas and the legacy of Dr. Jack Kevorkian? Why are there so few "Jack Kevorkians"??? I think these issues need to be answered honestly and I expect this "accusation of soapboxing" not to be some trick! Nice signature, btw. Cheers! --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOFIXIT. Why not read WP:MEDRS and then add a section on assisted suicide and perhaps a mention of euthenasia? Nobody is stopping you, except yourself as you seem to prefer to WP:SOAPBOX on talk pages rather than edit articles.--MrADHD | T@1k? 14:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should perhaps read these pages because I've tried this once with Background for the Intellectual Defence. Not only that, but in 2 ways! There is something else that goes on in the World and it has to do with the prevailing mentalities. I just say it, LOOK OUT! That these people are so deaf, that even the most blatant applied ethics will probably not hit them until another 3 - 5 years. I'm just very sorry for this and I think that the youngest are to suffer the most under these corrupt people as they/we have in the past! Let's be optimistic, however, and do our best because they are "at failure", they're not good! Maybe there's some hope somewhere out there in time! Cheers! --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is what [Olsnes-]Lea is referring to when he says he's tried it before. Just more pedagougery and violations of WP:NOTFORUM, no effort to find RS or to constructively contribute to articles. [Olsnes-]Lea, it's nice that you seem to want to help people who tend to suicidal ideation, but it would be nice if you realized Wikipedia is not a platform for general discussion of any topic, talk pages are for discussing how to improve articles only. Go write a letter to your local newspaper or something if you want your voice to be heard. Jonathanfu (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As much as Jonathanfu fails to get my name right (attempt of intimation? his personal psychological theory?), the very text he addresses is right above there, yes, as the very header goes: "Weak "Advocacy" Section". So, Jonathanfu, when I write "weak advocacy", I actually mean weak advocacy and that this touches upon the quality of the article if it can't cross that (little) brain of yours, that mentality that can't get a basic name right even if it says there "in plain daylight", you ¤#¤%#¤%&¤%&%!¤R%!!! --LFOlsnes-Lea 08:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So here you can some of your own WPs, Jonathanfu, for addressing me in that strange way, failing to write my name properly and speaking about me to others in that patronising way, esp. 3rd person, demonstratively, WP:CIVIL, WP:ETIQ that also entails, 1. Direct rudeness, (a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, (...). Also, you follow me around on Wikipedia wherever I write and provide that low-head commenting. You're awful! Get out of my way!!! One may also consider your behaviour WP:HAR. You get that??? Bye! (For the "person" who can't spell pedagoguery correctly: "Just more pedagougery and violations of WP:NOTFORUM, no effort to find RS or to constructively contribute to articles.") --LFOlsnes-Lea 09:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have made a number of personal attacks against another user in your above comments LFOlsnes-Lea. Please could you remove them? Polyamorph (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think he needs to take a message. (But I've done something so that...) --LFOlsnes-Lea 09:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, LFOlsnes-Lea, I'll use the whole username now. I've read the header, I've just been wondering why you haven't even attempted to provide reliable sources for any of your statements, and have instead chosen to complain about the condition of the world in general. If you want the advocacy section to be beefed up, WP:SOFIXIT and use some sources that support any information you add. Jonathanfu (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll take on the opposition by strong advocacy. I also note, though, that the opposition part is entirely gone without the fact that I've removed it! Isn't it supposed to be in with all that "slippery slope"? --LFOlsnes-Lea 01:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shift of Strategy

Who are the suicide researchers really? Why are they researching so much, but never uttering a word of sentiment? Where are they? Who are they? What are their "respects"? What are their definite current affiliation? Are they fit to do suicide research? Is their integrity in place for the research to be conducted properly? This may also be added as aspect of suicide and the relevant research!!! Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTSOAPBOX Jonathanfu (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apart... I've found this instead of the Hippocrates Oath and it is much stronger I think: Now here is the normative for the medical doctors (and no need to mention Hippocrates Oath): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Geneva , The Declaration of Geneva. LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the psychologists have something similar, all that it now takes is the question: "are you conducting your research and other work concerning suicide issues according to your professional ethics?" under one or more lie detectors as they have duties to answer it truthfully! Even if you get suspicions that they are relating to a "weird" interpretation of their prof. ethics, you can "narrow" your question and be more specific toward the ethics concerned! Good? LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any information based on reliable sources to back up your thoughts. Polyamorph (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here you have them, the very authoritative sources themselves (for not bothering to look up Code of Conduct and "psychologists": "5.^ http://www.efpa.eu/ethics and 6.^ http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx ". --LFOlsnes-Lea 09:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are sources on their code of ethics, but are there any sources that suggest academics researching suicide are not following these guidelines? We can't include anything in wikipedia that isn't already written elsewhere in another source. Polyamorph(talk) 09:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. Can't you read the (bl*ody) crime statistics, please? 2. Why do people kill themselves in the first place? Can it be that they are unhappy? How far outside common sense do you need to be, Polyamorph? You know, I claim the right to air some possible angles toward "gathering information" so that this article becomes complete in the descriptive sense. Now, if I feel stressed by your "shoving"/"pushing" and some other users almost go without the smallest attention, are you justified? I feel this is going toward unfairness... You refuse the blog reference on an argument I think is one of the best, possibly in the World! If it also proves that YOU are the very small-minded person, how would you like to be punished? Are you risking anything whatsoever for sticking that head up and asking these (impolite) questions??? (You're notified.) Cheers! --LFOlsnes-Lea 09:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Basics - Philosophy by Nigel Warburton, 4th ed. has a reference on p. 21 under "Problem of Evil" and it says, "...the widespread practice of torture." I can also refer you to the increasing (2nd: increasing) number of cases to the ECtHR - here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:European_Court_of_Human_Rights_case_law and the Court itself and http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/Homepage_En/ . Further: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-13877314 by 22 June 2011, stating that
"There is currently a backlog of 150,000 cases at the ECtHR in Strasbourg, and costs of taking a case there are high.
According to SCHR [The Scottish Human Rights Commission], that means: "The ECtHR is not and should not be seen as a substitute for the individual's right of access to a remedy from domestic courts in Scotland and the UK."" When you can't balance the article in the first place ("Opposition" to "Intellectual Defence"), how much snottery am I supposed to accept? There are other people who can fill this stuff in too??? --LFOlsnes-Lea 11:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I suspect you of anything dishonest, Polyamorph, but I get from your user-page that "This user has a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Physics." and "IoP [of USA] This user is a member of the Institute of Physics" and that I just happen to believe that you know that I have the Photon Theory and that I have (basically) demolished the Copenhagen Interpretation and more. I'm not prepared for any envy play from you! Alright? --LFOlsnes-Lea 10:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world are you prattling about? Please, please read WP:TPG. Also, I don't see anything in the sources you have provided that supports your idea that researchers are being unethical. As you quoted, the article discuses how the SCHR feels about Scots having to take human rights issues to the ECtHR, and not just their Supreme Court. There is no mention of what the backlog of cases is comprised of, and no mention of suicide. Linking to the main page of the ECtHR supports your arguments exactly zero.
"You refuse the blog reference on an argument I think is one of the best, possibly in the World!" Are you referring to a link to one of your own blogs that I removed on grounds of WP:NOTPROMOTION? I looked through some of them and they are every bit as overly oratory, poorly written, and lacking in sources as your discussions on Wikipedia talk pages have been. Those blogs would not have been eligible for inclusion even if they had been well written as per WP:RS; you are not a recognized expert on suicide. And on a slight aside, are you using Google Translate or something? Because phrases like "envy play" really scream online translator. Jonathanfu (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me answer the first point by logical entailment and let the rest be answered by others:
1. There is a lot of crime in the World to such extent that even the (principal) ECtHR gets a huge backlog.
2. And given that torture is part of crime then people may be in a World of hurt "here and there".
3. When people are in a World of hurt "here and there", they want to suicide.
4. People suicide, i.e., the suicide numbers, by hearsay, more than one million deaths every year. (You know what a million is Jonathanfu? A fairly big number!) Should I formalise this too? Of course then, as you can read yourself, enter crime -> ECtHR -> Nigel Warburton -> Suicides! Entailment! (Where's that rope?!) --LFOlsnes-Lea 01:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suicide&oldid=514423529"