Talk:Suicide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Suicide has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 25, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
March 2, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

book -- in new translation (may be relevant for improving history section)[edit]

Farewell to the World: A History of Suicide by Marzio Barbagli, translated by Lucinda Byatt, 2015, Polity Press Jodi.a.schneider (talk)


Suicided[edit]

It seems to me a section on being "suicided" should exist, if perhaps under a different title but at least have "suicided" as an "also known as". From celebrities to civilians, witnesses to activists - whether by secret agents, criminals, sloppy investigative work, or as the documentary Soaked in Bleach alleges that Kurt Cobain was suicided - murdered and set up to appear like he killed himself. JasonCarswell (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Never heard of the word. Sources like dictionaries? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Google https://www.google.ca/#q=suicided

results that all have the -ED verb form of the word: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/suicided <--- I added a definition + a link (never done that before) http://www.dictionary.com/browse/suicided http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suicide http://www.thefreedictionary.com/suicided

results that describe the -ED verb from of the word as a death made to look like suicide: http://www.yourdictionary.com/suicided http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=suicided https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070530174307AA0MbjM

I've heard it before, but always in the street wise sense of a cover up of an accident, murder, or silencing of a witness. (ie. "Writers who have investigated the assassination of John F. Kennedy have claimed that a large number of witnesses to the event have died in mysterious circumstances" ( from http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKdeaths.htm ) and may have been suicided. (The last part I added.)) I was surprised to discover that "suicided" was actually a word before the cover-up slang. It may be too soon to include the term properly on the main page but if it becomes more prevalent it's easy enough to resurrect. Pun intended. Sorry if I wasted your time. JasonCarswell (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

No strong opinion one way or the other. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd never heard of the word before myself. From this discussion it doesn't sound like there's necessarily enough material to merit a section though, and I think the last thing we'd need (and I'm not saying this was the suggestion) is a list of people whom it's alleged have been suicided (ah, my PC doesn't recognize the word, FWIW). DonIago (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Just read a RationalWiki page that uses this term in reference to Erwin Rommel [1]. Sizeofint (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

"Risk"[edit]

No-one talks about the chance of something happening as "risk" if the outcome is good or neutral, it is an obvious POV issue. You could take the position that that's how the sources refer to it, but the sources you're drawing from have a declared anti-suicide POV. Using partisan sources is allowable where they reliably report facts, but that requires the separation of facts from opinions.GideonF (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay so let me get this straight, you are arguing that suicide could be good and therefore we should not use the word risk to describe things that increase the rate of suicide? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I will argue here from the position that suicide should not be declared to be 'good', bad' or 'indifferent' but insisting that we must maintain that suicide is always 'bad' and a tragic outcome is POV and is in the fringe of psychiatry that I call 'the happiness bullies'. In reality, suicide is an outcome that perhaps is better than the alternative (which is worse). Actually, the term 'correlates' could be used as a neutral alternative in the disputed sentence. Fylbecatulous talk 19:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense, this is not a position of a "fringe" — but one of the general populace and medical community. If there is any legitimate debate focus on that, not on generally accepted semantics. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm saying it could be good, bad or indifferent and it wouldn't be Wikipedia's job to decide which. Now, do you have an argument to the effect that the language is NPOV? Because so far you've just argued that your POV is popular, so the article should reflect it, which isn't a valid argument. If not, the NPOV version stays.GideonF (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
You could try a RfC Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
This is a bizarre discussion and I almost can't believe we are even having it. But if you truly want to change the wording from "risk", what word would you suggest that we use instead? NW (Talk) 16:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
User:NuclearWarfare user wishes to use the word "correlates" and "chance" instead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
"risk" seems more frequently used...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
"Determinants" is the other word for risk factor that's used in the field. However, it feels particularly strange for something that is a "choice". WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Risk is a standard term of use with regard probabilities related to illness, injury, and death. As suicide is a type of death, it's logical use "risk". —Shelley V. Adamsblame
credit
› 20:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

We currently use normal language and I support continuing to use normal language. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

  • "risk" is the standard term. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
The NPOV version is written in normal language. Are you seriously suggesting "risk" doesn't imply a judgement about the desirability of suicide?GideonF (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • GideonF is correct that usage of "risk" implies negativity and that this violates WP:NPOV. In various cultures past and present suicide has not been viewed negatively, furthermore under some circumstances in contemporary Western societies it is controversial such as committing suicide during end-of-life care, and in some cases heroic such as falling on a grenade. In my opinion, however, this violation of WP:NPOV is not serious enough to justify using awkward language to circumvent it. More importantly though, the section contains many "non"-risk factors such as "media" and "rationale". Perhaps those sections would be best moved into "Society and Culture" or the section renamed entirely to something else like "Influences". M. A. Bruhn (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
    There are individual risk factors and than there are population risk factors. Media protraial of suicide is definitely a population level risk factor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
    I see, that makes sense. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • NPOV means following the sources, not being "even Steven". Risk factor is the normal term for this in epidemiology, and therefore we should use the normal term. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    • See my remarks up the thread about the use of partisan sources.GideonF (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
      • First of all, WP:BIASED sources are defined in the relevant guidelines as sometimes being the best possible sources, so "but all the sources are biased against my small-minority POV" is not actually a relevant or valuable argument. Secondly, I said "the normal term for this in epidemiology" rather than something like "the normal term for talking about suicide", and I actually meant what I wrote: This is the normal term for this concept in the entire field of epidemiology, including the parts that don't have anything to do with suicide. Risk factor is the most common term for this concept, regardless of whether you're talking about something that many people perceive as bad, such as cancer or a car wreck, or something that many people perceive as good, such as attending school or getting a job, or something that many people perceive as either, depending upon the circumstances, such as pregnancy. Risk factor is what that concept is called. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
        • The field of epidemiology isn't especially relevant to the subject of suicide and its terminology shouldn't dictate the language use throughout the article, but out of interest, can you show me some examples of epidemiologists using "risk" to refer to good outcomes? The risk of attending school, rather than the risk of not attending; the risk of getting a job, rather than the risk of not getting one?GideonF (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
          • GideonF I understand your stance, but per NPOV the point of view our articles reflect are those in the mainstream literature. And the mainstream literature takes the stance that most of the time suicide is a product of mental illness and is a negative outcome, and discusses risk factors and how to prevent it. Everybody knows that some people consider suicide a rational choice (and any rational person can see that there are some times when it may be a rational choice) but nobody sees it as mundane as going to school. So two things - please actually read NPOV and understand that articles reflect the sources, and second, please stop making unhelpful arguments like comparing suicide to going to school. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
            • First of all, I have read the relevant policies, and by my reading it is you who are understanding them incorrectly. No matter of fact is in dispute. Reliable sources differ about the relationship between mental illness and suicides and the article reflects this. Whether suicide is a positive or negative outcome is not a fact, it is a value judgement. There is no question of anyone's opinion being true or false. Wikipedia doesn't take a position on the rightness or wrongness of actions no matter how closely scholarly opinion approaches unanimity: as WP:NPOV states, 'an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action"'. Secondly, I did not bring up the comparison with going to school. User:WhatamIdoing introduced it as an alleged example of the word "risk" being used in a way that does not imply a judgement about the desirability of the outcome. I merely expressed my scepticism.GideonF (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
              • Thanks for your reply. Nothing you have written shows that you are grappling with the way the mainstream literature treats suicide (as generally a bad outcome). It is true that editors cannot editorialize (we can't say ourselves that genocide is evil or that suicide is a bad outcome) but we do have to reflect the literature. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
                • I think we can safely assume that GideonF is aware that mainstream literature treats suicide as a generally negative outcome. We don't reflect the literature when it violates our other policies and guidelines, for instance in the case of transgender people we describe them based off the gender they identify as and not with what sources describe them as. The most relevant part of WP:NPOV here is this line: "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity." In my opinion the increased clarity from "Risk factors" is sufficient to outweigh the lack of neutrality in this case. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
                • You appear simply to be repeating the same, irrelevant point. You appreciate the difference between an assertion of fact and a value judgement, don't you?GideonF (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, we should follow the example of the reliable sources that are used for the article. The second sentence of the article states a list of "risk factors". Two references are provided: The Lancet and WHO. The abstract of The Lancet's paper states: "Previous self-harm is a major risk factor." WHO asks: "Who is at risk?" – and then details a number of factors. This is conclusive evidence that "risk" is an appropriate term to use here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
"See my remarks up the thread about the use of partisan sources." GideonF, it seems that your argument hinges on the claim that references such as The Lancet and WHO are unreliable in their characterization of these factors as "risks". I strongly disagree. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
It's not a question of reliability, they are perfectly reliable sources for facts, but the desirability or otherwise is a matter of opinion. The way they use language is coloured by their stated biases. They are anti-suicide, and make no pretence to neutrality. Wikipedia, which is neither pro- nor anti-suicide can't use POV language and justify it by saying the sources are POV. Do you believe that "risk" does not imply a judgement about the desirability of suicide?GideonF (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe that using standard terminology implies nothing about the desirability of anything, except our desire as editors for readers to understand what we're saying.
I believe that you need to spend a long time studying the WP:GEVAL section of the NPOV policy. It is simply false to say that Wikipedia is supposed to be neither pro- nor anti- anything. A neutral article is not one that "lets the reader make up his own mind". A neutral article is one that fairly and accurately represents, in due proportion, the views of reliable sources, especially scholarly sources and other recognized experts (NB: not you or me). To massively oversimplify, if 90% of the reliable sources are anti-suicide, then this article achieves "neutrality" when it, too, is 90% anti-suicide – not when it's 50-50. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
You're mistaking how NPOV applies to contentious assertions of facts for how it applies to moral and aesthetic judgements. Wikipedia avoids making such judgements altogether.GideonF (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Although I also see some of your logic, I also disagree with changing this to "correlates". The major reliable sources use the term "risk" and therefore Wikipedia should also. I also don't think a value judgement is being placed on the term.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
It definitely does place a value judgement on the term. Ask yourself if "Risk factors" would be appropriate for the Homosexuality article? However, if it may be more palatable for GideonF I'd like to explain why I think it is not too significant here. Consider a criminology paper discussing the risk factors for determining if a police officer is going to shoot someone while on duty. The term "risk factor" implies that this is negative outcome, but in this case there is clearly no presumption that the shooting is justified or not. The negatively describes the outcome, and not the decision-making process of the person responsible for the outcome. Furthermore consider this, most people who commit suicide don't do so because they want to die, they do so because they don't want to continue living. The distinction is important. Like a person on death row who chooses the firing squad as their method of execution, they don't actually want to be killed by a firing squad, they are just choosing the least bad option available in their circumstances. The circumstances under which a person commits suicide are generally considered bad, even in an altruistic suicide like jumping on a grenade where the suicide is seen positively, the circumstances that led to it (a live grenade about to go off) are negative. "Risk factors" is predominantly describing these circumstances: struggling with a mental disorder, difficult medical condition, gambling addiction, etc, which I believe most people in these circumstances would agree are negative. Lastly, in contrast to defending suicide as rationale or morally justified, I don't believe it is very sensitive to describe it positively. Someone sacrificing themselves to protect another is seen as heroic, but tragic. People who have ended their lives have probably generally not wanted this last, painful act to be viewed by others as a good thing. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
If you don't think the term "risk" is value-laden, can you show me some examples of it being used with regard to positive or neutral outcomes.GideonF (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Again, you are substituting editorial judgement for what the bulk of reliable sources say. I won't be responding to you further and I reckon others will soon stop as well. At some point you need to see that there is no consensus for removing the word "risk", and that the consensus to retain "risk" is based in just about every WP content policy - content reflects sources, not the point of view of editors. Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
If that means you're going to leave the discussion to people who understand the question and the relevant policies, thanks.GideonF (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
No, that means I generally WP:SHUN editors who will not drop the stick when their proposals are getting no consensus. That is what others tend to do as well. This is not complicated; what you want to do goes against the overwhelming majority of sources and thus is starkly against all our content policies. All of them. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, off you pop then. People who actually have something to contribute to the discussion can continue it perfectly well without you.GideonF (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Self harm & suicide attempt[edit]

This is an appropriate page and article to ask this question, relating to all suicide and self injury/harm type articles. Given self harm is defined as an act with no intention to kill oneself, why are we including sources indicating self harm stats, and then considering them analogous to suicide attempt stats? Self harm stats are not equal to, and should not be applied to, suicide attempt stats.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

People use the terms loosely and not all use the term self harm to mean that their was no suicide attempt.
Self harm without suicide wish is also a risk factor for suicide and some self harm results in death by mistake. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
We need to be very careful that we don't mix the two up IMO. Self injury, for example cutting ones skin, (with no intent to commit suicide), is very different to attempted suicide, for example poisoning, where intention to actually kill oneself is clear. The medical journal stats are also very different when we look at them. Can you please elaborate your position on this Doc James.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Which content in this article are you specifically referring to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed throughout all of our self harm and suicide related articles that the two distinct behaviors are being inconsistently viewed as being synonymous, including the statistics. Will provide some examples here at the main suicide talk page to discuss, as I see them. Thanks for the response Doc James. Up to you if you want to add any other comments during this discovery process.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Happy to review and try to correct the inconsistencies you find :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Given the reliable sources actually specify self harm (which is defined as "....direct injuring of body tissue, done without suicidal intentions") when providing suicide attempt stats, I would like to to correct our related articles which for some reason, are mixing up attempted suicide stats, with self harm stats. The difference is obviously the intention, as noted in the self harm article definition.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
What part of this article do you see as the issue? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the 4X statistic for females over males. Not sure where that stat came from, but certainly not from the majority of reliable sources, meta-analyses or the WHO. A number of current sources indicate higher rates of self harm in females, but not suicide attempts. It is the intent to kill oneself as discussed above. If I've missed where that stat is cited please show me and lets discuss it if needed.Charlotte135 (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The person who has completed suicide[edit]

I see this on the Suicide (disambiguation) page. It is not appropriate to add it here but I think it would be a good idea to use the noun 'suicide' somewhere in this article as the word for the person who has completed suicide.
--Brenont (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

That link is in the external links section already. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

External links re: Hotlines[edit]

We had a touch of discussion over at Domestic violence about adding hotlines for a few majority English speaking countries, which ended up fairly in favor. Figured I'd drop this here to see what everyone thought about similar additions on this article. Seems to pretty well satisfy the criteria of "other meaningful, relevant content" that a person reading the article on suicide may be interested in. TimothyJosephWood 23:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hm.. On the other hand, it is not on-mission for the encyclopedia. There is no end to the "public service announcements" people want to make in WP but WP:NOTPROMOTION & WP:NOTHOWTO not to mention issues with WP:GLOBAL with regard to which ones to list... Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd just like to note the existence of List of suicide crisis lines as well as a global directory of suicide hotlines. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
We discuss them in the text of this article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead to be an overview[edit]

"Rates of completed suicides are generally higher in men than in women, with males three to four times more likely to kill themselves than females."

We do not need to make that sentence more complicated. We do not need to say "much" as we already say three to four time more likely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Also in China more women appear to complete suicide than men and they represent 1/6th of the world's population.[2] Therefore the word generally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the global data for 2012[3] WHO states 35.6% of suicides occur in females and 64.4% occurs in males. So 1.8 times more common in males globally. Therefore I do not think "much" is justified. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Doc James for discussing here. That appears true in China. However based on my reading of the reliable sources, it seems that in the remaining world, ie. in every other country, or 5/6th of the world's population, males commit suicide in far greater numbers than females, and in some countries, up to 8 times more. Understating these hard stats in our WP suicide article, appears to me to misrepresent what the majority of reliable sources are clearly telling us for the majority of the world's countries, apart from China of course. Can we therefore please compromise on the wording here Doc James?Charlotte135 (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Also "In the Eastern Mediterranean, suicide rates are nearly equivalent between males and females."[4]
And India and China account for more than half of the world's total suicides. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Some good points Doc James. Will look at these studies and the reliable sources again. On a related note, this study you cited [5] states "...diagnosing suicide also includes determining the component of intent, which makes it more difficult to have unequivocal statistical data." That's why I suggested we focus on intent in our self harm and parasuicide articles when including suicide attempt stats. What do you think?
This is a global overview of suicide in the world.[6] We need to be careful to present global stats most prominently in the lead and try to avoid becoming to Western centric. When when quote Western stats we need to state they are Western stats. Yes in Europe and N America suicide is 3 to 4 times more common in males. In China it is more common in females and in much of the rest of the world rates are close in both sexes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
In our List of countries by suicide rate it looks like most countries male/female suicide ratios are similar to or greater than the USA and other western countries. I'm confused by the WHO stats. What do you think?
And in India, the male to female suicide ratio has consistently been about 2:1. So, apart from China, shouldn't we make this clear. That is, that every country apart from China, male to female suicide rates are at least twice as high, and up to 8 times higher? Would "much" higher be a compromise perhaps?Charlotte135 (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Your statement "That is, that every country apart from China, male to female suicide rates are at least twice as high" is simply not true. Male to female ratio in the Eastern Mediterranean is 1.1 and in the Western Pacific it is 1.3. In India it is 1.7.[7]
1.8 times higher is simply not much higher IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James. I was just looking at our List of countries by suicide rate article where 170 countries are listed. Apart from only 4 of those countries listed, I noted the remaining 166 countries out of the 170, clearly showed at least a statistical difference, and in most cases a large difference, and in some countries (eg. Malta, Poland, Ukraine, Romania etc.) a massive difference between male and female suicide rates as high as 10 to 1. Do you think we should somehow make note of this in our main WP suicide article?Charlotte135 (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

We already do. We say "Rates of completed suicides are generally higher in men than in women" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What reliable sources to use[edit]

Do we use 2000-2012 stats, or other outdated stats, or do we use reliable sources representing suicide stats for the present time, that is as they are today or as current as possible? I was reading this article for instance, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2015-06/03/content_20894548.htm discussing how female suicides have been declining remarkablly. In fact it is now apparently equal or slightly more males committing suicide in China too. Our current lead suicide WP article includes a 1.8 stat but is based on data globally begun 16 years ago. Current rates are very different. Shouldn't our WP articles reflect what reliable sources say for 2015/16 instead?Charlotte135 (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

2012 is not outdated. We do not use the popular press. The ref we are using is for 2012. Good stats for 2015/2016 do not yet exist. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I thought the WHO stat of 1.8 is for the full period 2000-2012, not 2012, static.
Quoting from the China Year Book of Health, published by the National Health and Family Planning Commission (not pop press). "In 2003, the suicide rate among women in rural areas was 17.44 per 100,000 females, higher than the figure for men, which was 15.07 per 100,000 males, according to the China Year Book of Health, published by the National Health and Family Planning Commission. In 2012 - the latest figures available from the commission - the rural rate stood at 9.09 per 100,000 for men and 8.05 per 100,000 for women." Should we update our Chinese stats, based on this source. Is the China Year Book of Health, published by the National Health and Family Planning Commission, a reliable source?Charlotte135 (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
It is for the year 2012. For females in 2012 we see 67,500 deaths while for males we see 53,200 deaths per [8] and is published by the World Health Organization. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Definition of Suicide[edit]

I wish to differentiate between those who engage in a dangerous behaviour and those who explicitly wish to die through the dangerous behaviour. I do not think that the current definition, "Suicide is the act of intentionally causing one's own death", is sufficiently clear as it does not specify the direction of the intention (it could be interpreted as saying that someone who intentionally engages in dangerous behaviour that causes their death, but without the AIM of dying, committed suicide when they did not AIM to die - which would not be Suicide). I'm not sure if a different wording would make the definition less open to interpretive errors. Also, I'm not absolutely sure whether I am in error, in which case I'd apologise. ASavantDude (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

the definition is intentionally causing one's own death. Dangerous behavior is not part of the definition. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I am with Jytdog. That is what intentionally means. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
While I note your valid points here ASavantDude, I also think our opening sentence of the lead, "Suicide is the act of intentionally causing one's own death" covers it pretty well. This definition of suicide, which emphasizes intent to kill oneself, just needs to be consistently applied in all suicide related WP articles IMO.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Not supported by majority of sources[edit]

This statement and statistic, is not supported by the majority of reliable sources ".......although females attempt suicide four times more often." I would like to correct it. Alternatively could someone provide some sources for this stat. These stats in the sources also include self injury and parasuicide, where there is no intent to kill oneself and is not attempted suicide where intent must be present. It is the self injuries and parasuicides that are higher in females than males.Charlotte135 (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you make an edit request? Showing what you consider incorrect and what you want to change it to? Parasuicide isn't widely accepted, so I suggest you refrain from using that language in your request. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The stat is in the pub med source. Though I think we should probably change the phrasing from using the term "although". That, to me, creates a comparison between the two. The source uses the term "while", but I don't want us to directly copy the source. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The majority of reliable sources, including the WHO, do not support this one in four stat. It is inaccurate and should be removed. Even in the pub med source it is referring to self injury, not attempted suicide. There is no actual intent to kill oneself in self harm or parasuicide. As for parasuicide not being widely accepted" Carl Fredrik....not accepted by who please. It is quite often used in the literature. We need to reflect what the majority of reliable sources say.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
You have been asked to provide alternative content with its source; would you please do that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
What the majority of reliable sources say is simply females have higher rates of suicidal behavior which includes self injury and parasuicide. Therefore I propose simply saying that, rather than including a misleading statistic. Further, suicide stats should be worldwide, if used at all, as noted by Doc James.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
What I stated is that the stats in the lead should be global. NOT that all stats in the article should be global.
The reference states "Additionally, while females attempt suicide nearly 4 times more frequently than males" [9]
So how is that stat misleading? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't you at least be saying "4 times more frequently than males in USA? because that is what that single source states. Should we not be global here? Secondly it is misleading because even in the source used it is talking about self injury and parasuicide, not attempted suicide (ie. full intention to kill oneself, but failed).Charlotte135 (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Would it not be easier, given your stat applies to only one single country, to leave the stat out altogether? Or, if you insist leaving it in, making darn sure readers know it applies only to the USA, and no other country, and we then start adding all the other countries rates as well, for a worldwide viewpoint?Charlotte135 (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
The United States is a large portion of the English speaking world (appears to be more than half of native speakers per here). And this is English Wikipedia. Have clarified. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
"with its source". Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this the source you are using for 4:1 stat? Chang, B; Gitlin, D; Patel, R (September 2011). "The depressed patient and suicidal patient in the emergency department: evidence-based management and treatment strategies". Emergency medicine practice. 13 (9): 1–23. Charlotte135 (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog and Doc James this study published on the CDC.gov website is one of many sources which contradict the very bold 4 to 1 stat. Crosby AE, Han B, Ortega LAG, Parks SE, Gfoerer J. Suicidal thoughts and behaviors among adults aged ≥18 years-United States, 2008-2009. MMWR Surveillance Summaries 2011;60(no. SS-13). please view here on the CDC.gov website [10]. I quote from the results section. "The prevalence of suicidal thoughts was significantly higher among females than it was among males, but there was no statistically significant difference for suicide planning or suicide attempts." Charlotte135 (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Why would we use a primary source when we are currently using a review?
Added a textbook that says more or less the same [11]
This book by WHO says "rates of non-fatal suicidal behaviour tend to be 2-3 times higher in women than in men" [12] and was looking at a bunch of countries not just the US Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we should be misleading readers by using the term suicide attempt (which can be defined by the intention to kill oneself). Can we change this to self injury, parasuicide, suicide ideation. None of which are suicide attempts as there is no intention to kill oneself. Even using the wording "non-fatal suicidal behaviour" seems less misleading to readers. We can't just say females attempt suicide 3-4 times more than males. It's false.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Changed to "However non fatal suicidal behaviors are between two to three times more frequent in females." as a compromise and reflecting what the sources actually say.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
We have a few sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Even though this article has been on my watchlist for years, as have the Suicide attempt and Suicidal ideation articles, I stayed away from it because my brother (who used to edit Wikipedia) had taken an interest in it. And I stayed away from recent discussions on this talk page because Charlotte135 has been involved in them and Charlotte135 and I have butted heads to the point that there was an interaction ban placed on us. I also didn't want Charlotte135 to think that my commenting here means that I am open to Charlotte135 and I discussing matters; I am not. After seeing this and this recent edit, however, I decided that I should note the following: Whether one would rather not cite the "3-4 times more than males" statistic or not, the literature is consistently clear on the fact that women attempt suicide more than men and that men commit suicide more than women. The gap is usually significant (as in big). And I don't just mean literature examining the United States; I mean literature examining suicide on a global scale as well. So we should not simply stick to "rates of non-fatal suicidal behaviour tend to be 2-3 times higher in women than in men" wording. We should be clear that women tend to attempt suicide more than men do. I see no reliable sources stating that men attempt suicide more than women do (at least not when it comes to the matter on a wide scale), and most reliable sources on suicide do not state that the rates for attempting suicide are equal or close to equal among the sexes. Most point to a gender gap. Below are sources demonstrating my point, in order of year. The year aspect shows that this has been consistently reported for years.

Click on this to see the sources.

1. This 2004 Praeger Guide to the Psychology of Gender source, from Greenwood Publishing Group, page 96, states, "The WHO (2003) reports that at sites all over the world, women attempt suicide more frequently than men, and the world rate is 3.5 to 1. However, it is also reported that except in China and parts of India, men commit suicide more frequently than women do. The world rate for suicide completion is 3.5. men to each woman."

2. This 2006 Handbook of Girls' and Women's Psychological Health source, from Oxford University Press, page 130, states, "In most countries, suicide rates are highest in men, those who are divorced or separated, unemployed, poor, and socially isolated (McKenzie et al., 2003). In terms of suicide, women in some cultural groups are at more risk than women in other cultural groups, and men are generally more at risk than women. Paradoxically, then, women are more likely to attempt suicide, but men are much more likely to die by suicide."

3. This 2008 Kaplan & Sadock's Concise Textbook of Clinical Psychiatry source, from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, page 428, states, "Men commit suicide more than four times as often as women, a rate that is stable over all ages. Women, however, are four times more likely to attempt suicide than men."

4. This 2009 Textbook of International Health: Global Health in a Dynamic World source, from Oxford University Press, page 261, states, "Even though women attempt suicide more often than men, the completed suicide rate is 3.5 times higher among men."

5. This 2009 Contemporary Topics in Women's Mental Health: Global perspectives in a changing society source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 122, states, "Relatively few studies have investigated completed suicides in women [12] despite this puzzling phenomenon and the large number of attempted suicides. This is in part due to a focus on mortality by suicide, and since the mortality is highest amongst men, that is where most research is focused. Suicide attempts, however, are approximately 10-20 times as common as completed suicides, and the gender difference, in many countries, is much greater than for completed suicide [13]. It can be said that suicidal morbidity is much higher in women, but also for the whole disease burden for suicidality, if morbidity and mortality are combined. While suicide is a predominantly male phenomenon, suicidality as a whole is predominantly a female phenomenon [12, 14]. Regardless of which of the sexes carries the greater burden, the paramount reason for a deeper understanding of the gender paradox is to increase our arsenal in the battle to prevent attempted and completed suicide."

6. This 2009 Oxford Textbook of Suicidology and Suicide Prevention source, from Pennsylvania State University/OUP Oxford, page 232, states, "In most countries of the world, the sex ratio (male to female) of completed suicides is around 3:1, and at the same time, women attempt suicide approximately three times more often than men."

7. This 2010 Essentials of Abnormal Psychology source, from Cengage Learning, page 246, states, "Although males commit suicide more often than females in most of the world, females attempt suicide at least three times as often (Berman & Jobes, 1991; Kuo et al., 2001)."

8. This 2010 Sociology of Deviant Behavior source, from Cengage Learning, page 311, states, "Suicide occurs more commonly among men than among women in almost all countries. In fact, men's rates generally average three to four times higher than women's, although women attempt suicide more often than men (Canetto and Lester, 1995b)."

9. This 2012 Behavioral Science in Medicine source, from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, page 139, states, "Although women attempt suicide four times more often than men do, men successfully commit suicide three times more often than women do. One reason for this difference is that men tend to use more violent and hence lethal means than women."

10. This 2014 A Sociology Of Mental Health And Illness source, from McGraw-Hill Education (UK), page 48, states, "Although women attempt suicide more frequently then men, the figures for actual suicide are consistently higher for men than women."

11. This 2014 Abnormal Psychology: An Integrative Approach source, from Cengage Learning, page 292, states, "Although males commit suicide more often than females in most of the world (e.g., CDC, 2013), females attempt suicide at least 3 times as often (Berman & Jobes, 1991; Kuo et al., 2001)."

12. This 2016 Deviance and Deviants: A Sociological Approach source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 179, states, "There is a gender paradox in suicide: even though women are more likely than men to have suicidal thoughts and attempt suicide, men are more likely to commit suicide than women."

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22reborn there have been a number of article discussions I would have liked to comment on, but chose to stay well away from, simply because you were there too. So why did you come here? You have clearly missed the point with all of this I think. Regardless, Doc James and I came to a compromise and perhaps you could consider leaving it alone now.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Doc James, Jytdog and CFCF, any opinions on what I stated above? The literature explicitly and consistently states that women attempt suicide more than men do and that men commit suicide more than women do. This is supported by the WHO and CDC, and is a global fact (not just a fact pertaining to the U.S.). Right now, however, the article does not relay the fact that women attempt suicide more than men do. And the "3-4 times more than males" statistic is also well-supported. The first source I noted above states, "The WHO (2003) reports that at sites all over the world, women attempt suicide more frequently than men, and the world rate is 3.5 to 1." So whether or not we use the "3-4 times more than males" statistic, the article should be clear on the fact that women attempt suicide more frequently than men do, not just that they engage in non-fatal suicidal behaviors more than men do. From what I see, this discussion was made because of the view that women engage in self injury and non-fatal suicidal behaviors more often than men do but that whether or not they attempt suicide more often than men do is questionable. As the sources I listed above show, it is not questionable. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22reborn, Doc James and I have compromised on this and it's probably not worth creating a drama over it IMO. Wikipedia is a big place. Please consider leaving this minor point alone. I don't want any conflict with you and wonder why you came to this article, knowing I was heavily involved in this discussion.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
We already have this statement "However non fatal suicidal behavior, including self harm, is between two to four times more frequent in females" in the article. I was not entirely happy with this wording, but compromised Flyer22reborn. Why did you come to this article talk page where you saw I was heavily involved, and where an issue has already been resolved with Doc James and everyone has moved on.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
It would be best if you cease speaking to me when I am not speaking to you. I asked Doc James, Jytdog and CFCF a question based on the literature and the fact that I am concerned that it is not being presented in the way that it should be presented in this article regarding the sex differences issue. You changed the text and kept being challenged. You changed the text again and Doc James stated, "We have a few sources." He did not state that he agrees to neglect mentioning the fact that women attempt suicide more than men. This will be my last direct reply to you on the matter. If need be, I will start a WP:RfC on this issue.
I was already at this article, just like I was already at the Suicide attempt article before you edited it. I think I was pretty clear why I commented in this discussion despite not wanting to interact with you and not wanting you thinking that my commenting here means that you should start showing up to discussions I'm involved in. When I see what I consider a problem with an article, I am very likely to comment on the matter. I have no desire to interact with you. If I did, I would not have alerted Doc James to an edit of yours he recently reverted at the Suicide attempt article. That edit you made was problematic because intending to commit suicide is not the same thing as trying to commit suicide. Instead of interacting with you by reverting you at that article, I contacted Doc James to review the edit. In this specific case, however, since you have presented the text in a way that I disagree with and the discussion ceased, I decided to comment. It's that simple. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Why did you suddenly show up at this talk page discussion I was obviously heavily involved in. That's the issue here. And it may very well need to be addressed in future. I do think you have missed the point we were discussing really, to be honest with you. At any rate, it has ended. Everyone's moved on. A compromise was reached. I suggest you do so as well Flyer22reborn. There's lots of articles to edit. WP is a big place. I also hope you don't keep showing up at other articles and talk pages I'm involved in too.Charlotte135 (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The ref supporting the text did say suicide attempts and so did the major textbook. Adjusted to account for both. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Doc James, I thought this was compromised on. I will need to start adding some more journal studies now, that completely overturn this false statistic you are including. It is not suicide attempt it is the self harm, that is without intent, presenting to emergency departments. We cannot mislead our readers like this.Charlotte135 (talk) 09:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Doc James, saying "However suicide attempts and self harm..." is not what the reliable sources say. Also organizations like the CDC and the WHO publications among other reliable sources are using the term suicidal behaviors because self harm (without any intention to kill oneself are being included in the attempt stats) They are trying not to mislead people into believing suiicide attempts with the full intention of killing onself is 4 times higher in women. It's false. We shouldn't be misleading our readers.Charlotte135 (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Please stop trying to use primary sources to refute secondary ones.
We have a number of high quality sources that say "suicide attempts are 4 times higher in women" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Among the major secondary sources many quote different stats or no stats at all, regarding female/male suicide rates. I would like to include these for due weight. What do you think? We just need to present to our readers what the reliable sources say on this issue and many use other stats or no stats for a good reason. Emergency dept stats are not accurate they don't differentiate. Most attempted suicide is self harm with no intent to kill oneself.Charlotte135 (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
We specifically do not include primary sources for "due weight". And what evidence do you have that they include no stats for a good reason? [citation needed] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
No i said other secondary sources which quote other stats, not 4:1 or no stats at all. Surely we need to include what other secondary sources say.Charlotte135 (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Which secondary source do you wish to include? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
There are many Doc James. All quoting different stats and wording. I will save these depending on your response to these questions. Should we state what the WHO states on this. Should we leave the stats out entirely?Charlotte135 (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey Charlotte, by far the easiest way to resolve this, is for you to propose content with sources here on Talk, that you would like to see in the article. Would you please do that? There is no hurry; I still don't understand exactly what you are claiming, nor the basis for your claims, and if you propose sourced content here that will all become very clear. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It was already solved Jytdog. Everyone had moved on to other articles. Compromise was reached! Until your friend Flyer22reborn suddenly showed up here out of nowhere, not before she apparently had started communicating with Doc James undercover, and away from here on talk where it could be transparent, and is all upfront. The WHO and CDC and other reliable sources use suicidal behaviours Jytdog, not attempts and are moving away from quoting any stats at all. My proposal is we leave the statistic out altogether. Seems most logical solution now. As we all know and our readers need to know, most so called attempts are actually self injury, not suicide attempts, where as the OECD.org defines it as "Suicide rates are defined as the deaths deliberately initiated and performed by a person in the full knowledge or expectation of its fatal outcome." https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/suicide-rates.htm. Parasuicide and self injury are not attempts. Never mind, what's the point when the discussions between Doc James and Flyer22reborn and whoever else are not here on talk anyway.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, so there are no content issues left to address. Great. If you have some content issue I look forward to seeing content proposed, with sources. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey Jytdog. I'm happy to remove my off topic stuff as long as we remove all the other off topic stuff from your friend Flyer22reborn too. What do you say Jytdog? Does that seem fair? As far as the content edits here though, I give up. You and your friends win. There's too many of you ganging up and talking about things away from the talk page, and off Wikipedia, like Doc James and Flyer22reborn were doing. Hard for other editors to form a consensus with that off wiki stuff going on, that's all.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
If you have some content or sourcing to discuss I would be happy to hear about it. Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately our readers lose out, because they don't get to read an article reached through proper consensus, and editors discussing things on the talk page, or even on Wikipedia at all for that matter. When Flyer22reborn and Doc James discuss content edits off Wikipedia, where no one else can participate, it really makes it hard for independent editors to work with you all to reach a neutral POV, that's all. Anyway you win! Our readers lose. And remember we already established a compromise days ago until Flyer 22reborn suddenly showed up here and disrupted the consensus established. Everyone had moved on to other articles. It was so disruptive. As I said, remove off topic comments but please be consistent and neutral.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
If you have some content or sourcing to discuss I would be happy to hear about it. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, well I think we should adopt the WHO approach to this and we leave the statistics out altogether. Seems most logical solution now. That's what the WHO has done. The stats are false. I'm okay saying females attempt suicide more often, as a compromise, even though journal based empirical research (only a primary source, I know) has shown this not to be true. What do you think?Charlotte135 (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
as requested many times, please propose specific content with specific sourcing for consideration. Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Is gender a risk factor for suicide[edit]

I would like to add a further risk factor, that being gender, into the risk factors section as I have seen in other WP suicide related articles. Any objections.Charlotte135 (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to include statistics in many countries where the ratio is up to 11 males to every one female.Charlotte135 (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Already dealt with under epidemiology so does not need to go under risk factors aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Would it be easier to collapse the section on epidemiology under risk factors, given gender seems to be a major risk factor. It doesn't make sense having one of the major risk factors for suicide to be not included in the risk factors section? That would make it much easier for our readers too. What do you think Doc James. Please elaborate as to exactly why, if you don't agree.Charlotte135 (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
We typically put sex and age in epidemiology and we do this across hundreds of articles. So for consistency we should leave it where it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Yep this is how we order articles. Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Why was the WHO reference removed[edit]

OP is topic banned from gender-related topics, under which this clearly qualifies. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Doc James Why was this edit based on the WHO source removed? [13]

You are adding text not support by the reference. You added "Pesticide self poisoning is the most common form of completed suicides worldwide, with around 30% of global"
Where does it say this is the "most common"?
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
http://time.com/3270766/pesticide-poisoning-is-the-leading-method-of-suicide/ for the time being. I will locate the WHO sourceCharlotte135 (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
You used a source. It was this one [14] and it does not support the text.
Time misrepresents this WHO new release.[15] Not the first time I have seen the popular press make mistakes like this and again why we do NOT use the popular press for medicine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, very sorry. Other very high profile organizations also made this error then! So if TIME made this error, why am I being punished for it? This isn't fair Doc James.Charlotte135 (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
You know very well that we all much use high quality sources. And most importantly we must reference the sources we use. That you are using TIME and than putting in place WHO is not at all cool. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Doc JamesNo I certainly don't know very well. If TIME got it wrong why are you blaming me? And I resent your insinuation. The stats are very confusing as you know.
On that note, again I ask, can you please just paste the actual sentence here please Doc James, where the WHO source uses the terminology "suicide attempt" rather than "suicide behaviors" which is the term the WHO and CDC use nowadays, when referring to global not USA stats. I just can't find it in the WHO source you quoted? It would be really helpful, because this is what this is all over. The wording suicide attempt over suicide behaviors was Flyer22reborn's argument too. We established consensus on the term "suicidal behaviors" 4 days ago. We compromised. We all walked away. 3 days later you suddenly changed the wording to suicide attempts again? And started this whole debate up again. And then accused me of edit warring!
So yes, it is very very important you produce the sentence please Doc James, from the WHO, using the words suicide attempt rather than suicide behaviors for global statistics. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Suicide attempt[edit]

CDC states suicide attempts more common in women than men."However, women are more likely to express suicidal thoughts and to make nonfatal attempts than men." (2105) and "Women report attempting suicide during their lifetime about three times as often as men"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Doc James Doc James, I hate to say this, again, but the CDC are for USA only, as you very well know. As you also very well know, we are only talking about the WHO source you are using, as it generalizes to global not USA statistics. Flyer22reborn's whole contention was as you know, we use suicide attempt not suicide behaviors for global generalizations. That is what dragged us all back here, after we had all reached consensus through compromise, and then you accuse me of edit warring! We had reached consensus days ago and I compromised. So, again please just provide the actual sentence for global generalizaation purposes. The CDC is why I correctly changed it to USA. And that was not a revert by the way. Nor was it disruptive. It was factually correct.
So, again, just the actual sentence from the WHO source please Doc James, where it uses the words "suicide attempt" not "suicide behaviors" which is what we established consensus on and you suddenly changed 3 days later (without consensus) and without a reliable source it now seems. I know you are very important to Wikipedia and I don't mean to correct you here, so please, just the sentence from the WHO source, so it verifies the Global as you very well know. I just can't find it anywhere. The WHO use "suicidal behaviors" not "suicide attempts" Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
You mean <ref>{{cite book|last1=Krug|first1=Etienne G.|title=World Report on Violence and Health|date=2002|publisher=World Health Organization|isbn=9789241545617|page=191|url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=db9OHpk-TksC&pg=PA191|language=en}}</ref><!-- Quote = rates of non-fatal suicidal behaviour tend to be 2-3 times higher in women than in men -->
We must paraphrase so using other terms that mean the same is required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
And this ref from who says "More males commit suicide than females but more females attempt suicide."[16] so the language is used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

A 2015 review "One of the most consistent findings in suicide research is that women make more suicide attempts than men, but men are more likely to die in their attempts than women."[17]

This bit is interesting "One reason for the lack of investment in female suicidal behavior may be that there has been a tendency to view suicidal behavior in women as manipulative and nonserious" and "In most countries, men die by suicide at 2–4 times the rate of women, despite the fact that women make twice as many suicide attempts as men." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Doc James I think we should stick with the WHO source given the source you quoted uses the WHO data. Back to our main point though, you very well know Doc James that non-fatal suicidal behaviour refers to other behaviors like suicide ideation etc. It is not the same as suicide attempts as we all know. So paraphrasing it doesn't make sense. Suicide attempt is clearly defined as intention to commit suicide. We have 2 options now IMO. One, we say USA only, like I said today and you actually reverted Or option 2, we use non-fatal suicidal behaviour like we had correctly used and settled on through consensus, and you changed to suicide attempt without consensus, that is, if we are going to generalize to global stats. Which should we choose please Doc James? However either way, this clearly proves I was neither edit warring, and more importantly my edits have been factual and entirely correct based on our WP policy. I'd like to move on from this nonsense which I'm sure you would too. So which of the 2 is it please?Charlotte135 (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
We have lots of sources that say the same such as this [18] which found a 1.4X higher rates of suicide attempts among females in Europe. You could try a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Why don't you just compromise here and we let it go. The WHO uses the term "non-fatal suicidal behaviour" when referring to global stats. Why are you disputing the WHO Doc James? Doesn't make sense. And any other source you produce will simply base their content on the WHO? What do you think. Go back to the consensus, formed compromise we all settled on at talk a week ago, and we let it go. The WHO is pretty reliable IMO. What do you think?Charlotte135 (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
And at any rate we should obviously remove all sources currently in the article pertaining to te point we are discussing, if you are not going to correct the wording. As it stands, readers are being misled Doc James as we now have established. Can you do that please?Charlotte135 (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Doc JamesDoc James, our dispute is not over statistics. It is purely over the terms suicide attempt and non fatal suicidal behaviors. Our dispute is over nothing else. Never has been. I'm perfectly okay with the 2-4 stat as I've said over and over, (so I'm not sure why you are bringing up gender), this has nothing to do with gender as you know. But the WHO does use the wording "non fatal suicidal behaviors." for that statistic to be used in the article for global generalizations. Would a 3rd opinion help here do you think? Alternatively, can you just comment here on my above two questions please and it's resolved. And we can move on. No drama.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rational suicide[edit]

Should the section on rational suicide also include reference to "Hobson's Choice" situations. Consider for example The Falling Man and up to 200 others who jumped from the World Trade Centre on 9-11 rather than be burnt or asphyxiated. How would this play with those religions that are fundamentally opposed to suicide? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The existing reference to the Holocaust seems a better fit for the Hobson's choice as the victims mentioned had a chance to think about it. The reference to martyrdom is the only religious theme in the section, so if you've got a good source for a religious viewpoint or debate on the morality of the camp inmate's choices or similar that could be interesting. I doubt that WTC jumpers are widely considered as suicides. Seren_Dept 05:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't. These are genuine questions. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
There's a section at the bottom of Jewish_views_on_suicide that seems related but its sourcing (other than primary) isn't obvious. Holocaust research seems like a good place to find the perspectives you're looking for. There must be lots of analysis of resistance, cooperation, and collaboration, and whether there was any choice at all, and often from a religious perspective. I hope that's helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seren Dept (talkcontribs) 02:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)