Talk:Self-harm

External links?

i am a cutter and i struggle with making it through a day without the need to cut, i think that it would be helpfull to provide information on how to quit and get help if you are going to have a page like this...

Little Pagan GRL (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and therefore only provides information on the condition itself. It is not a self help site and it is not appropriate to provide medical advice on wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Medical_disclaimer. In this article, there is a section on typical treatment methods to deal with self-harm. However, we do not advise on individual cases, for that the only advice you will ever receive from anyone on wikipedia is seek help from a health professional. Jdrewitt (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

....sorry i just thought... never mind im not quiting anymore anyway....

Little Pagan GRL (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some links now. According to MIND "Knowledge is power."

See: http://www.mind.org.uk/Information/Booklets/Understanding/Understanding+self-harm.htm#What_can_I_do_to_stop_self_harming_

Just to clarify for everyone else, I did not add external links as an answer to Little Pagan GRL, I just thought this page needed them. --78.86.146.148 (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits. Wikipedia cannot give medical or self help advice and these links are effectively doing that. Any external links should be provide useful and reputable information on the condition itself, we should not be giving a list of self help groups etc. The issue of what is and is not acceptable has been discussed on this page before here: Talk:Self-injury/Archive_2#Creating_new_link. Before adding any such links, consensus must be made on this talk page first. Jdrewitt (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The links recently added:

• Bright approach to stopping self-harming, available as a website or PDF file
• healingselfinjury.org US website about self injury as a means of managing the after-effects of traumatic experiences
• Information about self-harm from the Royal College of Psychiatrists
• INSYNC General Information and resources for Youth, Family & Friends, and Professionals
• Men Who Self Harm (BBC) Radio item including: Catherine McLoughlin, Chair of the National Inquiry into Young People and Self Harm, "Truth Hurts", and Dr Tim Kendall, consultant psychiatrist and co-director of the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health
• Understanding self-harm from MIND: A mental health charity in England and Wales
• National Self Harm Network UK Organisation with active Forum and information sheets to download
• recoveryourlife.com one of the biggest Self Harm Support Communities on the Internet
• www.selfharm.org.uk Information resource for young people who self-harm, their friends and families, and professionals
• selfharm.net Information on many aspects of self injury
• South African Depression and Anxiety Group: Self Mutilation
• Youth & Self Injury Information from the Canadian Mental Health Association

Those links that simply provide information on the condition are probably ok, however, self help sites or support networks are not. Jdrewitt (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with that to some extent but most sites have some detail on help, the Royal College of Psychiatrists is probaly a sound one, esspecialy as that is a potenial source. --Nate1481 17:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have put the Royal College of Psychiatrists link back. Jdrewitt (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Put back the BBC one, and the Canadian Mental Health, as both good links, I'm working on the criteria of 'would that be a reliable source?' and the MIND one may also be good. Thoughts?--Nate1481 12:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, yes working on the criteria of WP:RS is sensible. I am worried though that if even reliable sources on the condition might contain medical advice, if we are linking to these sites this might be construed as us giving medical advice? Is there a wikipedia disclaimer that states it does not approve or moderate the content found on external sites. I do think though that if we are sure the specific url that we link to predominently provides information on the condition itself (and falls in the criteria as a reliable source), as opposed to predominently advice on treatment, then we should be ok. Jdrewitt (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the MIND one is a good source for information. --82.22.69.21 (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Put the MIND link back in. Jdrewitt (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that providing a link is the same as giving medical advice. I think it qualifies as INFORMATION if presented in a NPOV way and especially if it meets notability guidelines. For example, I can't imagine an article on ADHD that didn't include a link to CHADD or an article on breastfeeding that didn't link to La Leche Leaugue. Information and endorsement are not the same. If the article said, "An excellent source for help on this topic is ABC" that would not be NPOV, that would be an endorsement. However to state that ABC has information that is considered reputable by the medical community and site XYZ has information that is considered outside of the medical mainstream, controversial or experimental, that would be giving information. Saying that linking to a site is the same as giving medical advice is akin to saying, "seek medical advice from a health care professional" is the same as giving medical advice. Does it mean that wikipedia endorses mainstream health care or the medical establishment? (no since wikipedia doesn't endorse anything, being NPOV) I believe that links can be added responsibly as long as the site is a source of information and endorsement is not implied.

The fact THAT there are support groups and who the major ones are seems to me to be encyclopedic and important to to topic at hand. If outside links can not be included in the article at least inside links could be included to organizations that have their own articles. Wikipedia should be user friendly and it should be easy and possible to find what you are looking for. 24.56.242.121 (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)amyanda2000

Advising someone to see a health professional is not the same as providing a link at all. We have to be very careful about giving out medical advice on wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Medical_disclaimer. Where a health professional is qualified to give out such advice, external links may not contain reliable or accurate information at all, and since we may not have any way of knowing it is safest to not link to them at all. We should be ok if we work according to the guidelines of WP:RS, as Nate1481 above, many of these self help groups or organisations you speak of do not, however, meet these guidelines. Jdrewitt (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there ought to be a section on the main page about treatments for self-injury. That would be notable.--24.164.85.127 (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Shing

Shing are an alien race and very prominent element of the Hainish Cycle of science fiction writer Ursula Le Guin. I started an article about the alien Shing_(Hainish) and tried to make a disambiguation page, but it seems I failed :) Any help to disambiguate these terms properly in wikipedia would be much appreciated :) Capricornis (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to have anything to do with the Self-injury article. Please ask your question here instead: Wikipedia:Help_desk. Jdrewitt (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The reason why I asked it here was that the search word 'Shing' redirects to this very article. Thus the disambiguation would be between this article and Shing_Hainish article (if I knew how to do it properly) Capricornis (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see now why it might be redirected from SHing. Please use the help desk since they will know instantly exactly how to make a disamb page, having not made one before I can't really advise. Cheers, Jdrewitt (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I did it right. Shing search now redirects to a disambiguation page with links to the alien race and this page :) Let me know if I messed up something Capricornis (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that names are case sensitive - so in fact, Shing doesn't exist, and you might as well create/move the page there. It's SHing which is the one that used to redirect here. Mdwh (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I made this fix and added a link to the disambiguation page from shing. Jdrewitt (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Be careful about promoting dubious hypotheses such as the 'beta-endorphin' model

There is no documentation that proves endorphins are behind this, neither behind the so called 'runners high'. Naloxone has not effect on runners high and even though it may seem to have an effect on preventing self-harm, that's no proof either. Naloxone potentiates PAIN and will make it harder for ANYONE to cut herself. Naloxone will generally make anyone more inactive, dysphoric and less motivated because it blocks the natural endorphins in the brain. But who wants to feel like that?

To prove that endorphins induce self-harm, we need studies that can replicate the symptoms in healthy subjects by administering the same endorphins. So far there have been none of this. 87.59.101.104 (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no part of this article that mentions Naloxone. So not quite sure why you mention this. The short sentence that mentions the possibility that the release of beta-endorphins may help people who self-harm feel better is referenced. I also think this is fact rather than hypothesis, i.e. pain does indeed result in the release of these chemicals. The article doesn't go into much more detail than simply state this fact. Jdrewitt (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was that since naloxone does not block the so called 'runners high', endorphins cannot be used to explain it. If endorphins indeed was behind the runners high, administering naloxone to runners should block it completely since naloxone blocks the receptors. Naloxone is the gold standard in research for testing whether endorphins are active in the body or not. It is true that endorphins are activated by intense, prolonged pain but my point is that there is no evidence that they are involved in this disease. T.R. 87.59.103.57 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the 'runners high' statement because I think this just confuses things. Self injury is not a disease, it is the deliberate infliction of harm to ones body which may be influenced by some other mental health problem but in itself is not a disease! I have retained the information on the release of beta endorphins as this information is cited by reliable and peer reviewed sources and as I mentioned before, the article is merely stating the fact that the infliction of pain will release these endorphins. Jdrewitt (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Usage of the word "creativity" in regards to means of self-injury in Definition section

The word was removed, perhaps rightly so, but then replaced with a statement that didn't quite say the same thing, the very valid point (and I'm sure documented, and I'd add a new cite if I wasn't off to bed shortly) that methods are very varied, and often take forms invented according with individuals' idiosyncrasies. Creativity may be a poor word choice since the term is often given positive connotations, so I've replaced it with "inventiveness". Any objection? ---D--- (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the statement that Axmann8 added, but agree that it lost the import given by "creativity". As the word is a little on the positive side for the subject, I think inventiveness is a slightly better choice. Maedin\^talk 13:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No objections to the use of "inventiveness" although I have no real concerns with the word creativity either since it has the same meaning and doesn't necessarily have to be positive. I'm not sure the rest of the statement is quite right yet though, maybe something like "..individuals inventiveness and determination to harm themselves.." would be better? Jdrewitt (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds about right! ---D--- (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent spamming by dynamic IP

This article is currently semi-protected due to excessive spamming by a dynamic IP user. A discussion has been started on this issue here. Jdrewitt (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Image

I've added an image that I've stumbled upon while browsing Flickr. If the image is not appropriate (because the injuries it documents are so heavy that they were possibly inflicted in a psychotic state) - feel free to delete. Best regards, ---CopperKettle 22:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The image is ok although probably more suits the Self embedding article. For now though, I think it should stay until a more suitable image comes to light. Jdrewitt (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this image fits at all with the definition and area this article is going for. You mention Jdrewitt that it should stay until a more suitable image comes to light. My question is what image do we deem suitable? I think if we all have in mind what should be up there, it would be much easier to find it. An image of some cuts on an arm? A leg? I'm just trying to get an idea here of what would be considered suitable. 72.91.239.41 (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your right. Either way or more suitable image is needed even if that means removing the current one first. This has been discussed before, please see Talk:Self-injury/Archive_1#Pictures Jdrewitt (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I support removing the current image and replacing it, eventually, with a more suitable one. I checked out the interwiki links, and, out of 20 articles, only 2 have a picture of injuries, and it is the same picture (simple and Hebrew, for your info). To be one of the very few articles out of 20 to have a picture, and one that is hardly even relevant, seems misguided to me. We should either have no illustration or something more appropriate. As already mentioned, the current picture is of a severe case, is more appropriate to Self embedding, and the injuries were probably spurred by psychosis. A more appropriate image, I think, would be, as suggested before, a picture of a healing cut (or cuts) (probably on an arm, but not necessarily) with visible scars caused by wounds of a similar nature. This is the best illustration (I can think of) of the nature of repetitive self-harm. The picture in place at the Hebrew and Simple wikis almost fits, except that there are no scars shown. It's also poor quality and slightly out of focus, but maybe that is a good thing, to avoid an overly-gruesome image. For those who find "triggering" an issue—the whole article is triggering. If a self-injurer is reading the article, an image is going to add only a negligible amount of "trigger", and if they want to avoid triggers, they shouldn't (or wouldn't) be reading the article. I think that's common sense. Even websites intended to help those who self-injure are triggering, without images, that's why they have a warning. Maedin\^talk 10:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is trying to find a high quality freely available image - I've searched several times but never found anything free and suitable. The best option would be an image taken by a medical professional or institution as opposed to a self made image - although if done well the latter would be acceptable. The best option for now appears to be to move the current image to the self embedding article and use the image given in the simple and hebrew wiki's until (if ever) a better image arises. In fact I will now make this change. Jdrewitt (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't care for the current image either in the sense of a long term choice, but it's currently the best option, and is far far better than what was up there. Freely available is indeed the problem, and I doubt help forums would appreciate someone searching for one to be made freely available. AncalagonTB (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable Experts

I'm not sure if there is any type of guideline on this, but I think it would be helpful in medical and psychological articles to have some type of section on or mention of notable experts in the field. I do not mean as an endorsement. I mean for example the doctors who have named a condition, made it well known, done extensive work on some aspect of it, are well known as advocates of patients, even perhaps those who have been dubious or infamous in relation to the topic. Assuming they are notable in some way, either mainstream or within the comunity. Perhaps they could be included in the "see also" section. I am doing some research into self-cutting and I would like to know who some of the leaders in the field are as far as treatment and research. I want to be able to search further on wikipedia as well as beyond. To me, as it stands this article is a dead end, and without some mention of notable experts is somewhat lacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.242.121 (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Notable experts in the field can be found from the extensive academic citations in the references section. Jdrewitt (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fine when I get to Amazon or the library. But I'd really like to know what experts are notable enough to have an article of their own. Yes, there is a list at the bottom of the page of references, but it's really just an incomprehensible list unless I go through each one with a fine toothed comb. I would rather know who some of the leaders in the feild are, not just anybody who's written a book or article. I don't know if I'm making sence but the citations are a bit too vague for what I am lookiing for- it doesn't even include first names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyanda2000 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally in publications academics are known by their surname and initials, this is really because forenames are more common and so it helps to distiguish the individual researcher. I think it is safe to say that those authors who have articles published in well respected peer reviewed journals (given in the references) will be experts in their field. I'm not sure if academics researching self-injury would necessarily meet the notability guidelines for their own wikipedia biography. It depends what contributions they have actually made though I guess. This is not much help to you I know, one solution is to add the authors names to the prose when discussing particular theories etc. Jdrewitt (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the definition correct?

I would like to propose a revision of the introduction and the following definition:

"Self-injury (SI), self-harm (SH) or deliberate self-harm (DSH) is deliberate infliction of tissue damage or alteration to oneself without suicidal intent."

but would welcome some views first:

Consider the following:

• The mentions of self-harm in this article outnumber self-injury by almost 2 to 1. Either the title should be reconsidered or the two topics should be split as self harm covers a wider range of behaviour than self-injury.

• Self-injury is arguably a subset of self-harm. The definition as it stands excludes some common methods of self harm such as hanging and suffocation that often involve no tissue damage but are potentially very lethal.

• One important international definition is that of the World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases: Intentional self-harm (X60-X84). Not the most user friendly definition but certainly comprehensive.

• The restrictions to repetitive self harm, severe self-injury inflicted during psychosis and without suicidal intent seem un-necessary. Most self harmers do so relatively few times. A very small percentage will self harm several hundred times per year. Apart from defining 2 incidents or more as repetetive self harm there is no convenient point on the spectrum to form a boundary. Similarly for severe self-injury and sucidal intent. Research of 'near misses' indicate that many of those who almost killed themselves did not mean to do so. Conversely many self harm incidents are failed attempts at suicide. The vast majority of self harm incidents are unlikely to be fatal but many of those who do self harm are at increased risk of suicide so once again any restriction seems un-neccesary.

Declutter (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

And your sources are...? I don't want to entirely dismiss what you're saying, I'm just saying that if you're doing to suggest we radically change the scope, naming, and definition, I'd expect some sources. The article title was discussed in a previous archive and we decided on Self-Injury for a few reasons. First, it is the term most individuals who do it use. This can be referenced by visiting help forums and reading journal articles. Second, Self-Harm is nowhere near specific enough as it could also include topics such as over-exercising and eating disorders. Third, journal articles typically use Deliberate Self Harm, Non-suicidal Self-Injury, Self-injurious behavior, or Non-sucidal Self-injurious behaviors. DSH has been used less and less frequently, NSSI we deemed unnecessary because this subset of Self Injury is by definition non-suicidal. SIB and NSSIB we did not like because of the word "Behavior". It, in our minds, carried unneeded connotations for the intent behind the action.

Also, I have a quote here from a fairly recent article on Self-Injury:

"Self-injury has gone by several names, though self-harm and self-mutilation have been the other most common appellations. While any language may suggest an implied judgment about the behavior and self-injury certainly invokes a more favorable connotation than self-mutilation, weuse the term self-injury since it was used by our respondents most frequently. Although a range of behaviors may be considered self-injurious, including eating disorders, excessive laxative use, and extreme body modification, among others, we focus here on those specific behaviors that have been identified by the psychiatric and medical communities as falling into this specific syndrome: self-cutting, burning, branding, scratching, picking at skin or reopening wounds, biting, head banging, hair pulling (trichotillomania), hitting (with a hammer or other object), and bone breaking."

Adler, Patricia A, and Peter Adler. "The Demidicalization of Self-Injury: From Psychopathology to Social Deviance." Journal of Contemporary Ethnology 36(2008): 537-570. AncalagonTB (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - the title has been discussed before - I think the page was even moved at one point but I might be wrong. With regards to your points. (1) We might need to be more consistent on which term we use but this just illustrates the need for a copyedit. (2) I don't really get your second point. Self-injury and Self-Harm mean exactly the same thing. (3) Good point, the Infobox at the top of the article should be adjusted accordingly. (4) As Ancalagon says we need sources before we change the definition. The current definition comes from a number of reliable sources. Jdrewitt (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the infobox - X60 to X84 ws already there only formatted incorrectly so only X84 was showing up. Jdrewitt (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the article focuses on self-injury, I think it would be better to concentrate on this rather than bring in other methods, especially when it is unclear how related they are (I mean, smoking is a form of "self harm", but I think it wouldn't be helpful to combine smoking and deliberate self injury into the same article). If we use the term "self harm" in the article when "self injury" would be better, then I would agree that the term should be changed to say "self injury". We focus on non-suicide methods for similar reason - this is meant to be an article on self injury, not suicide. The fact that self injurer may commit suicide doesn't affect what the definition should be - it doesn't have to mean that committing suicide counted as self injury, it just means that someone can self injure, and also commit suicide. Now having said that, ideally any definitions should come from reliable sources, but even if self-injury was defined to not specify without suicide intent, I don't think it would be useful to expand this article to include suicide in general. We have other articles for that. Mdwh (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess my main concern is Wikipedia’s overall coverage of this topic. ‘Self-injury’ seems the only sensible entry. ‘Self harm’ redirects here, ‘attempted suicide’ redirects to ‘suicide’ and the entry for ‘self-inflicted would’ just seems a little dubious. I would like to suggest three things:

1. “This article focuses on repetitive self-injury, not on severe self-injury inflicted during psychosis.” be replaced with something like: “This article fouses on injury arising from self harm”

2. “Self-injury (SI), self-harm (SH) or deliberate self-harm (DSH) is deliberate infliction of tissue damage or alteration to oneself without suicidal intent.” be replaced with “Self-injury is infliction of tissue damage arising from deliberate self harm.

3. If the focus of this entry is to remain on self-injury then the overall topic may be better served by another Wikipedia entry to cover the wider aspects of self harm.

Here are my reasons for the first two points

1 A lot of research around self harm, including many of the references quoted, do not seem to be restricted to repetitive self harm as mentioned in the introduction. Also the boundary between self injury and attempted suicide is too blurred to assume such cases have been excluded from the refereces. Although most self harm is not immediately life threatening the link between self harm and suicide is too strong to ignore for example.

(a) According to the Oxford Centre for Suicide Research “There is a very strong relationship between deliberate self harm (DSH) and suicide in that between 40% and 60% of people who die by suicide have a history of at least one episode of DSH, and DSH is the strongest risk factor for suicide.” (see http://cebmh.warne.ox.ac.uk/csr/reslongterm.html).

(b) “Suicide after deliberate self-harm: a 4-year cohort study” (2005Cooper et al.) identified a 30 fold increase in suicide risk of 7,968 patients attending accident departments for self harm reasons (see http://www.medicine.manchester.ac.uk/research/pubdetails/?ID=21287)

2. The existing definition (like some of my own statements (:-)) is not referenced and seems forced to fit in with the restrictions of the article. In any case it is incorrect to equate deliberate self harm and self injury. For example hanging, self strangulation and overdoses do not necessarily involve tissue damage. Presumably the two appear linked because information is more readily available on self harm requiring treatment i.e. self harm involving actual treatable injury. ICD10: X60-X84 Intentional self harm infers a definition arising from specific external causes. I the definition includes self poisoning, hanging etc.. I suspect there is a need to define a number of terms here and not just self-injury but given the variation in research approaches a satsfactory list of definitions has yet to emerge.

Declutter (talk) 08:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

1. There may well be a link between self injury and suicide and this should be mentioned in the article - if you have reliable sources add it yourself - but the definition should not be changed as self injury is different to suicide or attempted suicide. However, the statement in the article The person who self-injures is not usually seeking to end his or her own life; it has been suggested instead that he or she is using self-injury as a coping mechanism to relieve emotional pain or discomfort. and other is cited as are other statements relating to the definition. The first sentence in the lead does indeed need a citation but that would not be hard to find.

2.Harm and injury are synonyms - so I cannot see why the two cannot be equated. You are talking about two different definitions which is different to having two seperate words which mean the same thing. There is no reason why self injury cannot include the methods that you list - however this article does not attempt to list all the possible ways someone may harm themselves - it certainly doesn't rule out self strangulation or self-poisoning and states: A common form of self-injury involves making cuts in the skin of the arms, legs, abdomen, inner thighs, etc. However, the number of self-injury methods are only limited by an individual's inventiveness and their determination to harm themselves; this includes, but is not limited to compulsive skin picking (dermatillomania), hair pulling (trichotillomania), burning, stabbing, poisoning, alcohol abuse and forms of self harm related to anorexia and bulimia. Jdrewitt (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, in case it got missed, injury and harm are synonyms. Any sentence along the lines of self injury arises from self harm (as in your suggested changes) just would not make any sense whatsoever. We could be more consistent with which term we choose to use throughout the article but this will simply be a convention. Self injury and self harm mean exactly the same thing. Jdrewitt (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Good argument on the synonyms. You have convinced me. However I still think the 'tissue damage' is too limiting as it follows from the synonym argument that 'injury' does not necessarily imply tissue damage.

Accepting for a moment that you can distinguish between attempted sucide and self-injury (which not everyone would agree with) do you think a seperate Wikipedia entry on Attempted Suicde would help clarify matters? Declutter (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

1. I see your point that perhaps the article should not restrict itself to repetitive self-injury. However, I think we still need to specify that this article isn't about "severe self-injury inflicted during psychosis". Also from a grammatical point of view, I don't like the wording of "injury arising from harm" - injury doesn't arise from harm, rather, injury is a form of harm.

2.But DSH is a term used to refer to self-injury (cutting and so on) as discussed in this article. And whilst self-harm may be more vague (in that it could include things such as drug abuse), it's still sometimes used to mean self-injury.

The main point we are trying to make is that this article doesn't include any form of harm, such as smoking (which we have other articles for, and which seems to differ in terms of people motives), but at the same time, there is no real reason to necessarily restrict this article to only particular types such as cutting. When referencing sources, we need to be careful what sort of "self-injury" or "self-harm" is being referred to, but I'm not sure that restricting the article to one particular method will help. Mdwh (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I will defer to you on any linguiustic matters. I absolutely agree that the entry should not drift into any form of harm and, as mentioned above, an extra entry covering more serious self harm/injury/attempted sucide might help clarify matters. Declutter (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The article suicide does not do a brilliant job at covering this. I would say a new section in suicide would be the best cause of action but if there is enough content then I don't see any reason why it couldn't have its own article. Jdrewitt (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

More definition problems: The definition that is given in the article is very vague, and much too broad. It specifically says alcohol abuse, anorexia and bulimia are all forms of self injury, in the definition section. I believe this is incorrect for a few reasons:

1: It's much too broad. Self-destructive behavior is such a wide topic, it can never be covered.

2: It is not the common usage of the term self injury. This is mostly obvious.

3: It is not the medical/academic usage of the term, either. Sure, there are a few sources that use the broader term (including eating disorders and drug problems), however, the sources are contradictory. And since most of the sources cited later in the article do not include these other things, neither should the definition.

4: It is not what the article is about, as written. The article is clearly focusing on cutting/burning/etc. (which is good). The definition should reflect this.

So, what to do? I recommend changing the definition to something like "...is the deliberate, non lethal injury of oneself, where the injury itself is the primary motivation." This excludes anorexia and smoking, as well as self inflicted wounds, yet still includes things that self poisoning which are not necessarily "tissue damage".

Also, please keep the definition in the introductory paragraph to a single sentence. The first two paragraphs are terrible to read, and the reason is they discuss the finer points of the definition (does suicide count? how about bulimia?). "Some scholars use more technical definitions related to specific aspects of this behaviour." Why anyone would think this is a good choice for the third sentence in the article is beyond me. All of this discussion is fine, but it should clearly be in the definition section, not the intro. Don't muddle up the introduction with the fine points. Something like

"Self injury has only been treated and studied in very recent years, because of this, the current sources are vague, and contradict each other. While this article refers to (explained in the first paragraph of the section), many academics/doctors use the term differently. Eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia are perhaps the most controversial, and some sources include drug abuse as well. Suicide is almost never included as self-injury. Other sources are more specific, focusing exclusively on cutting." (cite a whole bunch of sources that use these definitions).

That's it, mention it once that there are a lot of definitions, but make it clear what the article itself is about.

It would also be nice if the sources (particularly statistical sources) cited here used a similar definition to the one I'm proposing. For example, from "demographics"

"About 10% of admissions to medical wards in the UK are as a result of self-harm, the majority of which are drug overdoses."

This is completely unnecessary, and confuses the issue. This article is obviously focused on cutting/burning/etc., not on drug overdoses. It should be removed. Ideally, all the sources should be checked to see what their definitions are, but that's a much grander re-working than just a change to the intro and definition sections. 24.5.174.153 (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should probably drop "alcohol abuse, anorexia and bulimia" from the list - it goes against our own definition of "deliberate infliction of tissue damage or alteration to oneself", anyway. And whilst they might be considered under a broader term of "self harm", I wouldn't think it accurate to call them injury. Any objections to them being removed, anyone?

I've no objections to us dropping that 10% reference, as it is a bit vague - it's not clear whether it means intentional overdosing, or drug abuse in general. The BBC article no longer seems to mention it anyway (another reference is [1], but that's equally vague, and no source is given - chances are they are just quoting the same BBC article, or indeed they might even be quoting us!) Mdwh (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"While people may do a variety of almost unimaginable things to themselves, such as selfamputating, drilling holes into their skulls, intentionally making themselves ill (Munchausen syndrome), and piercing, tattooing, or decorating their bodies in extremely radical ways, these behaviors fall outside of those clinically associated with the specific syndrome known best at the turn of the twenty-first century as self-injury. We therefore restrict our focus to these practices not arbitrarily but because they have been traditionally associated together in the medical literature and because they are performed by a consistent group of people. In other words, people who intentionally make themselves ill or who cut off their limbs are not the same people who cut or burn themselves, and people who undergo “body modification” to get tattooed or scarified come from a dramatically different etiology than people who self-injure, despite the fact that members of both groups may carve words or designs into themselves. These are different phenomena practiced by different people."

This is from the notes index in the same source as the one I cited earlier. I think we should approach this article in much the same way, and should incorporate their definition into our article: "Although a range of behaviors may be considered self-injurious, including eating disorders, excessive laxative use, and extreme body modification, among others, we focus here on those specific behaviors that have been identified by the psychiatric and medical communities as falling into this specific syndrome: self-cutting, burning, branding, scratching, picking at skin or reopening wounds, biting, head banging, hair pulling (trichotillomania), hitting (with a hammer or other object), and bone breaking". I might leave out bone breaking as it may simply serve to confuse people. Another possible definition (These are being pulled from my journal database): "Self-injury is the intentional destruction of body tissue without suicidal intent and for purposes not socially sanctioned." I personally think this is the definition that should be used in the opening sentence of the article. AncalagonTB (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Legal aspects

In the UK, after SOCPA passed, the police may now arrest you to prevent you from causing physical injury to yourself. I think this is worth including. Are there any other legal aspects to self-injury/self harm? Fences and windows (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

How exactly is Self-injury a criminal offence? I thought you had to commit an offence, i.e. break the law to be arrested. I know nothing about legal matters but surely this is simply saying police have the ability to stop someone harming themselves if they can but surely no way would they actually arrest that person? Jdrewitt (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about legal matters, either, but I think (from memory) that committing suicide is against the law in some places. A little hard to prosecute if you've carried through with the act, of course, so perhaps they pursue attempted suicide, thereby meaning that a misunderstanding of self-injury could be interpreted as such? I suppose it is possible too that self-injury (or threats of it) could be used to exert control or cause emotional torment of another person, implying that in some cases it could be viewed as criminal behaviour. Maedin\^talk 17:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe its the means by which the person is harming themselves, e.g. if they use a prohibited weapon or something. Really though the SOCPA needs more citations and the details need to be clarified before this could be incorporated into the article. Jdrewitt (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That'll teach me not to believe what I read on Wikipedia! The summary of the police powers of arrest was deeply misleading. Fences and windows (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)