Talk:Suicide methods

False allegation without citation should be removed

The statement about "Most effective method, with 90% success rates" of rail suicide is demonstrably false, and is also likely to increase the significant social harm brought about by people attempting to do so. Train drivers have to live with what these idiots do. How hard is it to acquire a bin bag and a nitrogen cylinder and die in the comfort of your own home, you selfish bastards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.166.5 (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The page's name should be "How to commit suicide"

I agree with a lot of people here who says there's something wrong with this article. For example: Dehydration can be hard to bear, and requires patience and determination . In other words: Be strong, never give up and you will reach your goal, trust me! Brazilian Man (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Some fair criticism here. The phrase hard to bear is subjective and the attached source merely lists symptoms. Secondly, the phrase requires patience and determination would appear redundant, given that the article immediately after states takes from several days to a few weeks. Anyone care to disagree? Dolescum (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote that first sentence to take out the subjective redundant information. GB fan 12:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion to remove the mentioning of SilkAir 185 under Suicide by Plane

Skunkrider (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, in regards to the 'suicide by plane' part of this wiki entry, I consider it wrong, unjust and offensive to the families of the victims of SilkAir 185 to just state it as a case of Pilot Suicide.

In the documentary Mayday Silkair185 - Pilot Suicide? it is shown that - if I remember correctly - a US Judicial Court confirmed redundantly that the plane's crash was with utmost probability caused by a faulty hydraulic part of the tail-rudder (I'm not an expert at all, but simply pointing out what experts did find out) common to fail in that kind of plane, and all planes of the same type were subsequently outfitted by the manufacturer - having to be forced by the US government to do so - with a new type of hydraulic system with better redundancy.

There is no factual or physical evidence that supports Pilot Suicide, and the only side in this whole matter to insist on Pilot Suicide is of course the NTSB.

Thank you for your consideration.

skunkrider

I removed the entry because it appears to be inconclusive if the incident was suicide or not. GB fan 22:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, without factual and physical evidence within a source this info should not be on wikipedia.MilkStraw532 (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The airplane section seems too detailed - we don't list individual events in other sections. OTOH, it leaves out the fact that many suicides by airplane also involve killing many other people. In that sense it duplicates material at "Suicide attack". Given the fact that suicide by plane seems to be rather rare, the examples should probably be trimmed.   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Falling on ones sword

Should be there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.4.56.50 (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hypoxia

I was surprised to see this article missing a section on what is the an increasingly common form of suicide in Canada, to name just one country. See the article Helium in an 'exit bag' new choice for suicide. Would somebody like to write it up? Be aware that there are the articles Suicide bag and Euthanasia device that can be drawn upon and linked. You need to find links to data that shows that Helium canisters are now being adulterated with oxygen to try to prevent the commonly available party balloon helium canisters from being used for this purpose, as well as data that shows Nitrogen is a more physiological gas that does not result in the twitching seen in helium deaths.  Jabbsworth  06:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see there is a section called Suffocation. It should be renamed and fleshed out.  Jabbsworth  06:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Move & Re-move

The article was moved to Suicide method without explanation or discussion. The article has been moved back to Suicide methods. I am in favor of keeping it at this title as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals), which states:

"Articles that actually distinguish between multiple distinct instances of related items can be sensibly given a plural title when the alternative would be to create an inappropriately large number of short articles, one on each instance." Boneyard90 (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there a third option? Maybe something like "Suicide methodology"?   Will Beback  talk  02:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Reason? Boneyard90 (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Just trying to think of an applicable singular title.   Will Beback  talk  04:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

What's the problem with a plural title? I like the title how it is. -MsBatfish (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's fine. Just brainstorming in case we hit upon a better title.   Will Beback  talk  10:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

New name

This looks like an ad for committing suicide, can the name be changed? for example into: How not to commit suicide Lotje ツ (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems unnecessarily long for a title, and may be mistaken for a tongue-in-cheek gallows humor. Shall we then change the whole tone of the article? As in: "A suicide method is not a means by which one commits suicide... In hanging, one should not use a ligature to strangle one's self..." Boneyard90 (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This article does not provide step-by-step instructions on how to employ a particular suicide method, or even general information that can offer practical assistance to a reader as to how they can use the method to kill themselves. As someone who has done extensive research into the nitty-gritty of suicide methods, I can assure you that there is a LOT this article prudently leaves out. Guyovski (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Death by crushing impact

There has been a number of reported suicides where a person would drop something heavy atop of them to crush them in order to die fast. Such methods like a car being railed above a person or even exercise weights have been used. • GunMetal Angel 00:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources?   Will Beback  talk  00:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't find them. I just posted this in hopes that someone could recognize it and maybe even find some notable time where someone has killed themself in this manner. • GunMetal Angel 01:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Like some methods, these suicides might be mistaken for accidental deaths. FWIW, crushing is or was a standard method of execution, often by pushing a wall over on the victim. See Crushing (execution), and Execution By Taliban: Crushed Under Wall.   Will Beback  talk  01:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Suicide by volcano

Just after some opinions before adding this. Would jumping into an active volcano be jumping from height, self immolation or a new category? There have been cases of this in Hawaii and other places around the Pacific rim, but the best example is Mount Mihara in Japan in the 1920s. In 1936 alone there were over 600 suicides by jumping into the lava. ShipFan (Talk) 07:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I'd favor a conservative position regarding new additions, but the article has become detailed, and a bit redundant, what with methods that overlap in technique or motive. If you have sources, I say go ahead and add it.Boneyard90 (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Suicide prevention/helpline template/message/notice!

In some Suicide related articles (specially in this article) I suggest to add a "Need Help?" type template! There are almost 150000 digital footprints in this article every month. I think for some of these people this will be helpful. Google has tried this already, see image. --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed. We don't do this. You'll need a serious community-wide consensus before planning anything. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: You'll need a serious community-wide consensus

Reply: Okay, will try to go for it! --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Having the List of suicide prevention organizations added to the external links or see also section would be a good idea. Maybe just a link to the list at the top instead of a template? Bgwhite (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bigwhite, as in adding a relevant article to the See also section. But a template at the top of the page? I would not support that. It's not our job to assume motive on the part of the reader. Boneyard90 (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Template draft added: I feel a good number of readers (20%–30%?.. guessing.. i.e. 30,000–45,000 readers) are reading these articles to learn how to commit suicide. For most of these readers external link or see also link will not be highly helpful. I am not asking to put it as a banner at the top of the page. I need only 400px. I have made a draft of the template, which I am adding here. We can add it below "Suicide" template! --Tito Dutta ✉ 12:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Tito, you're not doing anything new here. As said, this has been discussed in the past. The latest discussion is here: Talk:Suicide/Archive_4#Possible_for_a_small_Wikipedia-style_banner_up_the_top_linking_to_help_for_people_considering_suicide.3F. See also, the box with the red border on Talk:Suicide.

Besides that, it's only in the imagination of the non-suicidal that linking to crisis hotlines actually helps anything. Get real. (And most countries aren't even listed on there, mine certainly isn't. Just America and their Anglospherian buddies.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: The editor is making a completely unfounded assumption on the motives of a percentage of the readers. On that basis, I oppose the template as a violation of:

• #1-WikiPedia is not a crystal ball, and therefore does not assume motive.
• Because the template directs the reader to a specific number, I oppose the template as a violation of #2-Wikipedia is not a directory
• Finally, because the template implies an obvious stand against suicide, I oppose the template #3-WikiPedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, and because...
• It violates #4-Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View.

Boneyard90 (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Should not be tagged as an unfounded assumption, since there is not any "founded assumption" still. Until we have any data in our hand, following rules of probability, this or that.. both may be true.
• #1-WikiPedia is not a crystal ball.. therefore does not assume motive.. the opposite is true too.. since Wikipedia is not a crystall ball. Wikipedia can not predict if someone is actually trying to learn how to commit suicide... etc
• #3-WikiPedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, and because... It violates #4-Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View.... these are mainly related to WP:MoS.. do you remember– Wikipedia went black in protest of SOPA– was it violation of NPOV? Wikipedia supports open web, free encyclopedia anyone can edit etc etc.. WP:PROMOTION? Absolutely not! (read next point)

And that's the point where the question arises, since these articles can be used to learn the suicide processes, what is Wikipedia's reaction/opinion to it? --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You estimated that 20-30% of this article's readers were thinkng of committing suicide; that's the unfounded assumption. If it is not, then what do you base this estimate on?

I don't know about the SOPA protest as far as NPOV; it's irrelevant as far as this conversation is concerned, and since it was a calculated move and not based on a single article, does not apply.

Last, on the issue of NPOV regarding the article: you're late again. That issue was already discussed. You should really go through the archives.Boneyard90 (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• The first point meant– since there is not exact data in hand then it should be considered either both are true or both are false (Probability). The current editor (OP) did not give any reference in support that 20%–30 people are reading this article to with suicide motives, but the editor(s) who denied it– they too did not give any reference to show that no one (or very negotiable percent of readers) are reading this article with suicide motives.
• Not singe article.. the first line of this discussion was In some Suicide related articles...
• Who're the voters?: It can be guessed – the editors who have voted against the proposal, most of them are currently happy with their lives, and that's why from their point of view, the idea is ridiculous etc. But that is not the opinion of the readers. There is no data (even any attempt to collect data). Every time the proposal has been submitted, it has been rejected on the basis of opinion of some particular editors who'll definitely never use those articles for suicide purpose. Only 4 of 150,000 readers of this month have voted here,
• Weird guesses! Personal opinions: The current editor feels, both the editor groups, who are supporting and opposing the proposal. are actually giving their personal opinion without having any exact data in hand. For example, if some people sitting in US are trying to understand– Somalia's poverty or malnutrition among rural children in China, they will try to collect some stat, data first. How they can reach any conclusion when they do not have any (good/bad) data in hand? All the votes here (including mine) are more or less same. --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• A couple of points here: (a) List of suicide crisis lines is completely unsuitable for the role proposed for it, covering a faction of wikipedia readers, with lots of USA-centric assumptions and appearantely some duplications. It may also fail notability requirements. (b) no sources are given for the 20-30% figure. (c) WP:NOTADVOCATE says we're not here to advocate against suicide. (d) Even if we were able to advocate against suicide, I'm not sure we should. Who, for example would stop Lawrence Oates or someone else in his situation? Not me. (e) I'm not sure whether google image is actually doing what is claimed, is there a WP:RS for how that works? Stuartyeates (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• And I might add - as Wikipedia editors, we can not "gather data" on who is reading the article and for what purpose. Even if possible, that would be Original Research.Boneyard90 (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Tito, you guess that 30,000 to 45,000 of the readers come here to learn how to commit suicide. Can you find any reliable sources that discuss any incidents where someone used Wikipedia to research methods and then used that to either attempt or complete a suicide? I have looked and can not find anything. GB fan 03:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply: These have been discussed. --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This discussion

abcabcabcabc... Boneyard90 said: The editor is making a completely unfounded assumption on the motives of a percentage of the readers. It was tried to answer in the very next post and it was indicated the OP does not have any (since there is not any way to collect any). Boneyard90 told– And I might add - as Wikipedia editors, we can not "gather data" Yet Stuartyeates repeats: no sources are given for the 20-30% figure. GB repeats: Tito, you guess that 30,000 to 45,000 of the readers come here to learn how to commit suicide. Can you find any reliable sources Is this a sign of good discussion? The repeated question does not begin with "I second the question"... or "I also want to see some RS", but the question is being asked directly. It has been told multiple times, there is not any stat in hand. and as Wikipedia editors, we can not "gather data", still the same point is being repeated again and again. Is it a sign of a good discussion? --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess my question wasn't clear. I was not asking for a source for the 30,000 to 45,000 readers, I know that can not be sourced at all. I probably shouldn't have added that portion. I am wondering if you have found anything that discusses any incidents where someone used Wikipedia to research methods and then used that to either attempt or complete a suicide. I have looked for these kind of sources and so fr have not been able to find any. If we can find such a source that would help show that we do need something on the page link to suicide prevention. GB fan 15:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, when Tito said "Comment: You'll need a serious community-wide consensus / Reply: Okay, will try to go for it! " this ceased being a discussion and became a test of consesus. As a test of consensus, restart a position in our own words is entirely legitimate. YMMV. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay.... When someone has suicide motives (i.e. wants to commit suicide for some reasons) and wants to learn about the process in internet, what will be his or her search query– 1) Commit suicide 2) How to commit suicide 3) Teach me suicide methods (more queries can be added), now let's search in Google (or in any web search engine you like/use). Most probably every time these Wikipedia pages will come up as the first result (in first few results). --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to imply that we have an obligation to dissuade people who come to wikipedia thinking of suicide from commiting it. As I said above: WP:NOTADVOCATE says we're not here to advocate against suicide. Even if we were able to advocate against suicide, I'm not sure we should. Who, for example would stop Lawrence Oates or someone else in his situation? Not me. If you think that we should be overridding current policy, then you should probably start by drafting an AfC (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment) which is the standard method of gaining consensus for changing policy. As always with RfCs, I suggest you give deep thought to the exact wording you wish to use. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

From where you copied the quote (was it a quote?), either my <Ctrl><F> is not working or there is something in that quote (if it was one)! --Tito Dutta ✉ 22:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

See this diff. I admit that I tweaked it slightly. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had read the portion. I was searching in WP:NOTADVOCATE page since you told, ''WP:NOTADVOCATE says - where does it say? --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:SOAPBOX.GideonF (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As consensus seems to go against the template, and the discussion has stagnated, I have blocked the proposed template from view even on the Talk page.Boneyard90 (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Why have you done so? And why are you editing another editor's post without his consent? Not good! Please put it back, since there is no harm of keeping it in talk page! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I just gave reasons: "consensus seems to go against the template", "discussion has stagnated" (over a week since the last comment, which was a week since the one before, which was 11 days since the start of the discussion), plus the reasons already given for not putting it on the main page, as in WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:SOAPBOX. Even on the Talk page, it was a violation of those policies, and such statements (and images) are regularly removed from Talk pages. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

With due respect, it is not clear why my post has been edited without my consent? That was an illustration, the illustration was created to explain the suggestion – not a template (was not posted in article or anywhere else). And illustration should be acceptable! You could use "discussion closed" "not done" etc templates! --Tito Dutta ✉ 07:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll look into one of those options. Illustration restored! *whoosh!* Boneyard90 (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

well I personally found this page when looking for more ways to commit suicide. Stormy Nights (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Article lacks, um, shall we call it... discretion?

The following is my comment at a recent deletion discussion for this article.

Keep I'm afraid WP:NOTCENSORED controls here. But for the love of God please remember WP's part of the real world and along with such problems as the grotesquely overdetailed discussion of country-to-country variations in popularity of the various modes of railway-related suicide (subway vs. mainline, sitting on tracks vs. jumping as train approaches -- multiple heading levels being provided lest the reader lose his way in this labyrinth) there's something inhuman about the inclusion of a sentence beginning The automobile lends itself admirably to attempts at self-destruction because... It might be best to omit details on which methods are more or less painful, or likely to succeed.

EEng (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I was about to agree and remove the "admirably" statement as POV, but it's actually part of a quote. Somebody might want to paraphrase the quote though. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Consequences of failed suicide attempts

I haven't seen an article called Consequences of failed suicide attempts or any handy single place where information relevant to that title is assembled. Do people think maybe the information can be added to this article? Some such information is already included in this article, such as in the subsection on suicide by firearm. I'm not proposing that we engage in anti-suicide advocacy within the scope of this article, just wondering whether more elaboration on the consequences of failed suicide attempts that have been known to occur and that could be reasonably expected to occur, might legitimately be included. Comments? Guyovski (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a matter of finding sources that discuss the topic in depth and adding them to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

What I was asking is whether it would be appropriate to expand the article extensively in that direction, or whether it might be better to create a new article. Guyovski (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I would think that the topic is notable enough for an article, but I would shorten it to Failed suicide attempt (though it seems there's already an article by that name). I agree that a problem is finding a source that treats the topic in-depth. The results would, I imagine, include psychological problems, social problems, and perhaps repercussions in the workplace or legal problems due to arrest or a financial burden (hospitalization, and I've heard some cities have billed rescued suicide victims for the cost of the rescue personnel and equipment involved). Then depending on method, there's the anatomical, physiological, or neurological damage done, which can be extensive and crippling, especially in the case of a gunshot wound or an attempted toxic overdose that fell short. It has the potential to be a pretty large article. Good luck. Boneyard90 (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

There are other problems as well. For example, if two people attempt suicide together (as in a suicide pact) and one of them dies but the other one survives, the survivor might be charged with murder. That and a zillion other bits of information are things I know from extensive research. But I never bothered to keep track of my sources because I never expected to need to refer to them. If I wrote the article you suggest--and Failed suicide attempts is an excellent self-explanatory topic--then I'd spend an eternity mostly backtracking my knowledge trying to find sources that confirm what I already know (or even lead me to change my mind). I don't know whether I'm prepared to undertake that without having a few extra pairs of hands to assist with legwork. Do you know how I could find people to help form a research team? (And I couldn't care less if someone else leads the team, since power has never interested me.) Guyovski (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I was going to suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death, but I see you've already been there. Anyway, you've sort of hit on what Wikipedia writing is about, or rather, what good Wikipedia writing is about. You write or expand on an article about what you know, or what you would like to know more about, and you go to the trouble of finding the sources that confirm what you know, or what you think you know (sometimes I find I was incorrect), or add to what you know. This includes doing the legwork and perusing your personal library, wading through internet sources, or heading over to a public or university library to really get the good sources. Boneyard90 (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Indirect Suicide

I suggest adding a sentence or two about refusing to accept medical care which is available and could prevent death or prolong life as being under this category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.43.210 (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that call refusing medical care is a form of suicide? GB fan 16:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The definition of suicide itself. God, people like you drive others away from Wikipedia. You're so literal about the rules that you misinterpret them and lack common sense. (187.155.127.66 (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC))

The definition of suicide is: "the act of intentionally causing one's own death". If someone refuses medical care because they have faith that a higher power will save their life, they are not committing suicide. Someone can refuse medical care with the intention of dying and that would be considered suicide. Not all refusal of medical care resulting in death is intentionally causing their own death. GB fan 10:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.185.238.36 (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

What is fascinating? That we need reliable sources to put information into the article? GB fan 04:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Prevention Hotline/Disclaimer

I feel a disclaimer and a link to a collection of suicide prevention hotlines for various countries should be compiled. This article may be enticing to someone considering suicide and without the disclaimer I feel as if Wikipedia is ignoring its responsibility of providing all pertinent information.

Gunblader928 (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a 'responsibility of providing all pertinent information' it attempts to provide all notable information. We avoid, as far as is practical and legally possible, value judgments. We're explicitly not a directory. There is extensive discussion of this above. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hypothermia

I think, that the mild symptoms, gradually leading to moderate and severe penalties is a little vague. Maybe it could be clarified or added with the notice of saying, that it is accompanied by gradually growing pain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.201.154.100 (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

POWs

The IRA and INLA prisoners in Northern Ireland were not Prisoners of War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.251.199 (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Not Necessarily Painless

The article is biased towards methods of suicide that are intended to be painless, but frequently are not. In accordance with WP:NPOV Should there not be a section about suicide methods that are intended to be as painful as possible? Such victims often have a component of sexual motivation. An example would be Tchaikovsky, who allegedly committed suicide by intentionally drinking cholera contaminated water, knowing full well that cholera is an extremely painful way to die. Other methods include being whipped to death, beaten to death by women as depicted in the comedy movie "The Meaning of Life" (Monty Python), and many others. 108.69.47.204 (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

References

I agree on the first part, not the second. If you are whipped to death, even if you ask for it, there is still motivation on the part of the whipper, so there is a degree of homicide. But on the "painful methods", that is an interesting point. One example I could think of is tylenol overdose. These would need appropriate sources, of course. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

By that argument, 'suicide by cop' should not be counted as a suicide method because there is a degree of homicide. Hiring a hit man to kill a victim counts as homicide, surely hiring an individual to whip oneself to death should count as suicide? The whipper would be guilty of homicide, of course, my point is that the victim would also be guilty of suicide.108.69.47.204 (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is forbidden by Internet censorship in Russia

Please, draw attention to http://wikimedia.ru/blog/2013/04/08/15blacklisted. Ain92 (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If the Russian government is unhappy with the English Wikipedia's content, let them block the domain. We won't censor our content due to the Russian government's view of the content. If you want a broader discussion, feel free to bring it up at WP:AN, or even at User talk:Jimbo Wales. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The point of posting this notice is to alert people to any attempt to delete the article or censor any of its pertinent sourced content. If we need to protect, it should be discussed first at an admin board. DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 April 2013

The first sentence is confusing: "A suicide method is any means by which a person purposely commits suicide, taking his or her own life."

In the suicide article, suicide is defined as "the act of intentionally causing one's own death." On dictionary.com, "the intentional taking of one's own life." Therefore, isn't the phrase "purposely commits suicide" redundant? To me, this sentence implies that any act that results in your own death, purposely or not, is a suicide. It actually made me go look up the word "suicide."

I think it should be changed to, "A suicide method is any means by which a person commits suicide, intentionally taking his or her own life." Just to avoid confusion.

75.136.235.105 (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Done.GideonF (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

drug overdose

In this article it says, “While barbiturates (such as Seconal or Nembutal) have long been considered a safe option for suicide, they are becoming increasingly difficult for potential suicide victims to acquire.” What, exactly, is meant by “safe”? Bwrs (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what was meant. I removed it. LadyofShalott 20:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

Which of these versions is best?

• No “Resources” section
• With “Resources” section added
• With information on unintended effects of a rail suicide attempt added
• With information on unintended effects of a rail suicide attempt, and without the “Resources” section

Pending discussion, I have reverted my own edits. Bwrs (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Why does "apocarteresis" redirect here?

Word not used in article. 86.139.166.113 (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It was a couple of years back. Check out the history. Dolescum (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Name Should be Changed

The name of this page should be changed as if people who are suicidal find this page it will just give us more ways to commit suicide. eg all I had to do was look up "ways to commit suicide" and up popped this page. Stormy Nights (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you have a specific new title in mind? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not but I will keep thinking and if you come up with any ones that you think would be good to use then please reply back with them/it. Stormy Nights (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

How will changing this title benefit this article? That's what Wikipedia cares about first and foremost -- its articles. This article's title should name what it is about; it should not be censored so that it's harder for our readers to find it. See WP:Notcensored. Wikipedia wants its readers to find its articles. And with regard to article titles, Wikipedia usually goes by the name most commonly used in WP:Reliable sources; see WP:Common name. Flyer22 (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Altering the title will do nothing to change how suicidal people access sites about suicide...however I have changed the order of "see also" so that the article to suicide prevention is first in the list. A very small sign of good faith but a good one none the less IMHO. --Shabidoo | Talk 06:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Stormy Nights (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This article should be removed in it's entirety.

My brother committed suicide by inhaling helium, and having content like this on wikipedia:

"Because of this, one is more likely to commit suicide through gas inhalation than attempting to prevent breathing all together. Inert gases such as helium, nitrogen, and argon, or toxic gases such as carbon monoxide are commonly used in suicides by suffocation due to their ability to quickly render a person unconscious, and may cause death within minutes."

Quite frankly, if I was suicidal I could easily use this information to end my life, as my brother already did. I am shocked by this content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.232.179 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

See the past deletion nominations for this article listed at the top of this article's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Suicide material across articles

Questions or comments about the Firearms section of this article? Please see the Suicide materials across articles discussion on the main Gun violence talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2014

I would like to add a list of all airline accidents involving pilot suicide on the suicide methods page.My sources would be other wikipedia pages Ilovetoact (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia pages are not acceptable sources. You must provide the wording you want to add along with the reliable sources that support the information you want to add. GB fan 20:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I propose that this whole article should be deleted

I will be nominating this article for deletion as soon as my account is approved. Whilst I realise some minute potential for academic use, and the fact that the tone of the article is neutral, I do feel the article is far too explicit and goes into unnecessary depth. There is already an article on suicide, which should be present. Suicide is an issue in many societies and needs to be noted in an explanatory article. I am not proposing that we get rid of a word, merely a flyaway article which has obvious potential for misuse. I mean for God's sake, the article is available as the first result through google and has had 80,000 views in the last 30 days. It's not rocket science. The main readership is so obviously made up of mentally ill or distressed individuals! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redzimus (talk • contribs) 20:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Redzimus: There have been nine deletion discussions, the last two resulting in speedy keeps. Unless you come up with something better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT the article will likely be kept. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see my comment on the main talk page.

All authors and editors, view my comment on the talk page please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redzimus (talk • contribs) 21:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You are going to have to be more explicit about what you mean by the "main talk page". This is the main talk page for this article and you have comments directly above this section. Looking through your contributions, I do not see what else you might be talking about. GB fan 21:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Have reworded

Sorry for any trouble caused, but the page in question is morally base and requires an update/removal. I cite laws which are in place to protect vulnerable users and request help from a legally qualified administor to rectify the legal issues surrounding the page 'Suicide Methods' and the explicit detail it provides. If the page cannot be removed I would like to request an edit by a qualified individual to remove specific references e.g to the 'Five Last Acts' book to be removed from the page alongside any interlinked content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redzimus (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If you think this article violates laws, you need to tell us what law and what jurisdiction it violates so we can evaluate the validity of your claim. GB fan 22:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is not going to disappear. It is an essential article for many reasons. What is important is that the information on the page is as accurate and objective as possible. The best way you can help out is to point out sections where particular information is incorrect (stating sources). If suicide prevention is your main goal...I'd suggest working on that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabidoo (talk • contribs) 22:12, September 16, 2014

Wikipedia is not censored. WP:CENSOR Beyond this link provides that we must specifically follow the laws of the USA.I'm unaware of any US law that would make this illegal. I must also add I see nothing morally wrong here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed mention of Five Last Acts (no Wikipedia article, no sources to show notability) and links to Amazon (as they obviously violate WP:EL). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The only thing I've been able to find is that it seems "Five Last Acts" was replacement for one of the books previously released by Exit ( UK based right to die group) though I've not found anything of notability. I might look again later. Good reason to remove it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we delete the link to losthope?

It links to a website created by one individual with questionable sources. Redzimus (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)RedzimusRedzimus (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a one person blog so yes, removed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Where is DeirYassin???

I want to contact him, but he says he's left Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redzimus (talk • contribs) 13:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Redzimus: Why do you want to contact him? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It is probably because DeirYassin created this article back in 2004 and last edited in 2006. GB fan 13:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Redzimus: the creator of the article has no special place/authority over the article. The editors that currently work on the article or the community as a whole are who you need to discuss and achieve consensus with on the article. GB fan 13:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe this article is harmful to vulnerable users and damaging to wikipedia's reputation

I welcome a discussion on the matter, it would be interesting to hear the point of view of the editors and creator if possible. Redzimus (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)RedzimusRedzimus (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Many articles on Wikipedia could be considered morally, spiritually, or physically harmful. Our job is to present content in a factual and non-sensationalistic way. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

True, but... However, many of these articles have less views than this one and are not readily available to prying eyes. This article comes right under the main one on suicide. If Wikipedia were to be representing this article in an academically accurate, balanced way, it would contain a much elevated amount of information on what goes wrong when an attempt is failed using such a method. For instance, the category on overdose would not be worded as 'Overdose may also be achieved, but rather, overdose has been known to be brought on using a cocktail of the aaforementioned'. As such the article reads more like a suicide guide, rather than an academic resource. Thhe article also isn't as specific as it should be about failed attempts eg permanent liver damage, which may lead to liver failure and death in later life. I also can't see anything on oxygen deprivation under hanging as a permanent consequence of failure. There is also nothing about the excruciating pain often experienced with such a method-brought on by the tearing of neck muscle, which in turn is caused by suspension. The whole article needs a rewrite, largely because it reads like it idolises death by said means. It definitely shouldn't cite sources that teach people to harm themselves. I fear the removed guides will be reinstated for someone's sick pleasure. Hence my reason for wanting to rewrite the bit in the 'drug overdose' section, which I see you've removed, despite its accuracy. Redzimus (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)RedzimusRedzimus (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

So add content but be careful of WP:SYNTH. You need to find sources that discuss the effects of suicide methods. For example, a source discussing the effects of a poison is of little use. You need to find a source that discusses the effects when the poison is used to attempt suicide. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If you do make changes to the article and someone reverts them, don't add them back a second time. Come here and start a discussion about the edits, see Bold, Revert Discuss. GB fan 17:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If you can improve the articles then everyone wins. However improving these articles requires care and attention to policy. --Shabidoo | Talk 03:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I have some interesting ideas to add to the debate. Mostly they pertain to the pain associated with a lot of the methods eg hanging can result in permanent brain damage via anoxia-lack of an oxygen supply to the brain. Suspension often results in torn neck muscles too. I think this is well worth a mention, as it is a detail that is often missed. The history of capital punishment using this method is also relevant, as it is likely to have been eightey-sixed due to its inhumane nature. I won't submit until I have adequate references, as I'm rewriting using word. One detail I was unsure of as a new user is how to cite references in a neat, succinct fashion. I'll look into this, but the tutorials rely largely on links and are a little too wordy in parts. Any advise would be much appreciated, as I want to maintain consensus on the matter and feel the article will benefit, thanks, AlRedzimus (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)RedzimusRedzimus (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked at Help:Referencing for beginners? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the consequences of suicide attempts (successful or failed) would benefit the article. I've heard from medical professionals that a Tylenol overdose is an excruciating method of suicide, as it destroys liver function over several agonizing days. However, I have not looked into reliable sources to confirm this, and so have not added it. If any editor finds sources to back up this or other claims concerning other methods, I believe the article will be more complete and more informative. - Boneyard90 (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• The article must be WP:NPOV. We can have boundless conjecture on the effects of one suicide method or another, but that's hardly going to "less harmful" as the question poses the issue: "this method hurts; this one doesn't" isn't necessarily an improvement. Some of these "pain" questions would be difficult to source reliably also. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Warning at top?

I agree with other posters that there may be an ethical issue with providing a list of suicide methods on Wikipedia. I agree with the current position though, that Wikipedia is here to inform and therefore this article shouldn't be deleted. I was wondering if it wouldn't be reasonable however to add a box at the top of the article providing a information for reaching suicide hotlines. Similar to how Google provides a suicide hotline when you Google something about suicide. There's the List of suicide crisis lines already. Just a thought. Puppier (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

At the very most...we can place a disambiguity link to various suicide related pages such as "suicide" and "suicide prevention". Anything more than that would be politicisation of the page which is totally against policy...and for good reasons. I understand and agree with you that there are ethical problems/considerations of having no disclaimers of any kind on this page...but there is a link to "suicide prevention" at the see also section at the bottom. --Shabidoo | Talk 22:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Relevant past discussion. Kirin13 (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

alt.suicide.holiday

Did that user group move here? This page is certainly crazy, but then again does Britannica have a section on suicide methods? I am surprised at the level of detail, what type of creature would even help make a page such this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.28 (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Though I agree with the lack of need for a warning sign etc, Google already provide that when you search suicide/suicide methods.