Talk:Self-harm/Archive 2

Creating new link
Hi there,

I'd like to add a link to a UK-based charity that I work for, but it's been removed. The link is: http://www.getconnected.org.uk/?lid=497

Whilst I understand that Wikipedia's service isn't about creating a long list of external lists, nor is it about advertising, our service provides young people in the UK with the best possible advice and guidance about self-injury and the link's inclusion appears to be in line with other charities and advice services who have linked to the article.

I'd be grateful if you could get back to me about this.

Kind regards,

Jbassett715 10:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Even national links are some what restrictive, Wikipedia isn't only focused on the UK, is the link relevant to someone in the USA, South Africa or New Zealand? The section has (again) got a lot of links in there that may or may not be useful, links should be informative background not 'help' links, as judging what is useful or what is a lead-in to an advert is hard or imposible. --Nate1481(t/c) 10:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't really a place for "help" links - otherwise we'd end up with loads of links. I'd say links should be sites which offer some reasonable amount of information on self-injury. Mdwh 11:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Removed all need sorting before adding back --Nate1481(t/c) 10:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

removed links

 * American Self-Harm Information Clearinghouse
 * Equilibrium
 * RecoverYourLife.com - Self Injury Support
 * Get Connected - We can get you the best self-injury help in the UK
 * Help Guide - Self-Injury: Types, Causes and Treatment
 * LifeSIGNS: Self Injury Guidance & Network Support
 * Lysamena Project: A Christian Viewpoint on Self-Injury
 * National Self Harm Network (UK) Forum and Resources
 * Personal Guide to Understanding Self Harm
 * Secret Shame
 * SIARI - Self-Injury And Related Issues
 * TWLOHA (To Write Love On Her Arms) - Support for self-injury and other addictions
 * Self-injury in children

I think there needs to be at least some external links from this article - I for one came to this page looking for further resources on something that personally affects me. I know that Wikipedia is here to provide unbiased information rather than advice, but as long as there's a spread of links to sites that cover the situation from a lot of different points of view, that's got to be better than nothing. Wikipedia is a trusted resource (rightly or wrongly) for a lot of people - many people (like me) will look to it to tell them more about something that hurts and confuses them. The article is admirably NPOV, but I don't think it would hurt it to have a broad spectrum of external links to sources of further information to those that need it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.43.93.58 (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed another link that had just been placed in the article and have incorporated it into this list until a consensus is reached as to what is appropriate. Polyamorph (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps some of these links can be incorporated as references in the awareness section? Polyamorph (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Pro-self-harm opinions, don't they exist?
Since Wikipedia is not biased, shouldn't we mention pro-self-harm opinions?

People with such opinions argue that moderate self-harm which does not cause serious injury or death, should not be treated at all, as it prevents the person from damaging someone else's body or property, which may lead to a much more serious penalty than the harm that person causes to oneself.

They also argue that, while not leading to sin forgiving (this can be achieved only by accepting Jesus), such moderate self-harm acts like "discharging a capacitor to prevent it from zapping someone", in other words, it prevents the person from being upset to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.142.149 (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources? Although I've occasionally heard of "pro-self-harm", it's not really widespread in the way that pro-ana is, and doesn't seem to have a consistent definition. Although many self-harmers are not seeking treatment, and may believe that it isn't intrinsically a problem for the reasons you describe, that doesn't in itself make them "pro-self-harm" (and I imagine they would avoid such a label, not wanting the negative connotations like "pro-ana" has). In my experience, pro-self-harm seems to mean more things like sharing methods, actively trying to get worse (in the same way that pro-ana sites involving sharing tips). Also, being pro or not is completely independent of religious beliefs.


 * But anything we put here should be based on reliable sources. Mdwh 14:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why would somebody who self harms be a danger to any others? This appears to be biased speculation and not FACT and therefore unless it can be backed up by real scientific evidence should NOT be included in this article.--Jdrewitt 15:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Some mention that pro-self harm opinions exist should be mentioned, but not sure how. --Nate1481(t/c) 08:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine, if they exist and there's evidence to back it up, but statements that people who self harm are a danger to others clearly contradict this article's content - by definition self harm is NOT harm to others... Jdrewitt 12:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of the sources present within the current article are less biased and cover societal acceptable self-injury. Bodies Under Siege talks about it.  I agree this article is severely biased and tagged it as such.  The movie "The Secretary" includes a woman who carried around a razor blade/bandaging cutting kit but once she found out she was algolagniac and an appropriate way to get pain she stopped cutting. I know it's a fictional account but the author writes from her personal experiences. Someone with more knowledge about the area help out please. Alatari 22:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment moved see below  --Nate1481(t/c) 11:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Self-harm is basically a coping attempt. How functional an attempt it is depends on the coping alternatives available at the time (and how functional or dysfunctional these are relative to self-harm). Although self-harm can provide a functional alternative to more destructive coping mechanisms, other, yet more functional coping strategies may provide an alternative to self-harm in turn. Therefore although self-harm should not be inevitably dismissed as a bad coping strategy, neither should it be considered the only or best coping strategy available in any given circumstances. --Nexxo 09:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Psychology
"When they do tell somebody often that person does not understand." What does this sentence exactly mean ? I can guess but don't know for sure to be able to correct it by myself.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.210.245.181 (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it means that often the person with whom the self harmer confides their problems with doesn't understand the complexities of why people would self harm, the feelings that trigger self harm and the feelings that follow. Many people assume it is attention seeking behaviour etc when in actual fact it is a lot more complex than that. Jdrewitt 16:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Getting your head round why someone would do this is neigh on impossible if you don't, similar to any other vent, some people go out & get drunk others can't see why you would want to. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you ever pulled a scab off or peeled away large sunburn flakes and felt some satisfaction then you can understand a bit of the underlying physical feelings. Alatari 22:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but that's completely different, different motivation different result different method. --Nate1481(t/c) 11:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Algolagnia
It seems very odd that Algolagnia directs to this page but not the other way around. Wouldn't many algolagnics who resort to self-injury to satisfy their sexual needs be diagnosed or misdiagnosed with some of the classifications in the self-injury article? What percentage of self-injurers are getting feeling of sexual enjoyment from their actions and the guilt is a side effect of the outward signs? Alatari 21:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by misdiagnosed? - People aren't usually diagnosed with "self-injury" at all as far as I know (it's not even considered a disease by DSM classifications). Feel free to link back to that article if you want, though.
 * Mental Illnesses aren't diseases unless there is a biological aspect but disorders are still 'diagnosed' and classifying a person's disorder using the DSM is a diagnoses. Alatari 12:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But self-injury isn't a disorder under the DSM AFAIK, so they wouldn't be diagnosed or misdiagnosed with it, surely? Mdwh 16:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Also can you be more specific where this article shows bias? The article doesn't report it as a disease as far as I can see. Mdwh 03:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The article calls it an illness or disorder thoughout with no sections devoted to how self-injury is portrayed in history, how it was and is used as proof of machoism or passages into adult hood. How it is acceptable in many cultures and historical cultures (see Flagellant) or growing number of youths in Western cultures (see Suspension (body modification)).  The entire article's tone is one of it needing to be cured hence a bias in violation of WP:NPOV Alatari 12:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The definition: "is deliberate injury inflicted by a person upon his or her own body without suicidal intent" allows for all the things I described above (and more) which are socially acceptable in many circumstances. If you modified the definition to "is deliberate grievous, habitual and shame inducing injury inflicted by a person upon his or her own body without suicidal intent" then the tone becomes one of certainly something that needs treatment.  Alatari 12:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree it would be good to have more information on historical views and views in other cultures. I don't see where it's called an illness? It says it "is sometimes associated with mental illness". It specifically states that it isn't a disorder, instead noting that in the DSM and ICD, "It is often seen as only a symptom of an underlying disorder". Mdwh 16:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's not a disorder nor an illness then the Treatment section needs to be removed. Things that are not illnesses or disorders do not need treatment. Besides the article right hand box classifies it as a disease: DiseasesDB 	30605 29126 Alatari 06:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether it is a disorder or not is a matter of opinion - some definitions include it (e.g., the Diseases Database) whilst others don't (the DSM). Whether or not is it a disorder, people can still be treated to overcome self-injury - and as long as we can base it on reliable sources, there is nothing wrong with such a section. Mdwh 11:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree that this article does not have a NPOV. This particular article deals with the kind of self harm that is associated with mental illness or depression, it is not really dealing with other forms of self harm, such as those used in some cultures.  Whether these issues should be addressed in this article of linked to other articles is a point of further debate.  However the facts and information that is provided does maintain a NPOV even if it may be incomplete. I would suggest the neutrality tag be removed from the article main pageJdrewitt 16:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If this article is about only a specific form of self-injury related to certain forms of mental illness then the title of the article will need to be modified or made into a disambiguation. Name the article Self-Injury (DSM-IV-TR).  Otherwise it has to describe other forms of self-injury, culturally acceptable, willing and not in need of a treatment section.  As it stands now it has a non neutral point of view.  It's very obvious.  Alatari 06:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no obvious non neutral point of view. The article describes self-harm and is non biased.  There are obviously other definitions of Self Harm (and disambiguation should be made between these definitions such as for Body modification and Algolagnia) however no title change should be made as self harm / self injury are valid terms when used in this context.  There is already an article on body modification and on Algolagnia and so it seems that all that is necessary is to link to these pages and disambiguate between these topics. Jdrewitt 08:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

<-Self injury is a more a commonly a symptom of something else not a separate condition, a mention of algolagnia would be a good addition to that article. The line between condition and symptom in mental illness is very blurred, and you can treat symptoms(e.g. palliative care --Nate1481(t/c) 07:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Links have now been added to other forms of self-injury articles. Jdrewitt 10:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Obvious bias falls in the treatment section which is completely dedicated to western medicine practices and precludes the possibility that most self-injurers are functional and many are high achievers Famous Self Injurers. Never created a disambig page but after doing a search on 'self-injury' it's pretty obvious that this article should keep the main focus.  It will be interesting how the body-modification movement will effect this article in the next 5 years.  Alatari 14:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Would renaming the article 'Repetitive self-injury' or similar be a good idear to clarify the focus of it, as that focus deserves it's won article. --Nate1481(t/c) 15:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Self harm isn't necessarily repetitive. Some people may only self harm once in their lifetime. Self harm and self injury are also recognised definitions and well used descriptions n of deliberately harming oneself. Jdrewitt 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The focus of the article is primarily repetitive self harm, which was my point. --Nate1481(t/c) 10:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

History
Lack of a history section is a major defect of this article. This phenomenon didn't just appear in the recent 20th century. Alfred Kinsey himself had the condition. Alatari 15:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything that you could add to the article to improve this would be appreciated. Jdrewitt 17:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, this is a major section. I found this NPR piece that talks a little about the history of SI. (needle girls, ancient greece, herodotus)Maybe someone here can take information there and put it here.

Cached Premium article with lots of information "Needle Girls" is a name for "cutting" that was mentioned in medical books back in the 1870s. It mentions that this particular affliction is a peculiar type of self-mutilation that is the habit sometimes seen in hysteric persons of piercing their flesh with numerous needles and pins. 71.123.221.158 (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There was also a practice of "blood letting" as a medical procedure to cure illness, although not strictly self harm in the modern sense there is an analogy with people who self harm for stress/anxiety relief??Polyamorph (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Took this out of the further reading section, might be relevant here, haven't checked the link yet though: Spiegel, Alex (2005). The History and Mentality of Self-Mutilation. National Public Radio Polyamorph (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Mutilation?
I might be wrong, but isn't the correct term for cutting or hurting ones self called Self Mutilation? 71.3.2.76 20:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That term already redirects to this article Self-mutilation Alatari 03:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's only mentioned briefly in the article as its a distinctly POV term --Nate1481(t/c) 09:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Already discussed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Self-injury/Archive_1#Should_the_article_title_be_changed.3F —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.38.35 (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture of SI?
Is there any way we can get a picture that isn't bloody, maybe with just scars? Pictures of cuts and other forms of self inflicted injuries can be very triggering to some people.--Asjkfdsl 16:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this would be a good idea, the image recently uploaded doesn't really seem appropriate. Jdrewitt 19:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the inappropriate picture, I can upload one just of scars.

Woof82 16:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a self harmer that regularly slashes myself on my lower legs, by my ankles. I'd estimate I've slashed both legs a couple hundred times but there are always fresh ones and bleeding ones. So any pictures I would take now would not be for the squeemish. I do have some amount of scars on my left hand from when I used to cut that.


 * I know this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and as such isn't here to make people feel good, and indeed we wouldn't want it to shy away from, say, photographs documenting the Holocaust, I must say, as somebody who self-harms (like an alcoholic, I wouldn't like to say that I'm a former self-harmer just because I've managed six months without cutting myself), and some of my best friends self-harm, I would find it very distressing indeed to have a photograph of it here. I'm also not sure why it would be desirable. It is worth having a picture of the Queen in an article about her but I fail to see how a photograph of injuries somebody has inflicted on his or herself would be any kind of advance in scholarship. It would strike me as absolutely unneccessary and highly distasteful. One doesn't need much imagination to visualise what one can do to oneself with a razor blade.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is unecessary to show an image of self inflicted injuries unless they really illustrate something that cannot be sufficiently described in the text, although I can't think of an example. On the other hand, scars resulting from self injury can be quite distinct and would indeed illustrate the long term effects of self harm and what sufferers have to actually live with.  Polyamorph (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

History
I personally wouldn't know where to begin looking, but should there not be a history section at the top of this article? I'm not an expert, but I find it doubtful that people only started cutting themselves within the last few decades. My guess is that it was not reported before that time due to shame...but still it surely must have happened and been talked about by somebody! After all it's arguable that people led much more tragic lives in previous centuries and would have much more reason to posess the psychological risk factors associated with this problem. Again, I'm not in a position of authority on the matter, however if someone does know anything about the occurence of self injury before current times it would add context to this article. Come to think of it I read somewhere that Scythians would cut their ears off when their tribal chieftain died. I don't have the source and I'm unsure of its relevance. Hopefully someone can come up with something. --SCJE (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See up above a little bit. I posted some links. 71.123.221.158 (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The Mortification of the flesh article discusses self-harm through history from a Catholic view and needs other religions practices added. Since those forms were socially acceptable due to their religions were they self-harm? Were those individuals following the dictates of some internal wiring just like modern people but allowed to practice SI through their religions? Were Mortification of the flesh followers practicing SI? This is unclear and I need to do more reading. Any input or sources discovered making a connection between the two subjects would be helpful. Should a See also: Mortification of the flesh be added? Alatari (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the old pain stuff I can think of is associated more with S&M than self-injury. Perhaps the Buddha's quest for enlightenment through starvation would be related? --OGoncho (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Rubber Bands
Some methods of treating pervasive or obsessive thoughts is to wear a rubber band around one's wrist and snap it every time such a thought starts to enter one's mind. But I have heard it suggested that such a 'rubber band method' could be applied to self-injurers by provided a non-dangerous pain substitute - the sharp snapping of a rubber band against one's wrist in place of burning, cutting, punching walls, etc.

Does anybody have any idea if this works? If not, why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.202.168 (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Depends what you're trying to get out of it. If you're trying to stop completely, I don't think this is the way to go. If you want a method of self-injury that can be applied anywhere or, as you said, to be non-dangerous, then this seems useful. What exactly is the goal at hand? --OGoncho (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * From my experience, no, rubber bands don't work because they're a fundamentally different type of pain. Cutting is destructive to tissue, draws blood, and leaves a permanent mark.  It also does not provide the same pain adrenaline rush, and snapping yourself does not leave you feeling calm and relaxed afterwards.  Basically, almost everything that cutting specifically does for a self-injurer--both physiologically and psychologically--a rubber band does not replicate.  AncalagonTB (talk) 08:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss our personal SI issues. Are you suggesting we add rubberband snaps to the article and do you have sources suggesting it as a treatment?  Alatari (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Alatari, is that comment about not discussing personal issues directed at me? If so, the only personal information I post is what can be independently verified in journal articles. AncalagonTB (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * From what I can see AncalagonTB was answering a valid question, whether this be from personal experience or journal references makes absolutely no difference, it is just an example of first hand knowledge which is probably the most reliable source there is. Therefore personal experiences should NOT be dismissed so readily by Alatari in this discussion. Article entries on the other hand should be restricted to published sources only (for credibility purposes).  Polyamorph (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point Jdrewitt, the talk page is a perfectly acceptable medium for first hand experience. At no point did I, or do I ever suggest information be included in the article without solid references.  One will be hard pressed to find any (good) source that suggests rubber bands are a viable treatment option, but it is not difficult to find sources that back up my experience. AncalagonTB (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually according to Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site we are not here to answer people's questions on their personal experiences with SI. We are here to improve the article and this question: "Some methods of treating pervasive or obsessive thoughts is to wear a rubber band around one's wrist and snap it every time such a thought starts to enter one's mind. But I have heard it suggested that such a 'rubber band method' could be applied to self-injurers by provided a non-dangerous pain substitute - the sharp snapping of a rubber band against one's wrist in place of burning, cutting, punching walls, etc. Does anybody have any idea if this works? If not, why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.202.168 (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)" reads as a SI support group forum not a way to improve the SI article.  It's not meant for Wikipedia but for a SI support group page.  Giving advice to SI sufferers on this talk page could leave any of the editors or Wikipedia open for lawsuites.  Welcome to Wikipedia AncalagonTB and thanks for your future help on this and other articles. Alatari (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a personal interpretation of the goal the user who asked the question had in mind, which you do not know since it wasn't stated. You must assume good faith.  The statement "Some methods of treating pervasive or obsessive thoughts is to wear a rubber band around one's wrist and snap it every time such a thought starts to enter one's mind. But I have heard it suggested that such a 'rubber band method' could be applied to self-injurers by provided a non-dangerous pain substitute - the sharp snapping of a rubber band against one's wrist in place of burning, cutting, punching walls, etc. Does anybody have any idea if this works? If not, why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.202.168 (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)" could equally be a perfectly valid question aiming to verify the credibility of a treatment/therapy, prior to it's inclusion in the main article text. Polyamorph (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is possible but then the next two comments were If you're trying to stop completely, I don't think this is the way to go. and then From my experience, no, rubber bands don't work because they're a fundamentally different type of pain which are personal experiences which violate WP:NOR. It is dangerous to give out advice on these pages when risk of suicide is high and grieving families could take legal action. Alatari (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alatari, perhaps you've lost sight of the fact that this is a talk page and not the main article. If we can't throw around ideas here then do you want to have a talk page about the talk page?  Get your head on straight.  I guarantee I have read more journal articles than you on self-injury, I guarantee you don't have a very large collection of academic journal articles on self-injury, and I'd be willing to bet you don't have a Psychology degree.  Don't question my credentials, just because I mention personal experience on a talk page does NOT mean I don't have rock solid sources to back up what I say.  There's a reason why this is a talk page and not the main article.  I'd even go so far as to seriously question your reading comprehension if you think I was giving advice  AncalagonTB (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with AncalagonTB. Please, no more unconstructive comments quoting wikipedia rules which don't apply in this instance, there are people who actually want to discuss the issues raised on this talk page to improve the main article, this section has now been compromised since it no longer contains a discussion of the subject matter itself. I have therefore created a new section to discuss the alternative therapies that could help those who self injure, with the view to incorporate a discussion of the validity of these therapies into the main article (with citations of course).  Polyamorph (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia rules are very clear that talk pages aren't for discussing anything we like. It's not a forum to discuss our personal experiences but a place to discuss improving the article.  Your credentials do not matter because we can not using your experiences in the article nor any of your own research for that would be a WP:COI.  AncalagonTB has admitted to this being a sockpuppet account because of troubles he/she has had on the other account.  I can see how you are attacking me and assuming bad faith on my part might have lead you to troubles in the past.  Please stop discussing personal experiences on the talk page for they are WP:NOR and stop giving out advice like: Get your head on straight. for I'm not interested in your opinion of my head.  Alatari (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can all these pretentious bad faith personal attacks come to an end please and get back to the task at hand. Polyamorph (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be glad for the personal attacks to end. This is not a sockpuppet account, my previous account had a username that was personally identifiable to myself.  I did not want my objectivity and freedom to discuss issues with full disclosure to be compromised by my wish to be anonymous among colleagues and friends.  I also never said this was my own personal research, if you consider my sources from articles by researchers from Cornell and Princeton among others to be "personal research" then perhaps you are far more delusional than I already am suspecting. AncalagonTB (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not a psychologist, but I'm wondering, how many articles can actually provide experimental data on the effectiveness of treatments or alternatives of self harm without analysing other peoples personal experiences. Unlike other, more systematic sciences, psychology is a human science and as such personal/human experiences are vital for obtaining the facts.  If there are any other methods for obtaining data on human medicine that don't involve the collective experiences of patients then what are they? Polyamorph (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been polite this whole time, just strict with the policy. AncalagonTB, you are the only one making personal attacks on my sanity and abilities.  It will stop now.  You don't want to share your main account and use this sockpuppet that's fine but stop spewing abuse and learn some WP policies.   As for personal experiences, they are the way to gather knowledge on disorders but they must be filtered through a scholar not reported on Wiki talk pages. Alatari (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my part in the violation. --OGoncho (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No apologies needed OGoncho since you did nothing wrong, there is such a thing as freedom of speech. Polyamorph (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what most of you would think I am an avid supporter of the 1st Amendment. WP is a private organization and has the right to limit 1st Amendment speech according to it's guidelines through banning users or removing text.  I haven't heard of any legal challenges to WP on this issue. Alatari (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wording of the Article
In the "Causes" section, it says things like "Self-injury temporarily relieves intense feelings, pressure or anxiety." That wording makes self harm sound like something that is good and healthy; something that everyone should try. It makes self injury sound like a healthy way to release negative emotion. I don't think being bruised or cut is healthy. It's up to you whether or not you believe self harm is "good" or not, but I think that the article needs to be a bit re-worded. If no one responds to this post by January 3rd, I'm going to revise the section. Long Away May (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It reads as a statement of fact to me, and it states "temporarily", so it's erring on the side of saying that it doesn't fix things. I don't think it implies that everyone should try it, and I don't believe the article should hide any information on good feelings on it, out of fear that people might try it. Do you have a suggestion for a reword? Mdwh (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mdwh but there is a good point made... perhaps it should read "Self-injury (can/may) temporarily relieve intense feelings, pressure or anxiety." To me it maintains the same statement of fact but also doesn't read as much as if self-injury always or necessarily provides relief. AncalagonTB (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. I say that keeping the "temporarily" in and adding "Can/may" would probably be best.  (Most) people have enough common sense not to try something like this just because of article wording...  Thanks for the input!  Long Away May (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I edited the wording as well as a few other points in the Causes section. Once I read through it I spotted some other revisions that could be made. I don't think wording will convince anyone to self-injure any more than reading about the effects of LSD will make someone try the drug. This is an encyclopedia; speaking truthfully about the physiological and psychological effects of a given action should always be of utmost concern, not what others will do with the information. AncalagonTB (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

New subsection - alternatives
In reponse to some discussions above on the use of rubber bands, If anybody has any reliable sources with regards to the effectiveness of non destructive alternatives to self injury, such as the use of rubber bands, ice, writing lines on skin etc, then I think we should incorporate these into a new subsection, possibly under treatments. Any ideas? Polyamorph (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * HelpGuide.org need to have a Reliable Sources Helpdesk request on their site. Suggests snapping, chili peppers and red markers.
 * There's a significant number of SI sufferers that turn to BDSM but I'm having trouble relocating the scholarly source; there are many, many personal testimonials on this turn. "I have suggested self-flagellation to a number of survivors as a substitute for cutting and in one instance I was told that it was a satisfactory substitute. I consider this to be a functional improvement, since, with a proper flogger, the worst thing that can occur is a bruise or two.". It's not from a scholar but it makes the statement clear and succinctly.  The movie Secretary (film) from a short story by Mary Gaitskill was about a cutting SI woman finding relief through a BDSM relationship. If HelpGuide.org is suggesting rubber band snapping then how far removed is spanking.
 * Some locked down scholarly papers on the subject. Didn't see any studies of relieving symptoms by inflicting other non-scarring forms of pain.
 * A survivors group with resources

I'll add more sources as I search. Times up for today. Alatari (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Worked on other articles today. Will get back to this search tomorrow. Alatari (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alatari, please do not cite Geocities as a source, personal blogs and websites are not valid sources. You of all people should know this.  Also, saying there are "many, many personal testimonials" is your POV and a loaded statement without proper verification.  Jdrewitt, I'll comb through some of my articles (Legitimate academic journals unlike some being suggested so far) and see what I can find. AncalagonTB (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I said several times those weren't reliable sources but they are indicative of some common ideas leading me to believe there is a reliable source to be found which as I said earlier I am still in a source search. These above sources can be polled in a search for their primary sources hopefully leading to a reliable primary source. My point of view is from relativism whatever works and I can find evidence for I'll eventually cite.  You didn't read my comment or failed to understand it. As for the many personal testimonys, if you do some searching on the web you'll find them.  I could list 20 or so off of the SI forums but ithey aren't usable as a source on WP.  They again are indicative of a belief system (possibly arising from the widely viewed Secretary movie) that flagellation is an alternative.  I'm still looking for a research study on the phenomenon.  Alatari (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason I asked for reliable sources is simply that the likes of HelpGuide.org suggest these alternatives but where is the evidence that it ever works (if any). Another alternative to self injury that hasn't been mentioned yet is problem solving therapy, whereby the provision of a card allows sufferers to make emergency contact with services should the urge to self harm arises - Hawton et al. Deliberate self harm: systematic review of efficacy of psychosocial and pharmacological treatments in preventing repetition BMJ 317 pp 441-7 (1998). Also as mentioned in the main article text, other avoidance techniques such as journalling or taking a walk may be employed.  It therefore seems that these alternatives can be split into two categories namely; 1) those which provide the sufferer with the pain they require without resulting in any permanent injury and (2) those which provide the sufferer with a means to avoid the act of self injury altogether when the urge arises using avoidance techniques  Polyamorph (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Making chemical changes to the brain is the 3rd treatment method. I'm not clear on Behavioral therapy of some sort is a 4th treatment path. Already present in article. Alatari (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay one of the better articles I have on this is: Muehlenkamp, J. J. (2006).Empirically supported treatments and general therapy guidelines for non-suicidal self-injury. Journal of Mental Health Counseling. 28 (2). Some excerpts:
 * "The standard treatment approach has been hospitalization, but this is an expensive option that has not reliably demonstrated effectiveness for suicidal or non suicidal self-injury"
 * "Given that non-suicidal self-injury is primarily conceptualized as a tool for emotion regulation maintained through positive and negative reinforcements, treatments utilizing cognitive-behavioral strategies show the greatest promise for successfully reducing the behavior"
 * "Based upon the research reviewed, it is likely safe to tentatively conclude that PST and DBT are effective approaches to treating NSSI behaviors. However, it is important to note that while these treatments show some success, few well conducted empirical studies specific to NSSI exist, and they rarely included randomized controlled trials."
 * "The identification and remediation of skill deficits, particularly emotion regulation sills, is also viewed as a key component for reducing NSSI.The teaching of specific skills is critical because it assists the client in developing an adaptive capacity to interact with the world, tolerate distress, and regulate emotions"
 * "Generating alternative behaviors that the client can engage in instead of the NSSI, and shaping the use of such behaviors is a solid behavioral method to employ."

It's a long journal article so I'll read through it in more detail later on. The basic idea presented is that research data shows that DBT and PST (Although with numerous limitations from the methodology of previous studies) can help reduce NSSI. There are numerous limitations described in the article but there's not space for them here. In the context of the rubber band question above, it is possible that it could work, but almost certainly not as a "home remedy" as it were. Behavior modification will only have a chance at efficacy if it is conducted and supervised by a trained professional. Otherwise, it's simply an individual saying to themselves, "Okay I'll snap instead of cut." Just as a tumor patient cannot read a medical textbook and perform surgery, a mental health client cannot on their own utilize DBT techniques and expect it to work. AncalagonTB (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Some good points. What does PST stand for? Jdrewitt
 * The behavioral modification technique needs to be perceived by the individual as something that can substitute for the harmful behavior. Journal of Mental Health Counseling is one legitimate view point on the issue but not the only POV. It would be interesting how survivor groups and some religions view behavioral mod treatments.  Alatari (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Some mention of Skin-stimulus therapy for aversive behavioral modification: Gary J. Heffner. “Introduction To Self-Injurious Behavior.” Autistic Spectrum Disorders: Fact Sheet not mentioned in the article. Differences in approach to otherwise functional adults and lower functioning autistic people. What amounts to Skin stimulus therapy?  is it only electrical shock or does it include the child is spanked, yelled at, sprayed with water, or receives a mild electrical shock.  What about acupuncture? Alatari (talk)
 * A mention of acupuncture sites: Travis Thompson. “New Hope for Self-Injury... (excerpts from Speech).” September 1999. Alatari (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Another mention of acupuncture and the use of the drug Naltrexone Cynthia Manley. “Self-Injuries May Have Biochemical Base: Study.” The Reporter. March 1998. Would seem that acupuncture could be a alternative treatment, naltrexone isn't mentioned in self-injury. Alatari (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there is enough listed here now to create the new section Polyamorph (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've made a start, more work needed though as haven't incorporated in all these points yetPolyamorph (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

attention seeking
There's difference of opinion about SI and attention seeking seeming to sprout from the root cause of the person involved. Alatari (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources are saying that attention seeking is typically from autistics while functioning adults are shamed and attention aversive. Alatari (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Causes
What do people think of moving the Causes section to above the Psychology section? I think it might help with understanding the latter, which goes into detail about the psychological factors listed in causes. We might be able to take out a little repetition that way (e.g. numbness and the desire to "feel real" is repeated).

Also, I'd suggest changing "Causes" to something like "Reasons", because causes makes me think of things like depression or childhood abuse, whereas the section really describes the reasons people have given for self-injuring behavior. Thoughts? delldot  talk  04:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Reasons is ok, motives, motivations are also good? Polyamorph (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Motives: good call! That's my favorite. :-)  delldot   talk  11:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool, I made the title change. I'm not too keen on the bullet points, a point mentioned in the Peer review/Self-injury/archive1. This actually suggests Motivations as a subsection in Physchology! Which I think would be appropriate as you suggest. Polyamorph (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The constant addition of bullet points to this article is getting out of control in my opinion. All sections should be made to read in paragraph format asap. Also none of these bullet points have references. Anyone in agreement? Polyamorph (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Changes made, fact template added where citations needed. Polyamorph (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Trichotillomania
Is this really a form of self injury? My daughter (adult, otherwise mentally normal) has this and claims that it doesn't hurt her in the least -- that she does it without thinking about it and feels no pain. Is there a source somewhere verifying that this is self injury?69.143.240.243 (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Common sense will tell you that trichotillomania is self harm which results in injuries to the scalp. Although some people tend to define it as an OCD seperate to self harm but in that instance self harm itself may well be defined as an OCD. Although some sufferers may not feel pain, many do and it is clear that trichotillomania results in injuries which are self inflicted.  Polyamorph (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * According to, Favazza classified what he referred to as "superficial/moderate self-injury" into three types: compulsive, episodic, and repetitive. So trichotillomania would come under compulsive, along with some other examples of self-injury - however, not all self-injury is compulsive. Also, "In a study of bulimics who self-harm, Favaro and Santonastaso (1998), used a statistical technique known as factor analysis to try to distinguish between which kinds of acts were compulsive in nature and which were impulsive. They report that vomiting, severe nail biting, and hair pulling loaded on the compulsive factor, whereas suicide attempts, substance abuse, laxative abuse, and skin cutting and burning loaded on the impulsive factor."


 * So although compulsive and impulsive can be classified separately, they still seem to both be counted by some researchers at least as self-injury, and I think it's still okay to mention trichotillomania in the self-injury article here. Note that there isn't an official diagnosis or definition of "self-injury". Mdwh (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Thank you. 69.143.240.243 (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

GA status
This article is currently undergoing a Good Article Review and some real improvements have been made to the article as a result. The reassessment page can be found here: Good article reassessment/Self-injury/1. Please add your comments and views on this process. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This article has just lost its good article status. Whether or not this was necessary is a matter of debate, however I feel it was reckless to remove GA status without fair discussion, the reassessment page is here: Self injury reassessment. - article currently under Good Article Reassessment Polyamorph (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets see if we can get the article back to GA status. We could go for a reassment and reverse this reckless decision. Comments welcome. Polyamorph (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have re-instated the GA review status of this article, the reassessment page is here: Good article reassessment/Self-injury/1. Please could the correct procedure for de-listing an article be followed this time waiting for the reassement discussion to have run its course as per the guidelines on GAR

If there are issues to be resolved with the article, then there are enough committed editors here that I think we may be able to fix the problems without losing the GA status. Polyamorph (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The articlehistory edits were incorrect: if the GAR is closed, do you want me to update articlehistory now? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is still listed at GA, and the reassessment page says pending. Please note that articlehistory does not reflect open processes (is only updated once they close), and the final event is added to the end, not the beginning. Instructions are at Template:Articlehistory.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The GAR is not yet closed, which is why I am trying to get contributions to the process. The process is, in its final stages though...thanks for your input in the articlehistory edits and pointing out my ignorance.  When the GAR does close then yes it should be updated.  Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps then you should correct above where you stated, This article has just lost its good article status. I can update articlehistory once it's closed; since it popped up in the ah category, I'm now watching.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead section
The lead section needs to be changed so that the demographics and treatment sections are adequately summarised. Any help would be appreciated. Polyamorph (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

References removed
Removed some of the further reading as requested during the GA review process. Some of these were works of fiction or un-published university theses. However, I list below those published academic references since they may be useful in improving this article:

Polyamorph (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

GA re-assessment
The article has be reassessed for GA status and I'm pleased to say it remains listed. The reassessment page can be found here: Good article reassessment/Self-injury/1. However, the article still needs improvement to ensure it doesn't get nominated for reassessment again. I have subsequently archived the talk page so we can start with a clean slate. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation 3
The Citation attempts to claim self-injury as common in young people worldwide, yet the topic clearly pertains to children in Europe?. Anyone else find this odd? --Koryr (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It depends what the article actually says, I cannot access the full text and so can't comment on its accuracy. However, it would be useful to cite more worldwide research.  This article is perceived to have bias towards research conducted in Europe.  The reason for this, however, is that much of the academic research into self-injury is by a small number of researchers in Britain, Ireland and maybe Australia.  There is a clear lack of worldwide research, however, if you can find some and incorporate the work here, that would be great :) Polyamorph (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)