Talk:Suicide bag/Archive 7

Hypercapnic alarm response
, Your recent edit to the lead equates the hypercapnic arousal response, (a response to hypercapnia during normal sleep, a condition which does not equate to hypoxic loss of consciousness), to the disputed term hypercapnic alarm response Please quote the passage in the cited source which supports this conclusion.

Furthermore, the request to clarify whether the disputed term refers to panic, sense of suffocation and struggling during unconsciousness (my emphasis) and cite this claim has not been answered, but the request for clarification has been removed. I am going to replace the request and ask you to clarify before removing it again.

In the absence of evidence I will remove the disputed content from the lead. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I read the reference to hypercapnic alarm response in the Peaceful Pill Handbook page 45, and it makes no reference to struggling while unconscious, and the hypercapnic alarm response mentioned there is the effect of moderately high blood carbon dioxide on the conscious person, an effect known to anyone who has held their breath for a minute or two. I consider the book to have been misrepresented in the lead, and will edit accordingly. Please do not revert without sufficient evidence. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with your edits or your clarifications. I think others may object to the depth in which you explore some of the physiological issues in an article about a bag, but we'll see what happens. Ratel (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I consider the article to be about more than the physical object. The scope based on section headings suggests that it is about the method of suicide, including the physical characteristics of the bag, history, ethics, research etc. What actually happens is relevant, and the information provided should be accurate, reliable and neutral. I identified aspects which were dubious, and am working on clarifying and improving the accuracy. A lot of the background could theoretically be covered by other articles, but I find that Wikipedia is currently somewhat lacking in several of the possible links, so I will fill in here until I run out of relevant material. As it happens I am trying not to go into excessive detail, and only mention things that I consider directly relevant to an accurate and informed understanding of the method from the points of view of all interested parties. Please feel welcome to discuss the relevance, accuracy or any perceived bias in my edits. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not noticing any bias, Peter, and wish you well with the task. I think you have improved the article already, and I welcome the extra detail, although if you look at the history of this article you'll see several attempts to stubbify it in preparation for a deletion drive, so let's hope that does not happen again. Ratel (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You may be interested to know that the criticism attributed to Kleespies appears to have been grossly misrepresented. I will be changing that when I have worked out how best to represent his opinions in the context. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree completely with your edit, wanted to make that change myself but did not want to provoke edit wars with prior editors :¬) Ratel (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What I have stated is my best shot at a completely neutral report of Kleespies' opinions in that paper. If anyone wishes to dispute, they may refer to the article and explain why they think I may have misinterpreted it. I am amenable to reason and logic. Not so much to bluster and rhetoric, and I do not engage in edit wars. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say that the article as it stands is neutral, relevant, well referenced, and covers the subject quite well. There is no reasonable doubt that it is a notable topic. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Failed attemps reference
There is a line in the article that says: "There are also documented cases of suicide attempts using the suicide bag that failed." (latest version of the article consulted 3rd Oct 2018) And is supported by a journal article: Deaths involving natural gas inhalation. I have not read the article due to having a paywall, but the title of the cited article talks about "natural gas". So this arouses suspicious that the failed attempts cases might be from inhaling natural gas, not inert gas, which are something different. As this article covers only "inert gas asphyxiation" (as the Wikipedia article's first line/definition explains), it might be removed if proven inappropriate to the WP article's theme.

Someone with access to the article should check it and for future reference include a |cite= excerpt supporting the statement.--Hienafant (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)