Talk:Suicide methods/Archive 3

Darvon cocktail
Added this method to the "Overdose".

This is getting a bit heavy...
This article seems like a manual. I'm not debating whether the article should exist or not, it's just that there's a prevalence of 'tips' throughout the article - e.g: "...Note that a violent seizure might occur causing unexpected disturbance." Now, to me, that seems like a bit of advice. I'm not sure what to do. Do I edit these out? Do I leave them in as it contributes to the mass hub of knowledge that is Wikipedia? 'kinell. -- Ood 18:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Meh, I'd just leave it, though some of the stuff may need rewording or some trimming. Voice -of- All  18:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't get why this is needed information or why it wasn’t deleted on the two times deletion was proposed. What knowledge is gained by having a list of how to kill yourself and how is it in anyway useful? Redd Dragon   talk Contributions 19:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No information on Wikipedia is needed. Wikipedia entire isn't needed (the world was doing fine before it had Wikipedia, though I assume most of us would like to believe it's at least slightly better off with Wikipedia here). That's probably not a useful question to ask.
 * If you're asking why anybody could be interested in what people do, exactly, to kill themselves: you'd have to ask sociologists and psychologists, I'd wager. Just because the subject is uncomfortable to most people doesn't mean the information itself has no use. You're probably looking at this article the wrong way as a list of suggested methods of suicide, rather than a list of documented ways people have committed suicide. We'd do our readers a disservice by handwaving the issue or consciously minimizing exposure.
 * I do agree that if the article veers off into offering "helpful" tidbits about how to make the method most likely to succeed, it should be edited. This is not (just) because we're talking suicide methods, but because Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide in the first place. "Touchy" articles like this just deserve extra attention. JRM · Talk 20:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There is an inaccuracy of content here. "Upwas" by "Hindus" and "Jains" may have a lot of reasons that we may or may not agree with but suicide, or "causing death" is absolutely certainly not one of them. Upwas is a form of penance and a recommended way of purifying ones soul. Vaibhav Garg 05:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Urban Legend
I removed the following from the section about hanging:

''In Poland, there is an urban legend which says, that in 1970's a man, who escaped from psychiatry clinic jumped from Palace of Culture and Science in Warsaw, but with a noose made of piano string. It was a decapitation, not exactly hanging.''

Disregarding for a moment the poor grammatical structure of the piece, I'm pretty sure that the propogation of urban legends about suicide, especially ones uncited and unsubstantiated, doesn't constitute encyclopedic content anyway. While it could (arguably) belong in the article on urban legends, it doesn't belong here.

--65.102.204.191 13:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

== The person who

A few reasons why this sort of information can be useful:

-Knowing how to kill yourself means knowing how to avoid accidentally killing yourself. For example, the section on Carbon Monoxide poisoning lists a few sources of CO, such as cars and heaters, and a few important attributes such as the fact that it's undetectable without the aid of a machine. Knowing that CO can kill you, that you can't sense it, and where it might be found could help prevent being killed by it.

-Knowing these methods could help you to stop someone who's planning to commit suicide.

-It's interesting to read.

65.95.157.80 05:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Statistics?
Is there more than the fire arm statistics? How each method is often attempted and how sucsessful it would be. Being informative would be helpful to have sucsess rate of each method.--Jerluvsthecubs 09:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that adding statistics, like you suggested, would improve the quality of this "article." Right now it looks like an alt.suicide.holiday FAQ as different suicide sages add their own personal musings on the best way to opt out of life. There are credible experts on the subject of suicide who have already studied statistics on suicide(Kay Redfield Jamison is an example). --Roonerspism 18:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Too heavy
I think that this page should be deleted or edited in such a way as to not be so specific? Do we really need a "How-to" on suicide? I think not. Enough people have problems with such things and don't need to come across it here. Someone might be suicidal and also be surfing the web. They might look up suicide on Wikipedia and find this list of descriptions. I think that this article should be deleted. /\/octe 01:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree 100% Tboger 01:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored GideonF 14:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, being a medical professional i see that much of the topic is pure hear-say and not very accurate either way.

Drinking?
I'm curious: is it possible to kill oneself reliably by drinking excessive alcohol? I hear a lot about alcohol-related deaths, and surely it is readily available in enormous quantities.
 * If it's methanol or ethylene glycol (antifreeze), easily.
 * For Ethanol(beverage/drinking alcohol), it is hard to say because of the chance of vomiting and the much higher lethal dose. -User: Nightvid
 * Basically, yes, worked in A&E (ER in the states), seen that. Often due to vomitting, but can just stop breathing. 88.109.121.24 22:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you can become alcoholic with the aim to cause a liver malfunction. I knew somebody who died that way, and I'd call it suicide in little doses. The chance of dying by an ethanol poisoning is, as Nightvid stated, rather low, so I'd not call it reliable. To asphyxiate, a normal human needs more than 400 millilitres of alcohol to surpress such basic brain functions, so even if you're a fast drinker, you'll most probably throw up and fall asleep before. Most deaths by ethanol are thereof caused by people choking their own vomit while sleeping.
 * so I'd not call it reliable - reliable in what sense? A reliable method to kill oneself??? -Jerome Baum 04:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I think that this page should be changed to include more of that "you should seek help" - it is OK to have the page, but maybe make a direct link to some actual help, and putting the content after so many 's or some other method, so as not to make it into a reference for those wanting to commit suicide. -Jerome Baum 04:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's important to say that the majority of alcohol related deaths involve a sedative in addition to alcohol.

recent edit
This is a recent edit that I have reverted as it needs to be fixed up before it goes in the article.

air bubble in the vien
this method is probally most easy and almost most accessable, it requires a needle (type of needle for giving a shot, not for sewing) and air. simply done all one has to do is fill half with water and half with air, insert in thigh (hurts least). while pressing down, make shure the water is entering second , adding a seal to the needle preventing the air escaping from the back , then remove neddle and lay some where soft or on the ground. the air will reach your heart and cause ur heart to mess up on air presure and trying to extract CO2 to your lungs, this method is quite painful but much easer then cutting a vien or artery because inserting the nedel is close to painless. death is unstopable after the air enters ur blood stream, and actual death ocurs about 1 minuit after air in blood stream. , to speed up (for whetever reason) ither hyperventlate or hold breath and think nervous thoughts. this will quicken death.

--Clawed 03:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. I recently spent some time in hospital, receiving intravenous saline solution (a.k.a. "drip"). I frequently observed large bubbles passing into the needle and then my arm. As evidenced by this sentence, I did not expire. To quote William S. Burroughs: "If injecting air could kill you there wouldn't be a single junkie alive" - and he should know.

my apologies
I was the one that indirectly commented on the actual page instead of going to the discussion board to give my 2 cents. I was just honestly so disgusted with the way this page has been displayed that it made me very angry and I felt like I had to get my comments out. There's absolutely no way, shape, or form that their should be a page dedicated to listing ways to easily kill yourself. Its proposterous. It seems like this whole page is dedicated to teenagers or adults who would like to commit suicide but dont know how, "hey check wikipedia.com and type suicide in and you'll find about 10-15 ways to kill yourself. You can decide which one you prefer." It's ridiculous and I really think this page should be taken off the site. Don't get me wrong I love this site, and it's ok to have a page on suicide alone, but its absolutely ridiculous to have a page solely based on suicide methods, its almost as if you condone this behavior, and half these methods are probably written by teenagers trying to be funny. This is to serious of a subject to allow people to edit. I can't believe you'd allow it. ETod09 07:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Like I mentioned above, there are good reasons to know how to commit suicide, such as preventing someone else from doing it or knowing how to avoid accidental death. 65.95.157.80 05:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As a novelist, I sometimes need to do research into things I want my characters to do or be, but have never had any experience with, myself. If I want to write a suicidal character, this page is (or should be) a perfect resource to help me write an accurate scene and a plausible character. I don't want someone who's had experience with suicide to be reading my book or story and say, "Hey, this writer is an idiot. She doesn't know anything about suicide methods and their associated risks. Couldn't she have done a little research?" LeaHazel : talk : contribs 13:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Some very sick people on Wikipedia
I do not understand the point of having a "10 Tried and True Suicide Methods" article such as this in Wikipedia. I have had the experience of taking someone to the hospital after an unsuccessful suicide attempt. I have seen the aftermath of someone jumping from a height and killing herself. I voted to delete this. I do not understand the urge to present such information. Edison 03:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * All information is valid. All information is valuable. A person who wants to commit suicide will do so regardless. You can not let your perosonal feelings get in the way of what this article is: thorough, well researched and encyclopedic. Throw 00:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Many suicide gestures or "cries for help" are unsuccessful. There is no merit in helping depressed people succeed in killing themselves, and any text in this article which has that effect can be deleted.Edison 04:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Much to your probable dismay, Wikipedia does not believe in "censoring", or thus "morality". Sad fact. &mdash; OLP 1999 12:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strangely, there is a great deal of censorship on Wikipedia everyday. See Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion/Archive 2 where there is discussion of many images which have been deleted on grounds of obscenity. Line drawings have replaced photographs which were too graphic (or too pornographic.)WP:WWIN"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information:" "Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." So when this article venture into "How To Commit Suicide" it violates oficial Wikipedia policy and requires editing out the helpful "How To" hints.Edison 13:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree with you when it comes to the fact that this crap should be deleted, but I'm telling you it won't happen. The (especially Western) world is full of sick fucks and they all love to join together on the oh-so-anonymous Internet. And what better article to write than an article about the thing they all want to do because of their pathetic lives? What kind of life does someone have so as that they take the time to write "You can take a gun, point to it to your head and shoot yourself!". Jesus. Anyway, I'm getting a little carried away but I agree completely that this is a "how-to" list and should be removed. Now.&mdash; OLP 1999 06:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Objections have been voiced. The subject is known as controversial. There's no need to be uncivil. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 19:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How is this information useful? You know what happens when someone drowns, you know what happens when someone slits their wrists, and you know what happens when someone burns yourself.  I think the argument of this site being educational and used for knowledge and projects is ridiculous.  This is not valuable information, just immoral info.  There's no need for wiki to have something like this.  Someone wrote that they used this site for writing suicidal characters in books.  I understand where your coming from, but a lot of the methods are self-explanatory, you should know what happens when someone does this or that to hurt his or herself. I'm more looking out for the children and young adults who aren't educated on this stuff that come across this page.  Deletion should be strongly considered. ETod09 22:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Deletion has been considered more than once, and repeatedly rejected. Like it or not, suicide happens: it is a real phenomenon and justifies documentation.  Likewise, people who commit suicide have used, and continue to use, different methods to achieve their ends, and the variety of historical and current methods used for suicide is rich and diverse enough a topic to merit documentation.  There are issues with the current version of the article reading too much like a how-to manual, and there are those of us working to improve it, but Wikipedia is not censored.GideonF 00:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Justifies documentation? Are you saying that we should write an article about how to poison someone without it being traced? How about an article about how to stick a branch up your ass? The crap in this article in no way of any meritable value, and don't try to cover it up with the "Wiki is not censored" excuse. This article is BS.&mdash; OLP 1999 02:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no call to be uncivil.GideonF 10:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The flaw in your previous argument is that you say the content should be deleted because it's "immoral" and Wikipedia does not judge morality. The flaw in your current argument is that all your examples start with the words "how to" and, as Gideon has said, this article is in the process of being edited to prevent it from appearing like a "how to" manual (which Wikipedia, again, is not).
 * As for "you know what happens when someone slits their wrists," well, actually, I don't. That's why I research the topic to try and find out how wrist-slitting is meant to serve as a method of suicide, how it can be stopped/prevented and what the side-effects of a failed suicide by wrist-slitting can lead to. Consider the movie Constantine, which portrays the title character severing his tendons in a suicide attempt, which leads to him being unable to use his arms. As a writer, I need to know whether this is plausible, otherwise I'm just mimicking someone else's writing and anyone who's ever slit their wrists and lived reads my book and says, "That's ridiculous, that could never happen." I don't want to be a hack, so I look it up, just as I would look up bulimia, serial killer, Auschwitz or anything else arguably immoral. In the same vein, these articles can never become "how to" force vomiting, go on a killing spree or imprison a million people in sub-human conditions.
 * This argument has been held a million times, and the consensus was to edit the article until it's better, not to delete it. The only reason I'm not editing the article right now is because I lack the knowledge to improve it (except to provide Kurt Cobain as an example for suicide by shooting and Adolf Hitler as a poisoning, and I'd have to check that article to find out what he used). LeaHazel : talk : contribs 18:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright you make some very good arguments on your behalf as a writer, and I guess something like this could be useful for that such thing, but I still don't believe it should be on here. I know people are changing it from the "how to" crap that it seemed like before, but like I said the only reason I wanted to have it put up for deletion is because I didn't want a depressed 13 year old kid to come on here and find this.  I think its more for the children then anything else.  But again you make some very good points.  This topic could be argued forever, with nobody coming to a enclosure on it.  So I guess it doesn't bother me as much as it used to becauses it's being cleaned up.  I'd like to see a little more work done to the article, and also would like to see ot a little less graphic I guess you could say.  By the way didn't Adolph Hitler shoot himself?  I thought it was another high ranking official who posioned himself.  Oh well anyway I didn't mean to come off as a jerk LeaHazel, I just have very strong views on this subject. ETod09 07:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored and it's not Wikipedia's job or place to prevent or assist anyone from committing suicide. And, practically speaking, I doubt that this article is anywhere near detailed enough to do that, anyway. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 17:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is very detailed about how to commit a suicide. I don't see how you can say it's not.  I know Wiki is not censored but perhaps it should be on things like this or at least more strict on some controversial material.  But as I said before this debate most likely will never come to a conclusion, so I guess it's just time to leave it be. ETod09 06:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool. So wikipedia isn't censored. And because this is all "true" and "real", it deserves to be an article. Okay, so are you saying that if somebody were to make a guide of how to make different types of bombs and effectively use them, that it would be okay? Don't make me laugh. The article wouldn't last more than an hour. It would be deleted ASAP, and at some point you'd probably see a headline about somebody being arrested for describing how to make a bomb on Wikipedia. And the argument about how you can use this information from accidentally killing yourself is hilarious. Because we all know that people who don't want to die are going to look at a page about SUICIDE. --Magus05 (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You say that if an article "how to make different types of bombs and effectively use them" were crated it would be deleted, YES I agree with you, it would be deleted, because wikipedia is not an "how to do" nothing, wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, wich provides you INFORMATION, so, if the same article you siad were editted, to an article about the bomb, who first created it, were it's name is from, and with is the components of it, and how it works (not how to create it)etc, etc, etc..., NO it would not be deleted, because this is INFORMATION...INFORMATION, that's what people need, to the moust variated reasons, and if someone who need's information abou suicidal methods and "how to do it", I think that's really easy to find just on Google, and probably there is a lot of pages that really try to "teach" how to suicide, wikipedia just brings you information...201.80.113.20 (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See, here's the problem with that. If you took an article about how to make bombs, and simplified it down to what the bomb is and how made it etc, you would have this. If you took this article and did the same you would have this. So therefore by your word, this article is useless and should be deleted. This page is a how to, I don't see why people are missing that part. A list of suicide methods is a guide on how to kill yourself. --Magus05 (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that if you included a page on how to make bombs on Wikipedia, someone would be suing Wikipedia pretty soon because making bombs is basically illegal. Suicide is illegal too - so why can have we a page on how to commit suicide?  ♥ Fr  ed  il  20:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a how-to, it's a description of some commonly (and not so commonly) used suicide methods: how they bring about death, possible side-effects, success rates, etc. Also, suicide is not (usually) illegal. suriv (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I've had to bury my best friend in a ghastly cold grave because she died in a car crash. Car crashes kill 1 in 100 people in the developed world. They kill more people than suicides do. I conclude from that that cars are evil. Wikipedia should not inform people about cars because cars kill. Think of the millions of lives Wikipedia could save by omitting this infomation, and thereby discouraging people from driving cars. Therefore I recommend that that the article Automobile be deleted with immediate effect. Cambrasa (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone help me
I suppose I am using this as a manual.
 * While my immediate reaction is to believe you're someone who wishes to have this article deleted and are merely pretending to be the hypothetical outcome (namely, that of a vulnerable person who is looking at this article for advice), if you are genuiningly troubled, then I apologise and advice you to seek help. Speak to your family. Get help. Throw 01:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Try checking out http://www.beyondblue.org.au and remember that things always get better. No matter how bad things seem, they work out.Wik98 02:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe some of these links should be in the article? It does seem like in something that's basically "How To Commit Suicide" there should be some mention of "Why Not To Commit Suicide". 65.95.157.80 05:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Let us know how it turns out, maybe even post a picture. Comradeash 15:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Improvements needed
Ok, sadly in the AfD I could only call for weak keep. This was done as the article shows promise, it just needs a fair ammount of work. here's what needs to be done: Hopefully this can be polished up nicely LinaMishima 15:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * References, references, references! The general advice for lists is to replicate any good references from the article itself, giving your statements more support. In almost all cases there is a lack of a clear main article and absolutely no specific supporting references.
 * Context: Again, almost all the entries are lacking entirely in the social and historical context of the mthod. Notable cases in history, society's reactions to the method, and so on.
 * Neutrality: Currently the methods are simply listed, and this is why people are callng this a 'guide'. Without the gory details of failure rates and pain levels, such calls are likely to continue. More importantly, such details would help to bring the article to a more neutral point of view
 * Controversies needs it's own article: this section deals with suicide manuals, it seems, not methods of suicide. As such, it is inappropriate for this article.

What is this article?
I think the first thing that needs to be done with this article is to decide what its purpose is. A brief look at What Wikipedia is not rules out using this page as a suicide manual or an anti-suicide advocacy.

The option that is left is that this article is a list of documented methods of suicide. Not actions that are likely to result in death, but ones that have been documented as being used to deliberately cause death. The operative definition of suicide relies on intent, therefore an action can only be classified as a suicide method if it's taken with the deliberate intent of causing one's own death.

In order to meet his standard, every method listed in the article needs to have a verified citation of having been used at least once. General information about how it brings about death is reasonable; detailed instructions are not. Side effects in cases in which the suicide method is not fatal are reasonable; statistics of success rates are reasonable; weasel words and uncited statistics a la "this method is not usually successful, leaving the attempter horribly maimed for the rest of his life" are not.

Historical and social context for things like self-immolation or seppuku are useful. So are examples of notable individuals committing/attempting suicide. It creates context. - LeaHazel 12:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A very balanced view. If the article is redrafted as outlined above it will increase its encyclopaedic value, and hopefully allay the concerns of editors who have nominated the article for deletion.GideonF 12:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think Lea and Lina have both put forth very fair and worthwhile suggestions. Agne 16:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I dunno if this means anything coming from an anonymous user, but I agree too. This page could easily be viewed as a manual whereas adding references like this would make it more of a historical document. 65.95.157.80 05:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Improvements
My opinions on suggested improvements. I'd like some comments before I start editing the article, since it is contentious.

1. Drowning - Seems fine as it is. Cites Virginia Woolf.

2. Self-immolation - Again, fine.

3. Driving - Should probably be deleted if no-one can come up with a citation for when this method has been used.

4. Electrocution - Again, citations needed. Perhaps too much detail that could be considered instructional.

5. Hanging - Content seems fine, but needs cited examples for each sub-section.

6. Self-defenestration and jumping in front of a train are okay as sub-sections, but require cited examples and could stand to lose some of the more lurid details.

7. Pharmaceuticals And Narcotics - Bad section generally. Needs breaking down into sub-sections (perhaps by drug function, e.g. hypnotics/analgesics/narcotics/antidepressants), examples and citations. Darvon cocktail seems only to be in there for instructional purposes and could go.

8. Asphyxiation - Needs references.

9. Poisoning - There are some notable examples currently commented out in this section, which need putting back in. Some unreferenced content (e.g. "because the most potent poisons are usually inaccessible to the general public, this method would only tend to be used by people in power, such as politicians or military leaders") could be lost.
 * I deleted the bit about accessibilty and use by people in power. Aleta 12:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

10. Seppuku - Fine as I see it, just a summary of the main article.

11. Shooting - Too long, too instructional in tone, no examples given. Content on prevalance and male/female ratio is good.

12. Exsanguination - Mostly okay, but, like most of this article, requires examples and citations.

13. Starvation - Mostly fine, but citation needed.

14. CO poisoning - Merge into "poisoning" section? Citation needed for alleged rising incidence.

15. Suicide by proxy - Only requires a citation for the increased incidence.

16. Suicide attack - Is this suicide? The attacker's death is not the main goal of a suicide attack, but a by-product. If this section is kept, it should also reference the Kamikaze.
 * Someone had put in the Kamikaze link by the time I saw it. I also added a main article designation to Suicide attack.  Aleta 12:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

17. Controversies - Delete this section, nothing to do with suicide methods per se. GideonF 17:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree on all of the above, and specifically in the case of poisoning, I think it's worthwhile to try and add reliable content about cyanide capsules being used by armed forces/security agencies as a weapon for agents who are captured and questioned. If there is reliable content, that is. - LeaHazel 22:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's definitely true, though I don't have a source to hand. Allied officers and spies were issued with cyanide pills that had an undigestible coating so they could be swallowed without causing death and re-used at a later date (doesn't bear thinking about...); they needed to be cracked open with ones teeth to release the poison.  I'll try and dig up a source on this, and edit the rest of the article in line with my previous suggestions in the meantime.GideonF 22:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've made some improvements, to be continued. I'm striking out issues I consider to be dealt with as I go through the article.  I'd be grateful if other editors changing the article in line with my suggestions would edit my talk post similarly.GideonF 23:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's better, but still dangerous
Well done to all those who have worked so hard to keep this article from being a how-to manual. It is much better than it was and, although I still think it should be deleted, I realise that so far the vote has always been to keep it. The Times had an article yesterday which contains some independent back up for those who have been pointing out the dangers of this sort of piece. Since those (including me) who have urged these dangers have often been told there is no evidence, I am posting about it here for the record. The article itself is at. It quotes Professor Keith Hawton, of the Centre for Suicide Research, at Oxford University, saying “All research suggests that showing, in detail, methods of suicide does result in an increase of those methods immediately afterwards, so portrayal of methods of suicide is ill-advised.”  Chelseaboy 15:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So noted, but I still think a rise in the use of a specific method of suicide does not equal a rise in suicide in general. But I don't think it's necessary to argue this now. What's more important is to provide neutral information at an appropriate level of detail -- enough to understand, but not bullet points and diagrams. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 16:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting but not, I think, strictly relevant. Making the article less like a how-to manual and more like an encyclopaedia article is a matter of Wikipedia policy, not of morality.  To criticise the article as immoral or dangerous in and of itself: (i) assumes a particular POV on the ethics of suicide, a view which is not shared by everyone on a subject about which Wikipedia has no opinion; (ii) is an exercise in fulility, doing nothing to reduce the availibility of information about suicide methods to anyone who is interested, eg . GideonF 16:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * An increase in effectiveness on account of wikipedia is merely a bonus, afterall, the more you know...Comradeash 15:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Tamil Tigers
Is there any reason we mention 'Islamic extremist terrorists' but not the Tamil Tigers who were the ones (according to the suicide attack article we link to) perfected the tactic and Tamil Tigers were, as of 2000, "unequivocally the most effective and brutal terrorist organization ever to utilize suicide terrorism". Yes they may no longer be so actively involved and yes 'Islamic extremist terrorists' may get more media attention but it doesn't mean we should ignore others completely. For that matter what about the earlier example of Japanese kamikaze. Obviously we should not go into all the detail in the sucide atack article but to me anyway, only talking about 'Islamic extremist terrorists' smacks of bias. Even more so since calling the perpetrators of these terrorist attacks 'Islamic extremist terrorists' is IMHO hardly NPOV since the reasons for their attacks are contentious (& btw the Islamic extremist terrorism is an article with a lot of controversy). It would be far better IMHO to give some examples, e.g. Hizbollah, etc and not get drawn in to whether these people are Islamic extremists terrorists. Then also mention the Tamil Tigers and Japanese kamikaze. And before you go telling me to Be Bold well I may do so, but I think it is important to get across the point of why this is bad 22:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

How to manual
Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This article violates that prohibition several times. The sections on hanging and jumping seem to go beyond discussing the methods and actually describe how they are performed. -Will Beback 06:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The section on jumping is a little sloppy at the moment. What specific improvements did you have in mind?  I don't see any problem with the hanging section, it contains no more information than does the main article on the subject.GideonF 18:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The quote is now out of date. The current version reads, "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s." The current version doesn't prohibit instruction as long as it is written in "encyclopedic" format, and as long as it's not confused with an instruction manual. Fredsmith2 (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hanging
What are some of the possible things that could happen if the whole hanging procedure isn't effective? It doesn't mention it anywhere in the hanging section of the article. Or does it? I don't see it. Lonelyboy 21:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a good source on it, only stuff I heard second or third hand. For a direction to look in: there are supposedly three ways to die if you hang yourself, either by suffocating (slow), by snapping your neck (quick & painful) or by cutting off the circulation to the brain. I have also heard that in terms of executions, hangmen who tied the noose tightly enough to break the neck rather than suffocating the convict were considered "merciful". I have also heard that nooses that aren't tight enough will cause people not to die at all, but just to hang by the noose until someone comes by and takes them off it (this, about an attempted suicide in military prison, using a shirt or somesuch rather than rope). All the information I have is very sketchy and unsourced, which is why I haven't added it to the article. As to the effects of non-lethal oxygen-deprivation, I'm fairly certain I linked to that in one of the clauses. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 08:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Another issue worth raising as far as hanging in the suicide context is concerned is the way Michael Hutchence was supposed to have killed himself in his hotel room in November 22, 1997. This was having one end of a ligature, in this case a belt, wrapped around both his neck and the other end around a fixture, in this case, the hotel room's doorknob. In Australia, to commit suicide or attempt to commit suicide this way is referred to colloquially as "doing a Hutchence". SimonMackay (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Index/Summaries
I think this could simply be reduced down to an index with brief summaries of methods with links to existing articles within Wikipedia (and stubs to non-existent ones).

There are lots of disambiguation and indexes in Wikipedia, and this could be just another one.

This would solve the problem of 'too much information' in this topic that some of our more 'moral' readers complain about, and would give the page a solid editorial guideline. If (for instance) you want all the gory details about hanging, you can always follow the links to those numerous articles on historical types and methods of hanging.

As for 'what use is it'? If you are looking at it with a mind toward suicidal recognition/prevention, then this article shows some useful things to look out for. A troubled teen buys a BBQ grill, briquettes and some duct tape... what might they be thinking? If you didn't know that's how people go about CO poisoning suicides, salespeople in a store, even family members, might assume it's for a party.

Finally, not ALL suicide is 'bad'. There is all that rich history of people killing themselves off in desperate survival situations to make sure other people can survive. A cave-in in a mine where the older folks are thought to have given their oxygen to a younger guy with young kids, to name one recent case. An absolute case of suicide - but with a goal to preserve life. They could all die, or make sure at least one guy gets out.

Some people also see learning about suicide as a form of 'empowerment'. They know for sure that if the pain and horror of a debilitating disease gets too bad, or some form of misfortune leading to financial ruin and homelessness ever overtakes them... there's a simple way out. (From everything I've read, heard and seen of homeless shelters, I'd certainly rather die myself than ever set foot in one as a guest.) Not necessarily a good or recommended way out, but there is comfort in knowing that you can never be TRAPPED in one of the various ugly situations that people end up finding themselves in. Ironically, knowing that you aren't ever really trapped can even give you hope to carry on in 'hopeless' situations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.7.174.177 (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Electrocution - unencyclopedic phrasing
"Today, many countries have adopted electricity safety and wiring regulations which would render this method of suicide virtually impossible: circuit breakers and residual-current devices in most modern installations, and fuses housed inside electrical appliances, acting together, will trip in the vast majority of cases and prevent a lethal shock (One would hope. However, as 'The Mythbusters' demonstrated, in practice, such devices do very little to prevent electrocution. A particular brand of hairdryer even continued to pump water after being completely submerged and short circuited. It's worrying that manufacturers would claim the safety of such devices without proper testing.)"

The phrasing of this paragraph is not very encyclopedic. Either appliances are safety-wired or they're not -- more details and proper citations are needed. Also, the last sentence is totally POV and somewhat weasel-worded; which manufacturers "claim" what kind of safety features for their devices? what testing was or wasn't used? LeaHazel : talk : contribs 17:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * highly dubious paragraph, i seem to remember it being mentioned somewhere that the bath mythbusters used was not connected to earth in any way which explains the RCD not tripping but also means that the electric fields in the bath would be fairly weak (since the only points that have anything to do with a cuircuit through the bath are all inside the hairdrier). Plugwash 00:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Suicide by cop?
"In order to commit suicide by cop, an individual behaves in a manner intended to provoke a law enforcement officer into use of lethal force against that individual."

I'm curious, how is it suicide if the cop is the one who does the lethal force? please discuss. 75.15.189.247


 * If you point what looks like a weapon at a police officer, he shoots. Innocent bystanders and other police officers can be killed if an officer doesn't shoot a madman who looks like he's going to fire a weapon at people.  They have little enough time and latitude in this decision-making process that they can reasonably be treated as a 'force of nature' in this respect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.7.244.243 (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
 * suicide, n.: 1) the intentional taking of one's own life. 2) a person who intentionally takes his or her own life. You could argue that the definition of suicide doesn't specify who does the killing and depends on the intention of killing yourself.--70.116.13.211 04:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the name of the "Suicide by cop" section be renamed to something like "Suicide by police officer". I think most people will consider "cop" to be slang for police officer (or similar law figure) and it sounds unprofessional.--70.116.13.211 04:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It does sound unprofessional but the phrase is well known enough that changing it wouldn't be an option. I've seen news reports who refer to suicidal people wanting a be killed by police offers as "suicide by cop". - Throw 04:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Links to external sites
A reader wrote to the Wikimedia Foundation (see OTRS) and pointed out that we have links to sites giving "how-to" indications for suicide, and contended we should not carry these links. What is your opinion? David.Monniaux 23:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate - as an general encyclopedia, it is appropriate to discuss what people do, but we have no business giving or even pointing to manuels for suicide. Aleta 23:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. David.Monniaux 00:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with the external links, as they are in line with WP:EL. Wikipedia is not censored, despite how many people don't like article X, image Y or link Z. Prolog 03:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming they don't actually contravene any Wikipedia policies (I'm relatively new here so might have missed something), I think I agree with Prolog. Not least because the ASH methods file is cited as a reference, so we'd actually have to take references out of an article with a big banner encouraging us to add them. Eve 11:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly dislike this article
it makes me sad that there is a compiled list of ways to commit suicide. I now must go think happy thoughts about penguins and sailboats.LIMEY 04:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Information isn't always pretty but it's always vital. - Throw 04:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * HA! Since when is it vital for somebody to be given a list of ways to kill themself? Seems pretty unvital to me. Seriously, I should start making more pages like this just to see how fast they get deleted. Because we all know that an article entitled "Methods of committing murder without getting caught" wouldn't last as long as this garbage... (Or would it?...) --Magus05 (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * except that methods of commiting murder without getting caught is an oxymoron, as if the method is known, then there will be evidence to look for that relates with said method. ( yes I am quite pedantic ) --Alphamone (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure
I am going to try and prove these methods of exacution. thank you for suggesting them. (jumping) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.80.177.50 (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Don't forget your hat. - Throw 04:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Asphyxia
I am going to move Carbon Monoxide as a subset of Asphyxia. While Carbon Monoxide poisoning can occur, it is actually the lack of oxygen (hypoxia) that kills the person in the case of suicide. It either asphyxiates or poisons and doesn't need it's own header. --Waterspyder 18:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion - 15th Feb 07
User Jprobinson has put a proposed deletion template on the article. According to the proposed deletion page, "Articles that have been previously proposed for deletion or undeleted, or discussed on AfD, are clearly contested and are not candidates for prod". This article has been nominated three times and each time was kept. In addition, there was no reason for deletion specified by Jprobinson. I have therefore removed the proposed deletion tag. I'm relatively new here and this is the first time I've dealt much with deletion requests, so if I've got proceedure wrong, then please let me know. Eve 19:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done, you did right. Prod can't be used under such circumstances. Thanks :) LinaMishima 01:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

suicides
just looking at this article make me want to commit suicide.--Nothing,no 19:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You might find this section of the main suicide page worth a look. Take care. Eve 21:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Need for this article?
Do we really need an article telling Wikipedians how to kill themselves? How many members have we already lost because of this? Drutt 21:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you exaggerate. Sure, there probably are examples of people that have taken this article in consideration before they choose witch method they will employ in their own suicide. But I don't think this page has spawn any suicide frenzy. It takes more then knowledge of suicide methods to commit suicide. Ssteinberger


 * Nevertheless, I cleaned up the article from unsourced material and how-to's as per WP:NOT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing so. MahangaTalk 20:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The damn shame is, none of them can tell us about it because of no original research. Comradeash 15:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Self-immolation section
I don't think we should have the list of people who've self-immolated in this article. There is an annotated list in the main article of that topic it. To reproduce it here seems just silly. If we list some, then which all do we list and why? If we list people who've burned themselves, then what about people who've committed suicide other ways? I think just a brief description of what it is, along with a link to the main article is sufficient. Aleta 18:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm glad you were bold and removed the list. MahangaTalk to me 02:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Rename Method -> Methods
One thing that seemed to come out of the recent AfD debate was a preference for the plural, i.e. calling the page 'Suicide Methods' rather than 'Suicide Method'. I agree, but since it was changed in the other direction relatively recently I thought I would check nobody objects before I moved it back. Eve 10:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No objection from me. --Ezeu 11:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Automobies, Animals, Blunt Objects, and Machinery
I have several new catergories that should be put into the article.

Cars: If someone were to drive there vehicle into or off something to kill themselves.

Animals: If somebody used a poisonous snake to kill themself, or jumped into a tiger pit.

Blunt Objects: If somone bashed in their own skull with a club, bat etc.

Machinery: If someone used machinery, such as a wood chipper, to kill themselves.

Please consider adding these to the article.


 * If you have sources documenting occasions when these methods have been employed, feel free to edit the article. However, it is badly sourced as it is, and I for one don't think it would benefit from the addition of ways people might have killed themselves.  Also, please sign your talk page comments using four tildes (~). GideonF 18:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I've heard of the first (did some woman drive off a cliff with her children some years back?); the third doesn't seem physically possible; the second seems more trouble than it's worth. But yeah, if you can find something written (or on TV) about how or more of these are used with some more-than-trivial frequency (I think at least a handful of suicides have been attempted/completed with any method), by all means add it. --zenohockey 05:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Dignitas
Recent edits added material on Dignitas (the Swiss assisted euthanasia group). This isn't a specific method, so I don't think it belongs here. But there isn't a page on Dignitas, so I'm going to move the material to a page of its own, and maybe try to find a few more references etc. Anyone object? There are two other articles on other types of dignitas, so I was thinking of "Dignitas (euthanasia group) as a title. Any better ideas?

The new edits also added a big pile of unreferenced material, I'm going to try and reference some of it, but may well remove some too - feel free to help (or tell me to get my grubby mitts off, if you think it shold stay). Cheers, Eve 13:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you on that point. Not only is it unreferenced, much of it reads as if written by a 14 year old on usenet. I'm not sure if those are the newer edits only, or if it's just an accumulation of plaque. I'd sooner see a smaller, more encylopedic article than a longer one of dubious quality. I'll make some edits on it over the next few days, but I mainly do removal, so if you think I've excised too much, add it back in with references/better writing. Detruncate 22:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This Is Just Plain Hilarious
It seems bizarre to actually TELL people how to kill themselves. Well, at least in an encyclopedia anyway. I found it amusing, since I was considering committing suicide some day - then I found like a "how-to" manual. LOOOOL! ON WIKIPEDIA?! Geeeee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.214.147.30 (talk) 01:39, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean - someone should probably get rid of that "instructions...how-to" bit at the top 58.174.252.29 13:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why can't those depressed little children just google a little before embarrassing themselves by eating a bottle of panadol, thats what *I* want to know Comradeash 13:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Starvation
Why isn't this here? There are many people who have killed themselves through starvation. Zachorious 21:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As a form of suicide? Such as who? Surely we aren't counting anorexics here. Comradeash 22:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Starvation hardly seems like a form of suicide. People who want to kill themselves want to die now, not in 2 weeks. - Throw 04:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, starvation has been used as a form of suicide: see hunger strike. It could be said, for instance, that Bobby Sands (an IRA prisoner who died while on hunger strike) committed suicide by starving himself to death. It should probably be mentioned here. Terraxos 04:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point. Thanks for the info on Sands. - Throw (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No productive discussion possible. Those who don't like this page, commiserate about it here.
There is clearly no productive discussion possible on the question of whether this page should exist. So let's have this subheading as a permanent place for those of us who believe that its creators should be ashamed of themselves and are probably psychotic (no, really; I believe hardly any of the arguments in favor of it are made sincerely) to express our anger. Dan Knapp 08:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This article has been nominated for deletion four times in two years. There's been more than enough discussion done on the merit of this article. Each time the argument has been made that this is vital information worth having. - Throw 00:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of us are neither insincere, psychotic nor ashamed. I second Throw's comments. Eve 15:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Accusing those you disagree with of being psychotic, especially when the general concensus is against your opinion, is hardly a way to start a productive discussion. --62.88.171.35 15:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So where's the wikipedia guide to bomb-building? Or how about the wikipedia guide on how to rob a bank? This is NOT useful information! The only time you would ever need to learn how to kill yourself is if you were actually going to kill yourself! This should be deleted, and it sickens me that it has survived 4 deletion nominations. --Magus05 (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Stub?
I removed the stub tag, and it's now reappeared. Might have been rolled back too far after vandalism, but just checking people agree it isn't a stub... Eve 18:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it just contains too little facts to be useful. Two or three sentences for each suicide method do not explain them enough. Which methods are the most popular? Which are the most effective? Which are the least painful? Qqqww 23:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Each section each may be brief, perhaps even too brief, but the article as a whole is much more than a stub. Aleta 00:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Appropriateness?
Is this article a good idea?  ♥ Fr  ed  il 
 * The consensus view after several deletion debates is yes. GideonF (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the deletion of this article would be motivated by point of view (presumably religious), rather than legitimate non-encyclopaedic reasons, it would be a bad idea. Google provides millions of pages describing methods of suicide, some written as how-tos or encouragements. Wikipedia not having the article would make no difference to the world, but would make a difference to our content and our NPOV principles. --Oldak Quill 15:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The "google has it, so we should too" reasoning is idiotic. You can find all kinds of illegal stuff like how to build bombs, and how to pick locks and so on using Google, but articles detailing those methods wouldn't last here would they? So why has this one? --Magus05 (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia is not censored.--WaltCip (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anybody who truly believes that is ignorant. --Magus05 (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? And please don't call people ignorant, that could be construed as a personal attack.--WaltCip (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe next time I should censor myself? Oh wait a minute... --Magus05 (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do. WP:NOT does not apply to users; it applies to the articles and their content. Instead, Wikipedians are expected to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Hurling insults does nothing for the encyclopedia.--WaltCip (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And an article on how to kill yourself does? Face it, this is a user contributed site. By censoring it's users you are censoring the site as a whole. --Magus05 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess it should read, "because one of the pages somewhere in Wikipedia states that Wikipedia isn't censored." On another note, I know that people think that you can stop your kids from killing themselves if you don't ever let them get educated about methods to kill themselves, but that logic is just really flawed.  If you really want to stop someone from killing themselves, you have to talk them through the hopelessness that they feel, not just ban articles that describe suicide techniques.  I personally think that if we put a lot more information on here, such as "success" rates, and more detail about each method, that it would end up reducing the suicide rate as a whole.  But that kind of stuff probably shouldn't be included on Wikipedia, because that kind of stuff doesn't get published because the public thinks that they're actually doing stuff (without really lifting a finger) by banning information about suicide. Fredsmith2 (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Too heavy?? I think so.
I just had a friend who quoted this website as to how he killed himself.. Can this actually be considered for deletion or severe editing?? I'm sure many, many people have referenced this site without telling anyone and have gone on to fulfilling their unfortunate desires... This article needs to be examined in a serious way...

Keep this in mind, I just lost a FRIEND based on this article!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.218.28 (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See above discussion... feel free to participate.  ♥ Fr  ed  il  23:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredil Yupigo (talk • contribs)
 * And the Columbine shooters shot up their school because of DooM; people are still playing it today. How about the influx of teenagers who claim to have shot their friends because of GTA? While I feel sorry for your friend, this article cannot claim the responsibility for the actions of others.--WaltCip (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference here is that there isn't a wikipedia page entitled "methods of using doom to train for a massacre". There is a page on suicide, there is a page on Doom. There is how how to guide for suicide, but not a how to guide for Doom. I've yet to anybody challange my questions and comments on this page. Can nobody come up with a logical reason for the existence of this page? --Magus05 (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mugging has a section on common methods also, does this make it a how-to guide? Quite simply, the answer is no. Similarly, a list of common methods of suicide is not a how-to guide, and indeed it lacks the sort of details required for it to be used as such. As has been already said, this and more detailed information would still be in place online if wikipedia did not exist. Wikipedia is in a unique position to actually detail the drawbacks to the methods concisely in one place. Aside from the obvious, entries really need details on actual processes involved (such as how OTS drug overdoses typically mean a slow death from liver failure), and the details of what happens if you survive. Also, methods for providing support could be integrated easily enough into the article. Additionally, you may also wish to see my |prior advice for the article. LinaMishima (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If the article included things like pain levels, failure rates, etc, I probably wouldn't be as concerned as I am with it. But the fact of the matter is, it doesn't - and it's been a year since those additions were suggested - with no work having been done. It still reads like a how to guide. And don't tell me to add that stuff. I disagree with this articles existence - those that think it deserves to be here should be making the effort to fix it, not me. --Magus05 (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to break it to you, but you probably lost a friend because of the extreme emptiness that he or she felt. It really didn't have anything to do with this article, even though this article may have been quoted by your friend.  The same thing happens when people use alcohol to kill themselves.  The alcohol wasn't the problem, the alcohol was just the vehicle.  The problem was something much more deep-seeded.  I'm really sorry about your loss, and I know some Wikipedia articles induce depression, but this one probably isn't all that influential. Fredsmith2 (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Question
How many of you have actually committed suicide because of this Wikipedia article?--WaltCip (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not me. --85.5.114.136 (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How many of us would actually be here if we did?  ♥ Fr  ed  il  17:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that talking about suicide actually leads to suicide. In fact, it's probably the opposite.  It's better to talk about stuff than keep stuff hidden. Fredsmith2 (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did, but I got better. Comradeash (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Addition to Intro
I added a small second paragraph at the introduction to briefly call attention to counseling and crisis hotlines. I believe it's relevant to the article, as well as useful in promoting options other than suicide. --Mr. Trustegious (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We need a reference for the "most do not act on them" part and for the official advice, so that we can properly keep wikipedia policies. Other than that, however, I thought it was a good idea for an addition! Well done! :) LinaMishima (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Those are pretty commonly known facts, I'm sure there are citations I could use from the other suicide related articles. --Mr. Trustegious (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove non-fatal wrist slitting percentage without citation
As far as I know there are no reliable sources indicating "success" rates of suicide. I did find a couple of other percentages thrown around by people on the internet, but found none that confirmed 1%. If there's no opposition, I think we should remove this until there's actually a reliable reference for the percentage. Fredsmith2 (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Change this entire article!
although this article isnt a "how to guide" and it mite not cause every suicidal person who reads to commit the act it is a very dangerous article and thus i vote it should be changed to a page of links to suicide helplines thank you. (86.46.65.115 (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC))


 * I bet you're one of those people who advocates putting warning labels on things like razors such as "danger: sharp" and perhaps a list of numbers you can call for first aid directions if you cut yourself shaving. Comradeash (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Da Bomb
I see a lot of unresponded comments about an article about bombs.

I actually fully agree, there should be an article on types of bombs, notable users, and their historical. I reciently saw an article on early thermal weapons, it was really quite informative. While this article certainly needs some more historical context, I see no reason for it to be deleted.

This article should be about documented methods of suicide, it could conceivably include statistics on attempts per year, even including success rates per attempt.

I would also recommend adding in at least one newscaster who committed suicide live. That certainly has a historical context and is quite relevant to this article. 24.239.112.179 (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought it was a politician. Comradeash (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Apology
I just checked my edit log. Seems like someone posted something negative here from my computer. :( 69.133.121.81 (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Easiest method
which one of these is the easiest method to kill myself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.85.31 (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete phone numbers
The hotline phone numbers in the first paragraph should be deleted, or moved to the External links section.

They violate a long list of Wikipedia guidelines:

WP:Disclaimers, WP:DIRECTORY, WP:NOT, WP:BIAS, WP:NPOV, and others.

I think that a link to the crisis hotline article suffices to inform suicidal Wikipedians visiting this page.

Yes, I am aware that this information could potentially save the life of a tiny number of individuals in the US, but it's not Wikipedia's job to "save the world". Otherwise the article cocaine would include a helpline for drug addicts, the article alcohol would include a helpline for alcoholcs and the article domestic abuse would include a helpline for abused women in the first paragraph.

I do think however, that this article should read less like a how-to guide and that unreferenced "advice" should be removed. But so should the numbers.

Who agrees? Cambrasa (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree on the numbers. I would think just leaving the crisis hotline article link up would be sufficient. Redrocket (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree about the numbers, I've removed them. Eve (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)