Talk:Suicide methods/Archive 7

Concerns
This text was added by User:Jumes347

"One can accomplish death by eating, getting bit or take drugs which one is very allergic. Death normally occurs within minutes. Outcomes in those with exercise-induced anaphylaxis are typically good, with fewer and less severe episodes as people get older."

None of the sources in question mention suicide. Which makes this WP:OR. Jumes please explain? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

fixed, added still more references ;) --Jumes347 (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:MEDRS. We are not just looking for a 1965 case report. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * i also added: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073812000564 which is a deleted reference. wikipedia shall have this information, do you think not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumes347 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

yeah man, i help wikipedia, if you prefer censorship i can NOthing, i write on other wiki. if you want i give upJumes347 (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Voodoo death
How is this a method of suicide? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

did you read the golden bough? this method happens continuously. mate, at this point you are loosing a contributor, i cannot go against these censorships. i insert other rituals, which i consider encyclopedic and i quit--Jumes347 (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Suicide by illness
Although no reports have been released announcing this occurrence, there are fears that someone could potentially purposely get the Coronavirus in order to end their life. A Psychology Today report stated that from a sample of people interviewed, 9.2% considered obtaining the disease intentionally to kill themselves. Out of this same poll 50% were strongly to extremely depressed, and between 45%-65% had thoughts of suicide in the past month related to the disease. Reasons for increase include the lockdown, economic stress, and job loss. Professor Carl Weems, Bethany McCurdy and Mikaela Scozzafava, from Iowa State University and Professor Victor Carrion from Stanford University conducted a study suggesting fifty thousand to possibly even more than one hundred thousand suicides worldwide were connected the current pandemic. Their conclusion is that over 5,100 suicides might happen due to unemployment and more than 35,000 additional suicides due to loneliness/isolation. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.247.60.2 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that might happen, but it would be a dismal method given the very low mortality rate of the Corona virus. Nevertheless, I think the paragraph about "suicide by illness" should be expanded. Other illnesses besides HIV/AIDS could be realistic candidates for some people if they have sufficient mortality rates. 2.207.102.134 (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Must be deleted immediately
It is encouraging self-harm and will most likely fall into the hands of somebody young and vulnerable. There is no positive reason for this page to exist. Please take this page down to prevent the likelihood of suicide from people who attempt to seek it.
 * Please review the prior deletion discussions if you are considering re-nomination, and follow due process. Please remember to sign your posts.--Shantavira|feed me 13:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Your Life Matters
There is Help Need Help? Contact a suicide hotline if you need someone to talk to. If you have a friend in need of help, please encourage that person to contact a suicide hotline as well.

- Worldwide In general, if you're outside the US, numbers for your country are here: Help a friend - Befrienders Worldwide. You can also e-mail jo@samaritans.org to talk to someone or go to http://www.samaritans.org/how-we... to speak with someone.

- United States Call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255). Para español, llame al 1-888-628-9454.

- Canada Locate a crisis centre in your area and at The Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention (link to: https://suicideprevention.ca/nee...). For youth under 20, you can call the Kids Help Phone at 1-800-668-6868.

- India Visit AASRA or call their 24/7 helpline at +91-22-27546669 or +91-22-27546667. You can also e-mail aasrahelpline@yahoo.com.

- UK 116 123 (to reach the Samaritans in the UK) - France (33) 01 46 21 46 46 - Australia 13 11 14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul1243 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Suicide prevention phonenumber the Netherlands
Hi! I noticed that the suicide prevention phonenumber for the Netherlands is marked as "113". This is not correct and has been the reason for the completion of several suicides that could have been prevented, because people tried dialing 113, which does not exist. The correct phone number is 0800-0113. Please change this where mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:983:EDA9:1:E599:A202:1F6A:9B2C (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I could not find any mention of this on the page except in the photo of the railway crossing. While this is unlikely to be something that would be changed, it appears from the news articles and this site that 113 now works in the Netherlands and has done since early July. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Freezing to death
Why is this missing? It's not an outlandish thing. You can imagine someone has himself half a bottle of vodka, two or three sleeping pills, and goes out into the snow to die. In fact, I'm sure it has happened quite a bit (google "suicide by freezing"). 2.207.102.134 (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We would need a source for this. I seem to remember a famous Artic explorer did this. If you could reply with a source we can consider including, although dying from exposure to the cold is an unusual method, and the page is not expected to be a full list of methods. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Concern over related templates
Editors may wish to watch the related templates for suicide due to what may be point of view pushing involving incorrect descriptions, which was happening a few weeks ago. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

US statistics
I've been looking at the article with an eye towards the "random" selection of statistics from the US, and it's pervasive. We should be trying to reduce or replace US statistics with numbers for large regions. Asia's suicide rates are higher, but the word Asia does not appear in this article once. We should not be prioritizing American statistics over the rest of the world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

One little neutrality issue
Hi all wikipedians who, like me, are interested in the subject of suicide and suicide prevention. I believe that the preventative template at the beginning of the article, that asks readers to see Suicide prevention for information on methods of suicide intervention, is opposing the neutrality of any encyclopedia, not just Wikipedia. I exemplify my reason by saying that, no matter how positive this could be, if you accept it as an exception in this article, then there are tens of hundreds of articles with touchy and sensitive subjects that you need to put such preventative template on top of them. But we don't see such a thing. For example, on top of the article Addiction, you should put: For information on getting sober, see Addiction Intervention. Other subjects as an example include: Masturbation, Robbery, rape, etc. Now, some users might argue that such preventative templates are there in other languages. My answer their management could be different; not to mention that, some rules are fundamental and apply to all wikis, including neutrality. Also again, you cannot find such preventative statements in any encyclopedia other than Wikipedia. Thank you.Poorya0014 (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I noticed that you changed this without reference to the RFC above, I think this change would require a new RFC.... I have reverted this. PainProf (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this needs a RfC too Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * With regards to RFC, I disagree with the above RFC, like a few other users who had disagreed. Then yes, we need a new RFC, but the question is how to get users to see this discussion to have their opinion? tnx. Poorya0014 (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Academic perspective
A lot of the information in this article comes from an academic perspective, I feel it needs a section describing the rationale for the study of suicide methods from an academic perspective. I also think 'academifying' this article is a good way to balance uncensored from the legitimate concerns about the page. I think in essence at the moment simply providing the methods without an academic context violates POV too much the other way. PainProf (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Suicide methods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suicide_methods

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suicide_methods_(2nd_nomination)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suicide_methods_(3rd_nomination)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suicide_methods_(4th_nomination)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suicide_methods_(5th_nomination)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suicide_methods_(6th_nomination)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suicide_methods_(7th_nomination)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suicide_methods_(8th_nomination) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likeboas (talk • contribs)

Rules
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_disclaimers_in_articles

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.

Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view) or the laws of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted). However, because most edits are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may be visible to readers, for a time, before being detected and removed.

Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The Wikipedia:Offensive material guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive.

Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likeboas (talk • contribs)

Argument
'''Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view) or the laws of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted). However, because most edits are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may be visible to readers, for a time, before being detected and removed.'''

This article should be deleted because:


 * 1) violate Wikipedia policies (neutral point of view)
 * 2) violate the laws of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted)

This article encourages suicide.

The promotion of suicide is also prohibited under US law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likeboas (talk • contribs)


 * Sorry is this a general discussion or do you want to nominate for deletion. I think it's unlikely to pass though I understand and agree with many of your points. I don't think there is a US law that prohibits discussion of suicide methods. One way that week are trying to improve this article is to write it from a more academic perspective. The field of study of suicide methods aims to identify and restrict the access to the method itself or change legislation to make it more difficult which is an important topic. If you still want to nominate for deletion I can help you but I would probably vote for r retain or abstain. PainProf (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes. Thank you very much. Please help me nominate this malicious article for removal and poll. I do not know the process. Tell me how I should do it. I will also prepare strong reasons and arguments for this. I collect both US and Wikipedia laws that oppose this article. Even if it is not completely deleted, it can be summarized so that it is only very short in the introduction and in less than ten lines. It is really not right to teach dangerous practices in great detail. thank you so much.Likeboas (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * For what its worth I don't think this will be deleted. I have been surprised before, but history would suggest this will remain. I would focus more on improving. We have some gems like Jumping from height is the act of jumping from high altitudes. There is a lot of tidying up and trimming (especially of uncited and poorly formed sentences) that can be done and moving away from the list-like format to a more scholarly presentation and maybe even a name change could be beneficial. Not quite what you are after, but a more realistic outcome. AIRcorn (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)