Talk:Suicide watch

Should suicide be referring
Should suicide be referred to as a "success" in the article text? Please comment. --150.134.66.98 10:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)ed to as a "success" in the article text? Please comment. --150.134.66.98 10:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It dependes: success of what or of whom?

I think that there is a bias in this entry inasmuch as it only takes a "medical" stance. To add a biopolitical one would be interesting - actually: mandatory, I think. This for several types of reasons: The first is that suicide watch is obviously related to a Panopticon-like set of principles and guidelines. The second is that, precisely because of this, it can clearly be used as a form of legal torture. The third - and I'm prepared to admit that this may be controversial - is that no individual should be forced to live when they do not want or see reasons to die, possibly /because/ of the very same reasons why they were institutionalized in the first place (think Bobby Sands, for example). To leave this unmentioned has the entry accept implicitly the institutional stance that suicide watch is only aimed at saving the lives of the watched persons and that this is acceptable/good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrisKelvin (talk • contribs) 13:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Why no exercise?
I've read that in Bradley Manning's case, he was prevented from doing exercise (even in his cell) while being on suicide watch. Given that exercise can be very beneficial in cases of depression, I wonder what the official justification was for this course of action. -- megA (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Wording
In your wording, you still assume that the good of the detainee is to continue living. Still paternalist. It is an anti-suicide POV. --Againme (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't assume that at all. The sentence in question refers to the practice being used for torture as opposed to being (in the opinion of the institution) for the good of the detainee. No opinion is being injected by the current wording. -- Fyrefly (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I see what you mean. --Againme (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

don't revert the epstein edit
It is primarily sourced, after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.205.123.176 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * However, the sources must be added to the article nonetheless, per WP:SOURCE. Thissecretperson (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It would actually be quite interesting to leave the Epstein edit for some time before reverting it back to normal... --Random IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.13.205 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Per talk page discussion on Epstein's page, information about his suicide should not be mentioned on this article yet, as there is still unconfirmed details. Thissecretperson (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, this "person other than Jeffrey Epstein" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suicide_watch&diff=910248081&oldid=910241320 was wrong and should indeed be reverted, but I couldn't help ROFLMAO. Belongs in anthology. (what a pity someone thought it should be suppressed instead, while it is all over the internet; pretty futile; NVM)
 * Gem fr (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2019
I think it is outrageous to phrase the first sentence in such a manner. Incredibly unprofessional, and greatly pains me, someone who attempts to be a rational truth seeker, to see. Detracts from the credibility of this beautiful project immensely. What was the thought process behind this? Horrible. NickPasch (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It was vandalism, and has been fixed now. – Thjarkur (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

This still hasn't been fixed. The page is administrative protected and the vandalism is still up. C0n0r97 (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Please check again now. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Argumentation
It seems obvious to me that this article needs a section on the argument for and against preventing people who want to take their own lives from doing so, as well as of what the criteria should be as to when a person should be put under suicide watch. It's all great and good explaining what suicide watch is, but it help much when it doesn't mention why it's a think in the first place. The natural conclusion is that when someone attempts suicide, it is because they want to die, so there should need to be specific arguments why suicide watch should be implemented to prevent the person from harming themself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearsca (talk • contribs) 00:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * suicide watch is a tool, we usually DON'T go into the rationale for using a tool (or not). We do somewhat cover the legal issue restricting/mandating the tool use, if any, but this will highly jurisdiction dependent. I think the the section you ask for belongs rather in suicide (already has a "prevention" section) and Suicide prevention Gem fr (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Any mention of Jeffrey Epstein?
He was on suicide watch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:412B:6300:7593:8388:139D:3F0A (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as we know Epstein wasn't on suicide watch when he died, and this article should list circumstances about people who were on suicide watch when they died. Unless further investigation proves otherwise, such info should not be added to the article yet. Thissecretperson (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It needn't mention Epstein at all, even if he was on suicide watch, as it would likely lend undue weight to a single recent event that is disproportionate to the topic as a whole. See WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. We need not edit every article on suicide whenever a suicide occurs. That would be dumb. We're not a newspaper that has to deliver the latest info of passing relevance to a subject. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)