Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

Template:Vital article

New content

Thanks User:Everymorning for the edits, new content and studies cited. Greatly improved the sections covered by your contributions! Shabidoo | Talk 22:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information available on drug overdoses 😔 Leonie Dee (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a support group for family members who have suffered the loss of a family member or is it for support for ppl feeling like committing suicide? Leonie Dee (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subject: Firearms; Paragraph 3, Sentence 5: “…circulation…suicide…” misspelled.

Subject: Firearms; Paragraph 3, Sentence 5: “…suicide…” misspelled as “…suicice…” and “…circulation…” misspelled as “…circulaton…”

full context: “The United States has both the highest number of suicides and firearms in _circulaton_ in a developed country and when gun ownership rises so too does _suicice_ involving the use of a firearm.[31]” — Preceding unsigned comment added by WTF Actual (talk • contribs) 22:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this America only? As I'm a Australian. Leonie Dee (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Leonie Dee (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should be not deleted

This encourages people to take kill themselves, the point of Wikipedia is to provide helpful, useful information not to tell them to commit suicide, so blame's on Wikipedia for 20% of the world's deaths!-- Template:Unsigned IP -->— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.177.210 (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our readers are not mindless infants who need to be protected or shielded from knowledge because of what they might do with it. We don't play kindergarten teacher and we don't censor objective, verifiable, reliable information presented in a neutral point of view...just because it makes some people uncomfortable or because they may use that information to make possibly questionable decisions. You have fundamentally misunderstood the "point" of wikipedia. Check out the five pillars of this project: WP:PILLARS Shabidoo | Talk 00:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The request is strangely worded (and misplaced), Shabidoo; but your response seems odd. First, I don't know why you are bringing up "mindless infants". Secondly, I checked out the five pillars and was struck by the possible relevance here of the fifth. -- Hoary (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Readers are not mindless infants. They can read the material provided and make their own conclusions about the topic and do what they want with it. Our role is not to protect people but to provide well sourced reliable information. We aren't kindergarten teachers censoring info deemed dangerous to the vulnerable.
As for the 5th pillar, I'm not at all sure what the 5th pillar has to do with censoring information. You ignore the rules to if they get in the way of making an article better. Not to align the article with an ideology or advocacy nor to deprive information from readers.Shabidoo | Talk 22:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On "mindless infants" (again!), "kindergarten teachers", and "an ideology or advocacy", Shabidoo, please see Straw man. Anyway, IP-who-posted-the-question, requests for deletion from Wikipedia are commonplace. They're ineffective if made on the article's talk page. If you want to have an article such as this one deleted, this is what you have to do. Note that the process is rather complex, that it requires persuasive reasoning and (normally) citation of policy, that for this article the process has been tried eight times already (here's the eighth), and that a ninth attempt will undoubtedly fail unless it cites facts and factors that haven't already been cited or is hugely more persuasive than any of the preceding eight. (Don't confuse "persuasive" with "impassioned": any sign of passion is likely to doom the attempt.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hory perhaps you should refer to the article Metaphor, might help you figure all this out. Shabidoo | Talk 23:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very possibly, Shabidoo, I am having trouble figuring all this out, whether because of incompetence in English, senility, retardation, or something else. In the meantime, rather than "metaphor", I'd venture "auxesis". -- Hoary (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we include consequences for ALL of the methods if someone fails to commit suicide as well as documented examples? OfficerAPC (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still shouldn't be up here, you still shouldn't assist suicide by giving someone a way to do it. I mean, come on. I personally have dealt with the urge and to be honest, I've asked multiple suicidal people and they agree that if they are told how, they would do it because it feels like ur telling them it's ok. Yes, they have a mind of their own but it dont work like normal, filled with sadness, hatred, despair, and death. Our mind is coruppte by what we are told. Think about that. NoReasontodie (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merged

I think Self strangulation and Hanging should be merged.101.178.163.19 (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. Not all people who hang themselves die from suffocation, there are other kinds of bodily trauma that lead to death. Also the two acts can be quite different in preparation and difficulties in implementation as well as the rate of death. Shabidoo | Talk 22:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh.. I see. I believe that hanging people die from suffocation.. Unless they are shot while they are being hanged.101.178.163.19 (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but no. Hanging can involve the breaking of the neck with death so rapid you don't have time to suffocate. In these cases...there is no actual strangulation but the rapid termination of the nervous system. Yes...most self hanging is strangulation...but not all of it and even if it is a simple hanging with no fall or jerk, the victim can still die first from other physiological symptoms before there is time to suffocate such as the closing of the carteroid artery and other affects of a change in blood flow to the head/brain. And there other indirect causes of death other than a simple lack of oxygen. Hanging is a method of suicide which can include strangulation but definitely not limited to it. Shabidoo | Talk 23:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

King of summer

First of all, this article isn't going anywhere. There is next to no chance it will be deleted or censored as it doesn't break any policies and a massive encyclopedia covers all major topics. If you have a problem with wikipedia's policies, I suggest taking it up with the community. Your attempted edit doesn't contribute to the content of the article, doesn't provide information or improve it but instead is instead is a debate on the ethics of not censoring information deemed offensive and theoretically "dangerous"...all in the middle of an article. Article pages are for improving the article, not policy debate. In fact, even on talk pages, general policies aren't up for debate...but are there for improving the article. We've covered your claims numerous times in other discussions here and on every occasion we follow wikipedia policies which back up our counter arguments. The policies aren't perfect but they are there for good reasons, reasons you would approve of in other articles you would deem essential that shouldn't be censored even though it offends "others" or are considered dangerous by "others". Hopefully you can contribute to the article and help improve it. Every article can always be improved. The policies however aren't going away. This article stays and will not be censored. Shabidoo | Talk 00:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2018

extended description to the carbon monoxide section needed [redacted] Mruczusmialkon (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per WP:NOTHOWTO. While this article is not censored, there's no need to directly provide an instruction manual. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


This article IS censored. Every one has the right to leave this world if one needs to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mruczusmialkon (talk • contribs) 13:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mruczusmialkon: That is not relevant. This is an encyclopaedia article not a how-to guide. Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2019

suicide is not the answer stop it right now and get help 197.156.95.19 (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Balkywrest (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't kill yourself everyone loves you, please seek help call 116 123! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.189.153.153 (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a great informative article with plenty of reliable sources. Specifically covers suicide methods as mentioned in the title and addresses many ways people commit suicides with good statistics to add more content to the article. If I could improve this article I would possibly suggest a section for controversy with certain methods of suicide and how it can be prevented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwarchng (talk • contribs) 17:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every method of suicide listed in the article should include consequences for failed suicide attempts. 9March2019 (talk) 03:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2019

very inappropriate do not commit suicide call the help line Itsyaboi121 (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

while I agree with your views, there is no edit requested DannyS712 (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2019

Please apply the reference changes specified in the following diff: [1] 79.168.3.237 (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done NiciVampireHeart 09:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! 79.168.3.237 (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2019

Please remove the following line again: 

''If you or anyone you know needs help, you can [[List of suicide crisis lines|talk to someone on a crisis help line in your country by clicking here]].''

It is a non-encyclopedic PSA that has already been removed once. [2] 79.168.3.237 (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done DannyS712 (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! 79.168.3.237 (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2019

This article can help people to kill themselfs. Why don't you take this article down? I mean... people don't have to know everything....? 87.97.33.124 (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Wikipedia is not censored --DannyS712 (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since we cannot censor this article, let's include consequences for failed attempts at suicide for EVERY listed method. 9March2019 (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In theory there is nothing wrong with doing that but your post gives the impression that you want to make these edits because of frustrations about not limiting information. Please keep the language neutral and please avoid using a tone that beyrays advocacy or anti-suicide campaigning. If you can find good sources for each and every method per their consequences and keep the text in reasonable proportion to the length of the methods themselves, I'm sure it would improve the article. Conversely if there are methods which have little to no documented consequences, it would be reasonable to write that text as well. Shabidoo | Talk 07:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote posted by MJL

I don't know which talk page consensus you are referring to. The hatnote is reverted because it violates several wikipedia policies including WP:NOTADVOCATE. No discussion on this talk page will change that and whenever the hatnote is posted on this article, it will be reverted. If you want the hatnote to stay, then you'll have to take this up with the community and convince them to change wikipedia's policies. The best way to do that is to go to the policy talk page and discuss this. Your chances of success are extremely small but you are welcome to try. Please direct your efforts to changing policy and not posting hatnotes that violate those policies. Shabidoo | Talk 15:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shabidoo: [Thank you for the ping] what on Earth are you talking about? Hddty. reverted me citing consensus on Talk:Suicide, and I rightfully pointed out that this is a different article. Also, nothing within that hatnote violated WP:NOTADVOCATE. It's patently absurd to say someone looking for information on suicide methods would not be served by having a hat note leading to List of suicide crisis lines.
I don't need to change Wikipedia policies to get put a hatnote up. Hatnotes are navigational tools. Someone on this page might want info on another page on the same type of topic. You'd have a point if the hatnote said "please don't kill yourself." but it didn't. The hatnote said For information on suicide prevention and crises hotlines, please see List of suicide crisis lines. which is just a custom implementation of {{Further information}}. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. The hatnote is an unambigious attempt to steer readers towards anti-suicide advocacy (a list of hotline numbers...come on really?). It is not a "hey by the way you might be interested in this info" it's a very badly veiled message of "hey if you are considering suicide here is a list of numbers you should call who will provide you the help you need". It breaks policy. And the substance of this article hasn't changed. Most certainly NOT enough to justify reopening this debate which has been done numerous times and always results in the same answer. A reach-around attempt to evade policy won't work. Shabidoo | Talk 19:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer pings btw There has never been discussion on this article's talk pages about the inclusion of a hatnote. The idea came about from this RFC. I see no policy reason why to justify your position (especially calling this a reach-around attempt to evade policy).
Your stance fails to hold water in even the slightest sense of the phrase. You've positioned this debate as me pushing some sort of "anti-suicide advocacy" as if it was a cheap political opinion I held. It's very clearly not. This is simply about informing readers about some of our other bits of content (ie. the purpose of hatnotes). To do otherwise at this point is a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED on your part by premising this position off nonexistent consensus.
I'm fully prepared to seek out whatever method of dispute resolution is needed to wider input on this hatnote because I know I'm right here.
I'll end on this note: If the proposed hatnote has the effect of making even one person reconsider ending their life, so what? Them dying does not further our goals of building an encyclopedia. It's a good thing for them to be alive in all likelihood. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to waste people's time then go for it, it certainly won't be the first time you've brought people into a process that is a foregone conclusion. Your hatnote will not pass any "dispute resolution" process you try. That hatnote is totally bogus but good luck in any case. Shabidoo | Talk 12:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I started the RFC below. I was surprised at your choice to abstain from pinging me as preferred, but I am even more surprised that you seem to suggest some personal animosity towards some past action I have taken. I do not see how that adds anything to the discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Hatnote at top

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
TL;DR: A consensus exists to add a hatnote to the article linking to Suicide prevention. Details are below.

Going to close this one too, as I closed the main Village Pump RFC where I found a consensus to add Suicide prevention to the main Suicide article hatnote, it likely makes sense for me to do this one as well.

Discussion here was not as extensive, nor were the numbers as clear as the Village Pump discussion, but the arguments were similar to the other discussion, with a key difference here, in that the main article already had a hatnote, where this currently has none. Another difference here is that WP:RELATED was not referenced, as far as I can see, in the Village Pump RFC.

I've considered this, among the other opposing arguments in my close, however weighing the discussion here and the rationales given (along with the broader RFC result at VPR), I do find a consensus here for inclusion of a hatnote linking to Suicide prevention (but not to List of suicide crisis lines)

Now, onto implementation. Not all of those supporting an alternative hatnote have been specific in which version of the alternative hatnote should say. From my reading of the discussion in #Alternative hatnote, the version "For information on methods of suicide intervention, please see: Suicide prevention" appears to have the most support from the options given. So in this close, I will implement that option.

However, if further conversation here post-close determines that the hatnote should be differently worded, editors here are free to implement a proposed alternate version. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 16:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Should a neutrally worded hatnote directing users to List of suicide crisis lines be added to this page? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion(s)

In the above section, there are claims made that this hatnote violates Wikipedia's policies. The hatnote reads as thus:

I obviously disagree as this makes no mention of the reader committing to any specific action. It just provides a list of resources.
Separately, the situation on Talk:Suicide is different, but it may have some bearing on this RFC. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. It violates WP:RELATED. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Support inclusion of a hatnote to "suicide prevention" (Summoned by bot) there is a reasonable chance that this could help someone. It's a violation of RELATED, but IAR if it helps someone not commit suicide. signed, Rosguill talk 18:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC) 16:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what the hatnote is designed to achieve. It's not about providing resources its about activism. Thanks for illustrating the point many users have made countless times. Shabidoo | Talk 23:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rosguill the best avaliable evidence does not support or refute a benefit of crises lines. Per the Lancet paper "Thus far, the evidence of telephone and internet intervention effectiveness is rather scarce and of low quality. Rapidly increasing utilisation of information and communication technologies in suicide prevention requires research assessing their efficacy" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of this, thanks for pointing it out. signed, Rosguill talk 16:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OBVIOUS NO The hatnote is a clear attempt to sneak around policy under the bogus excuse of "providing resources" when in reality it is a total disclaimer meant to direct suicidal people to suicide hotlines and is not about the convenient navigation to other information. It's already in the see also section. This violates multiple policies, not just WP:RELATED since it isn't at all a hat note directing readers who might be confused or lost per the title of the article but a redirect to stop users from hurting themselves but also WP:ADVOCACY which violates WP:NPOV. Wikipedia doesn't do disclaimers or warnings or prevention in general because drawing the line is impossible and we can go from "simply obvious warning" to very subjective advocacy in no time. That's why this policy is here. In an ideal world there would be a clear disclaimer at the top. Advocacy invites a slippery slope and the community has rejected it for obvious reasons. Shabidoo | Talk 23:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's so interesting to me that holding the opinion that people should avoid killing themselves (which is supported by WP:RS) somehow makes me an anti-suicide advocate. I'm just a Wikipedia editor trying to ensure people get to the right page is all. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This violates multiple policies. My opinion or your personal interests are irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabidoo (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's generally considered poor form to edit your comments after the fact.[3] For the record, I originally responded to this. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to "suicide crisis lines" But would support neutrally worded hatnote to "suicide prevention". Evidence for crisis lines is really poor. There is stuff for which there is evidence and we can link to suicide prevention were it is discussed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)
Also I note that WP:IAR is improving or maintaining Wikipedia with no mention of Wikipedia being an encyclopaedia. Inclusion clearly violates even WP:HERE and everything else, but in this page I think all are overridden. --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No As much as it pains me to say it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven: Any particular reason? It'd help the closer with assessing consensus. I'll note that we are also workshopping an alternative hatnote below, so you are welcome to review that conversation as well and, if you think there is something worth supporting there, adjusting accordingly. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many, some of which will cause some offense. One answer would be wp:not, which I feel this violates in an number of ways.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]



Alternative hatnote

@Doc James and Rosguill: Would that be a sufficiently worded hatnote? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a little redundant to say suicide prevention twice. We could just do:
I also like saying please because it's more formal. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find the meaning of "suicide intervention methods" a little unclear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is "methods of suicide intervention?" better? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think "methods of suicide intervention" is the best wording suggested so far. signed, Rosguill talk 19:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The result would be:
Is that a best alternative? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality would require the inclusion of a similar note on the suicide prevention article directing users here GideonF (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah would oppose a hatnote from suicide prevention to here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FALSEBALANCE –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want it because it's encyclopedically relevant, then the relevance is symmetrical. If you want it because you personally hold anti-suicide beliefs that you want to promote, that would be a violation of WP:SOAPBOX GideonF (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the necessary hatnote from here, I think the term "suicide intervention" is clear enough, and seems to be the current term. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks User:DGG will support that wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak support Whilst I support either hatnote in principle, I dont understand the argument based on weak evidence for crisis lines (this type of evidence is extremely difficult to develop in medicine, and will always have poor generalisability worldwide). Furthermore, if you extending that argument there is no evidence I have heard of to link a suicidal person to how society manages suicidal intervention and prevention. If that suicidal person doesn't have access to those things, such as being in a remote area or low income nation, it could in my limited opinion could also have unintended consequences as well and I would suggest a suicidal prevention expert's input here. But I certainly prefer weak evidence and expert opinion/common practice (ie. to crisis lines) to what might have no evidence. Also if this second hatnote has consensus suicide prevention and suicide intervention needs a far more global viewpoint / rewrite. --[E.3][chat2][me] 19:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Crisis line concerns

  • I’m not offering a vote here, as I’m not an editor (obviously), but I want to suggest that those of you who think some version of this hatnote is “Morally and ethically right to do so regardless of our policies.”… might want to reconsider that position.
These “suicide crisis lines” are often used to pull people into a system that wishes to profit off their distress (no matter how minor):
“Expected to keep beds full, former admissions workers from three UHS hospitals said they learned how to turn even passing statements that people made during assessments into something that sounded dangerous.”
And they use various “involuntary commitment” laws such as California’s “5150”, “5250”, and “5350” laws:
“Under California Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) 5150, an individual can be placed (involuntary) to a locked psychiatric facility, for an evaluation for up to 72 hours …. If, after a 72-hour hold, an individual is deemed to still be a danger to others or themselves, or is gravely disabled, WIC 5250 permits for an individual to be involuntarily held (in a locked psychiatric hospital) for another 14 days. A 5350 hold … is initiated at the end of 5250 / 14-day hold. … (Accessed 2019-08-26)
… to deprive people (who have committed no crime) of human, civil, and constitutional rights, without due process of (criminal) law. Your own “suicide intervention” page already documents this:
“Most countries have some form of mental health legislation which allows people expressing suicidal thoughts or intent to be detained involuntarily for psychiatric treatment …”
Getting caught up in these systems causes significant trauma to people (who are already suffering), and it also leads to increased rates of suicide:
“ … the postdischarge suicide rate was approximately 100 times the global suicide rate during the first 3 months after discharge and patients admitted with suicidal thoughts or behaviors had rates near 200 times the global rate.”
Encouraging people to call these “suicide prevention hotlines” is putting them at significant risk of (additional) trauma, and loss of life and liberty.
So I will suggest that you should not violate your WP:ADVOCACY policy, because your advocacy may well do harm (in addition to not being encyclopedic).
If you are going to violate that policy, however, you should then consider your WP:NPOV policy, and include information about the risks and consequences of calling these “suicide crisis hotlines,” not just an explicit or implicit endorsement of calling them. --69.122.39.162 (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP, does that mean you would prefer the alternative hatnote? It would read For information on methods of suicide intervention, please see: Suicide prevention. and not mention crisis lines whatsoever. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, any such link would also have to have a reciprocal link from the “suicide prevention” page. (which would bring on all sorts of “are you mad” type accusations, of course…)
And of all the suggestions, the one from Rockstone (“This article is about….”) strikes me as the most neutral in terms of wording.
However, as far as I understand the polices and what I’ve seen elsewhere on Wikipedia, that’s still very questionable in terms of advocacy vs. being encyclopedic -- which the reciprocal link makes much more obvious, given people’s natural emotional attachment to this issue.
The “suicide prevention” page also needs to be expanded to include the views of the likes of Thomas Szasz and his students (that suicide is a right), Michael Foucault (that “prevention” is a form of social control), especially Jerome Motto (as above, that suicide actually can be prevented and in a non-coercive way) and others with dissenting views of the modern practice of psychiatry. I’ve seen “controversies” sections on some Wikipedia pages, so something like that perhaps. But I digress…. --69.122.39.162 (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We've phased out controversy sections awhile ago (but not every article has gotten rid of them). It's generally preferred to include dissenting viewpoints throughout the article now (if not considered WP:FRINGE; ie published in WP:RS). You're welcome to discuss improvements to that article at Talk:Suicide prevention as you see fit, but I thank you for your participation here! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear:
  1. Admissions assessments in a certain number of for-profit hospitals in the US are different from independent non-profit helplines (or, for that matter, admissions assessments in public hospitals, as is usual in most of the developed world).
  2. The fact that people discharged after a suicide attempt have a higher suicide rate than average is because your sample is now exclusively of people who have already come to a point where they've attempted suicide. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 01:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to:
1. There are various reporting requirements for people “deemed a danger to … themselves” which no doubt vary by jurisdiction, and which may or may not apply to any given crisis line. If you can truly maintain anonymity (which you really can’t on a PTSN phone system) when calling these helplines and already know enough not to take their likely advice to call 911, you might be safe. Might be.
2. The sentence I quoted above specifically identifies “…patients admitted with suicidal thoughts or behaviors … “ as having a more elevated risk (200x) than other patients (100x). This indicates that the hospital, its staff, the laws they operate under (and typically endorse), and the experience of losing your liberty are, in fact, responsible for a large fraction of the elevated risk. --69.122.39.162 (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the IP. We really need evidence around the utility of these numbers. If there was evidence that they decreased the risk of death that would sway my opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that the decision of whether to post resources should depend entirely upon waiting for a series of comprehensive meta-studies. This strikes me as a case where we want to make a good, interim decision on the basis of suggestive, if incomplete, information. Doc James, you note that the Lancet meta-study just doesn't indicate effectiveness one way or another--they didn't have enough studies to draw a conclusion, since out of the 1797 they initially looked at, and of the 144 they analyzed in the meta-study, only a few dealt with crisis hotlines. Those that did, like the Gould et al study., suggest that the lines do in fact help. But beyond the question of what several future studies and eventual meta-studies might show in the next several years is what we want to do in the meantime. I'd think that the level of evidence currently present suggests that lines are in fact helpful, and if research shows evidence that they aren't a net benefit, that can be revisited and edits made to the page again.

SSiy (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • How can you possibly claim a consensus exists for inclusion?GideonF (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was a well reasoned close. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is blatantly false to claim there is a consensus.GideonF (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I feel I have outlined my reasons, in conjunction with the other RFC too where I outlined the reasons editors have given to support the hatnote and oppose it in more detail, that I find a consensus to add this hatnote. I am offline for the next 48 hours, but I would ask that if the result of the RFC is disagreed to by either involved editors, or uninvolved editors, to follow standard processes to dispute the close (being a discussion at the Admin Noticeboard) and would discourage, as always, edit warring to implement or revert the outcome of this RFC. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 11:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • You have not begun to explain by what possible criteria 8:6 could possibly be regarded as a consensus.GideonF (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • It seems to me that he's factoring in the larger-scale consensus at the Village Pump RfC in his closure of this one. I'm not a fan of the final decision - I voted against inclusion in both RfCs, and my opinion that the hatnote is inappropriate has not changed - but at the same time, I don't think he's completely off-base taking account of the result of a closely-related discussion as a matter of precedent. Gimubrc (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • The larger VP RFC being factored in is especially problematic considering that "Another difference here is that WP:RELATED was not referenced, as far as I can see, in the Village Pump RFC." I typically don't stick my nose to RFCs just to point out very obviously related guidelines we already have. Apparently I should. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The RFC conclusion above also ignores the references I posted showing that “suicide prevention” and the way the psychiatric profession handles it are *ACTIVELY HARMFUL*. So not only is the hatnote activism and non-encyclopedic, it is counterproductive to the (presumed) goals of that activism. I would suggest that what you might “want to do in the meantime” is to not risk causing additional harm. (my IP has changed, but I’m 69.122.39.162 above) --24.146.197.26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a missing method

There doesn't seem to be any mention of the method whereby one attaches one or more weather balloons to themself launches themselves into the atmosphere whereby they suffocate from lack of oxygen at high altitude. Which section ought this one to appear under? Rebroad (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • What are the sources for the use of this method? If this is actually used with any kind of regularity it would belong under suffocation; however, if it's something that has only happened once it's probably more suited to List of unusual deaths than to this article.GideonF (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why were my edits reverted?

Why were my edits re drinking (water and alcohol), jumping from height and being killed by a train removed? It took me a long time to find the sources for them etc, and it's rather frustrating to have done all that work providing useful information for nothing.ACCH (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With the possible exception of the paragraph about drinking, I can't see how my edits were relevant to biomedical information. ACCH (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Than see WP:RS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hotline

On this page and all others about suicide at the very top above anything about problems with the page should be something along the lines of “if you or a loved one is having thoughts of suicide or hurting themselves or others please call the suicide hotline at 1-800-273-8255“ Likebeingawesome (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Likebeingawesome: I tried having something less overt than that (See this conversation and this archived request for comment). Consensus was against my moderate proposal linking to List of suicide crisis lines (Remember, there are other people who read Wikipedia outside the United States). It's unlikely that this proposal would go anywhere, and I have already extensively discussed it with other editors here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

This text was added by User:Jumes347

One can accomplish death by eating, getting bit or take drugs which one is very allergic.[1][2] Death normally occurs within minutes.[3] Outcomes in those with exercise-induced anaphylaxis are typically good, with fewer and less severe episodes as people get older.[4]

References

  1. ^ Sampson HA, Muñoz-Furlong A, Campbell RL, et al. (February 2006). "Second symposium on the definition and management of anaphylaxis: summary report—Second National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease/Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network symposium". The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 117 (2): 391–7. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2005.12.1303. PMID 16461139.
  2. ^ Tintinalli, Judith E. (2010). Emergency Medicine: A Comprehensive Study Guide (Emergency Medicine (Tintinalli)). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies. pp. 177–182. ISBN 978-0-07-148480-0.
  3. ^ Simons, FE; Ardusso, LR; Bilò, MB; El-Gamal, YM; Ledford, DK; Ring, J; Sanchez-Borges, M; Senna, GE; Sheikh, A; Thong, BY; World Allergy, Organization. (February 2011). "World allergy organization guidelines for the assessment and management of anaphylaxis". The World Allergy Organization Journal. 4 (2): 13–37. doi:10.1097/wox.0b013e318211496c. PMC 3500036. PMID 23268454.
  4. ^ editor, Mariana C. Castells (2010). Anaphylaxis and hypersensitivity reactions. New York: Humana Press. p. 223. ISBN 978-1-60327-950-5. Archived from the original on 2016-12-23. {{cite book}}: |last= has generic name (help)

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)[reply]


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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Voodoo death

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


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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2020

Meep moop boop (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Meep moop boop:  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GoingBatty (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.[1] 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.[2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.247.60.2 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Text

Not sure why this was removed "People who attempt suicide and survive may experience serious injuries, such as broken bones or brain injury.[3] These injuries can have long-term effects on their health.[3] In the United States approximately 8% of suicide attempts result in death.[4]"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/opinion/coronavirus-parties-herd-immunity.html
  2. ^ https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/slightly-blighty/202004/study-some-may-seek-die-suicide-covid-19
  3. ^ a b "Preventing Suicide |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC". www.cdc.gov. 11 September 2019. Retrieved 2 October 2019.
  4. ^ Conner, Andrew; Azrael, Deborah; Miller, Matthew (3 December 2019). "Suicide Case-Fatality Rates in the United States, 2007 to 2014". Annals of Internal Medicine. 171: 885. doi:10.7326/M19-1324. PMID 31791066.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Summarizing the lead

Poorya0014, regarding this? It was a poor summary. Per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to summarize the article. Your addition also had grammar issues.

Propose content in your sandbox so that editors can review and tweak it. I might also bring WP:Med into this.

Please don't WP:Ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to grammar, you are right and I accept it has language issues that need to be revised by native speakers, as I am not a native speaker. With regards to just putting the summary of the article in the lead, I can say I have seen article leads that have a little bit more information in them than just the summary of what's been said already in the article. With regards to creating a discussion so people can opine, I don't know how to as I am not familiar with the process here in English wiki. Can you please help me? If i just simply write it in the talk page, then that way I don't know how to make that discussion visible to more people or how I can invite them to discuss and reach a consensus. Thanks.Poorya0014 (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My lead

For those who want to discuss my lead as mentioned above, here the lead that I wrote, which was reverted by User:Flyer22 Frozen:

A suicide method is any means by which a Suicidal person uses to purposely end their own life. Suicide is a phenomena present in the history of humans and different methods have been developed to achieve it. However, choosing some methods or wrongfully enacting any method, could cause long-term, sever, and sometimes, irreversible damages to the body organs such as the brain and bones.[1] In the United States of America, only %8 of suicide attempts lead to death [2] Because of this and for reducing such damages from unsuccessful suicide attemps, some advocates of suicide and pro Right to die groups, by scientifically and statistically examining various methods of suicide, have tried to find a method to help suicidal people, including those who are diagnosed wit a Terminal illness, or any other person who wishes to take their life while mainlining their dignity, have this option to do it in the most humane and easiest way; a way by which they undergo the least amount of pain and suffering. For example, Dr. Philip Nitschke, a pro right to die Australian physician, in his book, The Peaceful Pill Handbook, after reviewing different methods of ending one's life and the legal aspect of it, explains the advantages and disadvantages of each method based on factors such as reliability and peacefulness. According to his estimates and others, such as Derek Humphry, the author of Final Exit, Inert gas asphyxiation by using a Suicide bag is one these easiest and most peaceful methods of ending one's life.[3] Since a person may only want to attract attention, but not really take their life, authors such as Geo Stone, an American pharmacologist, in his book "Suicide and Attempted Suicide"[4], after discussing one's freedom to chose the way of their death, explains different suicide methods and discusses some safe and secure methods to just make this action look like suicide.[5]
  1. ^ "Preventing Suicide |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC". www.cdc.gov. 2019-09-11. Retrieved 2020-02-10.
  2. ^ Conner,, Andrew;; Deborah;, Azrael,; Matthew, Miller, ((3 December 2019)). "Suicide Case-Fatality Rates in the United States, 2007 to 2014". Annals of Internal Medicine. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/plastic-bag-gas
  4. ^ Stone, Geo (1999). Suicide and Attempted Suicide (PDF). {{cite book}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)
  5. ^ http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/further-reading
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suicide_methods&oldid=969408952