Talk:Self-harm/Archive 1

message: I've added a psychology section. It still needs a lot of work, but I hoped by putting it online in the present form it might encourage others to contribute. 
The original article contained only the answer to the question: What is it? I wanted to add: Why?
:Good work.  I've done a quick copy edit and added a bit more.  My additions need checking - I'm not neutral on this subject, although I have tried to be here of course. -- sannse 21:03, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  older entries 

message: Should something be said about songs inspired by self injury? 
I know that "Tourniquet" by Evenessence, "Hurt by NIN" "Bleed Like me" by Garbage (maybe the most obvious)  and Bad Habit Song by The Dresdon Dolls at least refrence self injury. 
self-injury.net has a list of self injury songs.
The list is getting quiet long, rather that any song that mentions SH would it be best to restrict this to songs where is it a main theme? Nate1481 02:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - judging by  this list could get quite long. If people think a full list is worthwhile, perhaps a new article could be made. I agree that for this article, the list should kept to the main ones. Mdwh 03:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly disagree wikh having music of any kind in the article. Popular references to self-harm are probably not what a person wants to know about when they look up the self-harm article. Maybe we could split it into a sub-article? I am also removing the S.A.F.E. link in the treatment section of the article. They already have a link in the external links section. Cedars 23:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The link is a good idea, i was tyring to cut it down to a just a few songs that were relevent but no one seemed interesed in helping, just adding more. 
===list===
Currently unassgined:
*Cannibal Corpse - Disfigured
*The Dresden Dolls - Bad Habit, Girl Anachronism
*The Foo Fighters - Razor
*Garbage - Bleed Like Me
*The Used - Let It Bleed
*The Organ - There Is Nothing I Can Do
*36 Crazyfists - Slit Wrist Theory
*Plumb - Cut "Relief exists I find it when I am cut"
*Three Days Grace - Pain
*Murderdolls - Slit My Wrist
*Goo Goo Dolls - Iris
*Jack Off Jill - Strawberry Gashes, When I Am Queen
*Panic! at the Disco - I Constantly Thank God for Esteban
*Katy Rose - Lemon
*Metallica - Lone Man's Lyric ("My eyes seek reality/ my fingers seek my veins.")
*Taproot - Poem
*Linkin Park - Part of Me
MAJOR
*G.G. Allin - Abuse Myself
*Nine Inch Nails - Hurt (Also known as a cover by Johnny Cash)
*Papa Roach - Last Resort
*16 Volt - The Cut Collector
*Hawthorne Heights - Ohio Is For Lovers
Minor
*Smashing Pumpkins -  Today "Pink ribbon scars that never forget / I tried so hard to cleanse these regrets"
*Eminem -  Stan
*This Day & Age - Sara, Poor Sara
*And Then I Turned Seven - If You Live By The Sword, You Die By The Sword
Also would a table be sencible in the article? Headings such as Name, artist, key lyrics(link?) or is this going to take over the article and this be more apropreate as a sub? Nate1481 23:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Music

message: Currently unassgined:
*Cannibal Corpse - Disfigured
*The Dresden Dolls - Bad Habit, Girl Anachronism
*The Foo Fighters - Razor
*Garbage - Bleed Like Me
*The Used - Let It Bleed
*The Organ - There Is Nothing I Can Do
*36 Crazyfists - Slit Wrist Theory
*Plumb - Cut "Relief exists I find it when I am cut"
*Three Days Grace - Pain
*Murderdolls - Slit My Wrist
*Goo Goo Dolls - Iris
*Jack Off Jill - Strawberry Gashes, When I Am Queen
*Panic! at the Disco - I Constantly Thank God for Esteban
*Katy Rose - Lemon
*Metallica - Lone Man's Lyric ("My eyes seek reality/ my fingers seek my veins.")
*Taproot - Poem
*Linkin Park - Part of Me
MAJOR
*G.G. Allin - Abuse Myself
*Nine Inch Nails - Hurt (Also known as a cover by Johnny Cash)
*Papa Roach - Last Resort
*16 Volt - The Cut Collector
*Hawthorne Heights - Ohio Is For Lovers
Minor
*Smashing Pumpkins -  Today "Pink ribbon scars that never forget / I tried so hard to cleanse these regrets"
*Eminem -  Stan
*This Day & Age - Sara, Poor Sara
*And Then I Turned Seven - If You Live By The Sword, You Die By The Sword
Also would a table be sencible in the article? Headings such as Name, artist, key lyrics(link?) or is this going to take over the article and this be more apropreate as a sub? Nate1481 23:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: list

message: When referring to a group of people who share a behaviour pattern, it is best to stay PC and say 'people who self-harm' or 'those who self-harm'; it is wrong to label them 'self-harmers', just as it is old-fashioned to force people to be 'disabled people' when they are in fact people first, with certain disabilities second.
I'm not interested if you think this is 'political correctness gone mad' - i'm stating the very best way to relate to people without causing offence or labeling them forever as 'something'.
Yes, people who self harm may well refer to themselves as self-harmers, and those within the community are welcome to self-define as they wish, it is the same as when one person uses the word 'nigger' and that's fine, and when another person uses the word 'nigger' and it sounds wrong.
Agent Alpha
=== 'Self-Harm' ===
Is it correct to refer to: self harm, or self-harm?  Do we care a lot?
:Self-harm though self-injury I think is more common.--Unopeneddoor 22:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-harm. -slunky
Is self-biting a word?? DinB 20:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think any contraction is resonable. Where I've used it in the definition section, the terms in the list are as they are in the journal article cited. (apart from hair pulling - which I've actually just moved to a seperate bullet for this reason). Acidsaturation 22:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Self-Harmers' 

message: Is it correct to refer to: self harm, or self-harm?  Do we care a lot?
:Self-harm though self-injury I think is more common.--Unopeneddoor 22:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-harm. -slunky
Is self-biting a word?? DinB 20:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think any contraction is resonable. Where I've used it in the definition section, the terms in the list are as they are in the journal article cited. (apart from hair pulling - which I've actually just moved to a seperate bullet for this reason). Acidsaturation 22:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Self-Harm' 

message: Unfortunately the person who merged the article with this one forgot to move the discussion/talk-page to here. I wanted to post on that discussion page to say that I'm not able to improve that now-non-existant article (or the part of this self-harm article about self-harm to private places) within the coming few years. And I wanted to say that anyone should feel free to delete anything that was written by me. Thanks for doing just that!
I even haven't had the courage to see what was left of the self-harm to breasts and sexual organs article until right now. Right now, I just checked this article (self-harm) searching for the words "sexual organs". It just has two sentences about it, just the thing we, wikipedia.org can back up with sources and the only info that should be in an encyclopedia about self-harm to private places. I think the way it has been merged is very professional (even if it doesn't seem a big deal to merge just two sentences). And I'm sure the two sentences that "survived" the merge are absolutely correct (heard from many people first-hand stories telling me just what's in the article).
My compliments!!!!!!!!!! Hehehe, I must be a little overenthusiastic right now. :-D
Thanks again. I think I will work on the schizotypal personality disorder article maybe. It evokes much less fierce feelings, and it is even comforting and kind of soothing to write about that, and there's loads of good info about that on the web. (Hmm, maybe I will end up with the same problem when I try to improve the schizotypal personality disorder article. I'll think a few weeks about it, before starting again an article full of personal research and even some personal experience. Sorry about that in the self-harm to private places article. I won't write articles when I'm hyperemotional, drunk, or tripping on LSD, hehehe.
Greetings,
Paulus/laudaka (add me to your YIM/AIM/ICQ/M$N M contact list if you like!) Laudaka's talk page 14:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  self-harm to breasts and sexual organs 

message: Regarding:
"In New Zealand, more females are hospitalised for intentional self-harm than males. Females more commonly choose methods such as self-poisoning that generally are not fatal, but still serious enough to require hospitalization."
I don't believe there's much value in quoting specific stats like this, and although it appears fact based, there's a leaning towards bias with the insinuation that people are trying to come close to suicide without actually dying; do you see what I mean? Can we just delete this superfluous para?
:I agree. It is unclear whether these statistics are based on self-harmers who are hospitalised, or those people who attempt suicide. Furthermore, I don't see that the earlier statistics ("The average European rate of self-harm and attempted suicide") tell us anything useful about rates of self-harm, since they group self-harm together with attempted suicide. Although many people who attempt suicide are also self-harmers, it is not true that self-harmers are likely to attempt suicide. I fear that this section just perpetuates the myth that self-harmers are likely to go on to commit suicide, and ignores the fact that many if not most self-harmers do not require hospitalisation.
:It would be nice to have some statistics on self-harmers in general, or if not, I think it should be made clear that statistics based on those hospitalised probably only represent a small proportion of all self-harmers. Mdwh 01:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: Does anyone know the corospondig American statistics to the European ones printed?
### No I don't sorry; more research needed then? Stats are incredibly poor anyway, I have little faith in numbers regarding this hidden affliction. 
Can you contact the American Clearing House and see if they know? Is there a national Suicide Helpline that may record stats of people calling about self harm? ###
: Not unless they record stats which differentiate between intentional suicide attempts and SI. Remember that suicidal thoughts and SI may be co-occurant, but are not mutually exclusive. I also have little faith in statistics at this time. I feel SI is where anorexia was 20+ years ago and still too taboo even for professionals, except for those on the "cutting edge" (pardon the pun). over a decade ago I didn't even know there was a name for it and thought I was the only one. Kids today are more fortunate, but we are still a long way from reliable statistics or a culture of empathy and understanding for cutters. Khirad 23:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Statistics 

message: I'm wondering if it's really ok that the majority of this article is taken verbatim from the LifeSIGNS Self Injury Awareness Booklet? Even though it is a part of the footnotes, I don't think that it's right to quote the lines, "A person may be detached from himself or herself, detached from life, numb and unfeeling. They may then recognise the need to function more, or have a desire to feel real again, and a decision is made to create sensation and ‘wake up’." from the very same source, but then have entire sections taken directly and not notated at all. 
I guess I'm pretty green on this topic, but I've noticed similiar things happening on other wikipedia articles as well. --mlaird1
:::If you think there is a problem you can add a Copyvio tag to the page and list it for potential deletion.  Exploding Boy 18:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagarism? 

message: I think there should be a "Possible Motivations" sub-category listed under the "Psychology" section. I would suggest the possible motivations be listed in bullet-form for simplicity's sake. To reinforce the idea which I hoped to be communicated through the title "Possible motivations," the last bullet should explain how the psychological cause of such self-mutilation may not be any of the listed reasons; something to point out the diversity of motives within this category.
Another idea would be to simply change the name of "Psychology" [the entire category] to "Possible Motivations" and put all the pre-existing factoids in bullet form [what is discussed under the "Psychology" section are possible motivations anyways]. The title would be more politically correct since it announces beforehand that nothing listed is definite. Likewise, keeping the original title ("Psychology") and adding a disclaimer [emphasizing that what is listed are merely possible motivations] immediately following the title would be suitable.
Recap:
1) Bullet-form ideas for better presentation & understanding
2) Emphasis on how the listed reasons/motivations are just possibilities
3) Possible title change of "Psychology"
: 1)I don't think bulleting the article would make it any better presentational wise. Paragraphs explaining each motivation would be more worthwhile for the reader. Bulleted items would leave out crucial information. 2)Since many of the editors of this article have first hand experience behind self injury motivations, it's not just a possibility, the motivations are reality. We aren't just musing on why someone would harm themself. 3)I think changing the title of Psychology would beabig mistake, and we would lose a lot of important information cutting it down to summarized bullets. -slunky
I agree with this idea about adding motivations - I'm waiting on a text from the Library that reports of meta-research by Hawton and Van Heerington who provide a complied list of motivations. I'll have a look at adding this in unless anyone objects. I would suggest a bulleted list, taken from this source and then much of the rest of the section expands on this. I've got a few more bits to do with the psychology from research I have done for an assignment so I'll have a look at what I could add - I know there's some ideas from psychodynamic theory that are interesting, though obviously subject the the criticisms of that model. --Acidsaturation 11:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Possible Motivations" as a sub-section 

message: Getting sorted at last! 
I've changed to cite.php (for the moment - I'd really like it to be Harvard, but this is closest to what we have  so far and probably the easiest way to get on with this.) 
I'll be going through section by section (essays permitting) and geting them referenced.
I'll also tidy the psychology section a wee bit whilst referencing and add in some (referenced from studies) ideas/risk factors/motives. 
Have a look at my talk page if you have any suggestions/ideas. Acidsaturation 13:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References and Citations

message: Is self-harm any sort of intentional self injury, or only a kind stress reducer used by people suffering depression? Is causing yourself pain for sexual pleasure an entirely different thing? If anyone could clear this up for me it would be great.
:There is no "official" definition of self-harm, and no diagnosis for it. The term self-injury tends to not include any possible intentional self-injury, in that at the least it tends to not include situations where it isn't a problem for the person, such as scarification/bodyart). Note that it is more than being used by people suffering from depression - many self-injurers don't have depression, but they still use it to control feelings or reduce stress.
:There is the question of what you mean by "entirely different thing" - viewed as differently? Caused by different things? Whilst someone who self-injures for sexual pleasure and does so in a way that doesn't cause problems for themselves probably wouldn't be considered a "self-injurer" by many, you could still argue that they can encounter the same problems, such as becoming addicted to self-injury, having scars, or possibly needing hospital treatment (indeed, consider that anyone needing hospital treatment for intentionally self-inflicted wounds would be counted as a self-injurer in the statistics, whatever their reason).
:Unfortunately I can't really give a better answer, just my speculation and personal experience - I'd be curious to know if there is any research into comparing self-injury with pain for sexual pleasure. Mdwh 11:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that in order to understand what is self injury and what is not self injury, we could look at the intention behind the act. I believe self injury, as covered by this article, refers to the coping-mechanism, whereas injury-to-one's-self as found in BDSM / blade-play is for the purposes of sexual pleasure. I would like to keep these two areas seperate. 128.87.251.170 10:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Auto-[[Algolagnia]]?

message: Can there be some links for historical, ritual, and religious self-mutilation, such as Maya bloodletting?  I don't know most of the groups that do that, andI'd like to be able to find them easily, and here seems like a good place to put that stuff. 64.198.112.210 19:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical, Ritual, Religion? 

message: Should we perhaps make mention of a very common motiff within Self-Injury consisting of the desire to feel or see blood, or bleed in general? I've worked with and known many people who SI and I've found this to often times be a prominent part of the act of self-injury. The purpose revolves around feeling alive, the facination of one's mortality, or the same reason as they would cut.
Comments? Suggestions?
:By all means put something up about it! -slunky
::There is a little about it in the psychology section. This does still need a bit of tidying and citations, so go for it - add it in see what you can add... Acidsaturation 14:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood Letting 

message: I would like to see this paragraph deleted:
"Anecdotally, there are self harmers who state that it is easier for them to identify other self harmers than the average person would be able to, much as one who has been through other types of emotional distress can recognize the subtle cues given off by others who suffer the same affliction."
Using the word 'anecdotally' doesn't validate this pseudo-scientific fancy; I would appreciate a citation or some decent data, but I do not have faith in this sentiment. Would such a paragraph be appropriate in an article about child-abuse or rape?
I have not deleted it as I'm hoping to be educated by some decent citations, but in all my studies I have never seen this claim validated. 128.87.251.170 10:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no evidence but there's bound to be at least some sort of 'community'. Communities exist over anything. Skinnyweed 11:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Skinnyweed; I'm not sure what you are commenting about; I'm only talking about the single paragraph as I've quoted above - I'm not querying the whole sub-section. 128.87.251.169 14:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Culture / Community

message: Alright, 72.154, let's talk about this rather than continuing to revert each other. Why do you feel linking is necessary? Who do you feel is 'defending their pet edit'? Why do you think an article with no picture of self-harm is better than one with a picture? What does ANYBODY else think about this, since the article belongs to neither of us? -- nae'blis (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has nothing to do with whether or not people find self-harmers attractive, so I don't think it would really add value to the article. --OGoncho 08:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would prefer not to see a picture - I agree that both arguments are persuasive. 128.87.251.169 15:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If it had been removed immediately before the GA nomination and added back afterwards, you might have a point, but I don't see that it was. By that logic, it's "foul play" to make any changes to an article after it's been marked as a Good Article. If you feel this no longer qualifies as a Good Article, then delist it or ask for a review as stated above. As for Peer Review, when was there one of those anytime recently? Mdwh 22:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Which of us are you referring to? Mdwh 11:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture, again 

message: I removed a considerable amount of POV, OR, opinions, and uncited/unsourced medical claims from the article. 72.154.154.40 chose to revert it, stating "removing such a significant chunk of the page was too destructive. Can we wait for some citations before annihilating all that stuff?" The answer is absolutely not: it wouldn't matter so much if this were an article on dog food or something, but you cannot, cannot, cannot have unsourced, uncited and misleading information regarding medical/safety/health matters. For a subject as important as this, medical advice and claims MUST be properly and responsibly sourced. wikipediatrix 14:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of interest, which information do you find "misleading" rather than simply unsourced? Mdwh 15:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Mdwh.... most of the text I deleted was written in a tone that seemed overly slanted to a self-cutter's POV, to the point where it even seemed to endorse it. The first two paragraphs below ("Self-harm is also a way..." and "Also, some people are soothed...") are written in language that seems to promote the positive benefits of self mutilation. I think it's irresponsible to do so from the Wiki-narrator's standpoint - if one can find a source that says these same things, that's fine, but we need to make it crystal clear that some outside source is saying these things, not Wikipedia. wikipediatrix 18:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that we should say something about "Culture / Community" - certainly such sites exist, even if we need to trim some material as being speculation or unsourced. Also I don't see what's wrong with "It is not universally recognised, but it is a well known date within the grass-roots movement of self-injury awareness."? Mdwh 15:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree a "Culture / Community" section is necessary and would love see a well-sourced, non-POV one. I removed the bit about SIAD being "well known within the grass-roots movement" because I don't know whether it's true or not.  wikipediatrix 18:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to state that I feel these recent editorial cuts have been harsh and overly zealose. I just wanted to say that so that there was a voice that said "I thought it was a 'Good Article' already", before these large cuts. 81.174.142.14 14:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. While this is a mental health issue, it is also one that is very personal. I suggest that this article be flagged for attention, namly sourceing for the removed material. Either way, I'll have a look for some supporting material for the removed material, since I do feel that it reflects fact. S.Skinner 20:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you do get proper medical sources, fine. But the article must clearly reflect that. And much of the text will have to be completely rewritten anyway, because opinionated POV judgments like "usually in a derogatory fashion by the media" won't fly no matter what. Nor will WP:WEASEL language like "Anecdotally, there are self harmers who state..." and WP:OR language like "but it is debatable whether this constitutes...", etc. wikipediatrix 23:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I just now started taking a look at this DSH article and I can provide quite a few documented sources for the previous sections under psychology.  I've begun collecting journal articles on SI and quite a few of them substantiate this information.  I've been quite busy lately but I'll try to get to it fairly soon.
--Jlbrightbill 03:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced and POV information removed 

message: At the least, I'll paste the sections you removed here, so that people can maybe try to find sources for them or discuss whether any material should be returned:
(under Psychology)
Self-harm is also a way for people to relieve the emotional pain of everyday life, especially in the case of teenagers, but not exclusively. People who self-harm may do so with a specific implement or with whatever is convenient to them. In experiencing physical pain, an inflicter of self-harm may seek control; for many, self-harm may be a way to experience a defined sensation rather than amorphous emotional stress. In some cases there may be a specific ritual associated with the activity, such as being in a certain location, listening to certain types of music, or following the activity with specific behaviors not directly related to the harming itself.	 
Also, some people are soothed by the sight of their own blood, and it calms them in distressing situations. To many the blood may even have equal or superior precedence over the pain, giving a greater sense of comfort and relief. This presents one of the greatest risks to the self-injurists.
...
Self-harm may also give a feeling of being in control of ones own body, which could be especially important for survivors of sexual abuse.	 
Self-injury may also be a means of communicating distress. This motivation is sometimes dismissed as "attention seeking" and has often been seen as the primary motivation. However, for many, the act of self-harm fulfils a purpose in itself and is not a means of communicating with or influencing others. Many who self-injure keep their injuries secret, while those who do disclose their injuries may be embarrassed and ashamed of their actions.
...
A lesser form of this extreme act is, for example, hitting ones head on the table or pulling ones hair out. Although this is often used euphemistically, for those who do it serves the same purpose of deferring the stress experienced by the major cause by the pain from this secondary option.	 
Culture / Community
It has been said, usually in a derogatory fashion by the media, that there is a 'culture of self injury' within schools and on the Internet. There are certainly communities that are based around the subject of self harm, and they tend to focus around a message board with or without a main website but it is debatable whether this constitutes "a community". There are many community sites of varying sizes that offer peer-support, emotional discussion, philosophical and psychological discussion, and general chit-chat. As the acts of self-harm can be widely misconstrued amongst the general populace, finding support from another person who has or does engage in self-harm can be preferable to discussion with someone not familiar with the underlying roots and thought structure behind it. Anecdotally, there are self harmers who state that it is easier for them to identify other self harmers than the average person would be able to, much as one who has been through other types of emotional distress can recognize the subtle cues given off by others who suffer the same affliction. 	 
There is some disagreement as to whether such communities encourage and support self harm, however, such communities are known as Pro-SI and are separate from general self-injury awareness communities.	 
There is anecdotal evidence LifeSIGNS Self Injury Awareness Booklet, Version 2 Mar. 01, 2005 p.33-43 from Self Injury Awareness Booklet, LifeSIGNS that by being free to express feelings and self-harm related thoughts, that a person can understand their emotional world and reasons for self harming; people who no longer hurt themselves often continue to be members of self-injury awareness message boards for some time after 'quitting' and offer support to those people who wish to move away from self harm. Maintaining involvement in such support groups can also foster a continued remission of self-harm, though there is a far less organized support structure involving 'sponsors' as there is in alcoholism support groups, for example.
(under Self-harm awareness)
SIAD was initiated by selfinjury.org (now known as the American Self-Harm Information Clearinghouse). It is not universally recognised, but it is a well known date within the grass-roots movement of self-injury awareness.
Mdwh 15:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just now started taking a look at this DSH article and I can provide quite a few documented sources for the previous sections under psychology.  I've begun collecting journal articles on SI and quite a few of them substantiate this information.  I've been quite busy lately but I'll try to get to it fairly soon.
--Jlbrightbill 03:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed material

message: "Click here for an image" is very poor writing style. The image should be thumbnailed in the article if it is worth including. I am familiar with "triggering" claims and they do not apply to Wikipedia -- Wikipedia is not censored and Wikipedia's content disclaimer is clear. Perhaps someone can think of another solution, but I must reiterate:
* Don't say "click here"
* Don't use "click here"
I'll leave this for discussion before I come back and repair the image link.
--Ptkfgs 01:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't use "Click here for an image" 

message: Captive animals (especially monkeys and the like) often exhibit self-aggression, as a Google search on "self-aggression" and "monkey" will show. This behavior has been scientifically studied. Comments to this effect would seem appropriate to this article, as the roots of primate self-aggression could yield insight on similar human behavior.
*I disagree; I understand that confined animals become mentally unstable due to the lack of stimuli in their environment, and I believe such derangements do not reflect human self harm *enough* to warrent a mention.
:It smacks of original research to me. If there's a credible study of animal psychology linking the two phenomenon, that's certainly note-worthy. Until such an article is produced, the topics should be considered unlinked. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 13:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there's something in A Bright Red Scream about it. Would that count as a credible source? --OGoncho 09:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-aggression in animals 

message: There's currently a discussion over at Talk:List of fictional self-harmers about the credibility of such a list and how the criteria of self-harm for that list may be "ill-defined." -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 17:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of fictional self-harmers]] 

message: After reading the statement that some people hurt themselves yet still try to 
conceal the wounds afterwards led me to some new thinking.  Some people outcast 
themselves from society and feel inferior, for them hiding from others and staying 
low on the 'radar' is somewhat normal.  Is it possible to consider that the bodily 
harm that these people do to themselves is part of hiding?  To hurt yourself and try 
not to let people notice, if they notice then your not doing enough to be hidden.  
Repressing outward emotions in both physical and mental forms. 
72.200.87.211 22:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As one of the people who self-injure, I would have to say you're wrong (for most cases, at least). Self-injury is an intimate thing, not something to be done lightly. --OGoncho 01:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I'm with OGoncho, that's about as far off the mark as it gets for me as well. If you saw me walking down the street, you'd never know, I dress in Banana Republic, I'm an athlete, I'm social, I look like I have the perfect life (And I really do have a great life), but I picked up the habit a while ago during a down period and it stuck. While many are so-called "outcasts", it ignores the vast population who you'd never in a million years guess had done it. That explanation ignores the simple yet accurate truth that SI works to temporarily relieve anxiety and stress, if something works, you stick with it. Jlbrightbill 05:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-Harm and Self Repression 

message: Is it time to archive this talk page? Is getting long and a move would be an appropriate time for a clean start. --Nate1481 12:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive?

message: No wonder self-harming is a taboo if respected websites allow the posting of articles that contain suggestions of negative labelling. I have used many wikipedia articles to gain knowledge on certain subjects and if I did not know anything about self-harming then I strongly believe that I would be mislead by this article. I agree with many things written in the article, such as causes and the examples of studies, but I believe that if a self-harmer were to read this they would feel stigmatised. I work with a self-harm group, being one myself a few years ago, and I would never recommend this article to them. Our aim is to make individuals feel comfortable with self-harming (excluding severe cases such as poisoning etc.), after all, a lot of methods of self-harm are proven to be safer than smoking, alcoholism and drug taking. The negative labels suggested by this article, I believe, would alienate individuals who due to this will not seek support! I am saddened by the fact that this article has the potential to play with an individual’s perceptions, an individual who may be just looking for an explanation of what they are doing to themselves. I doubt that the author of the article had the intention to label, but I suggest that in the future, it would be better to consider the fact that this is a very sensitive subject and that this article does not reflect that. Some may disagree with my statements, please feel free is disagree.
Thank you for reading...
86.137.138.128 20:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to have to disagree with you on almost every point you make. I'm both a psychology student and self-injurer, so I feel I am qualified to comment from both sides of the issue so to speak.  This article, for the most part, does not contain the negative labeling and loaded phrases that the media is known for.  You say if you didn't know anything about self-injury you'd be misled...but how? From an informational standpoint, what is contained here is academically verified. A self-injury help group will have an entirely different focus than an encyclopedia article, and it should stay that way. I'd even agree with you (From the perspective of a self-injurer) that light cutting is less damaging than say cocaine or heroin usage, but that's entirely beside the point.  As far as explanations for what they're doing to themselves, this is a better source than anything I've encountered online. The single best thing I've read in explaining in my mind why I do what I do is the chapter on the Psychology of Cutting from 'A Bright Red Scream', the way it describes dissociation, numbing, etc, is very well done. This Wiki article however is better than any other single source I've read. I don't disagree with you at all that self-injury is mislabled, misrepresented, and self-injurers are dehumanized, but I just don't see it in this article. If you could be specific about just what you object to, I'll take a look at it. Jlbrightbill 23:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As said by Jlbrightbill this is an encyclopedia. it is not ment to be a help reference (though the external links section contains a lot) I have reread this with your comments in mind and would have to say that it doses actively mention some of the common misconceptions & miss labelling, such as self mutilation and attention seeking as such, not to mention these would be of detrement to the article and reduce understanding. --Nate1481 00:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What do you mean by "negative labels"? Mdwh 02:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Labels Within The Article 

message: Of List of fictional self-harmers and self-injury in popular cultureI've suggested on the talk page of both that this might be an idea as they cover similar ground, any comments? --Nate1481 14:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge related 

message: This link keeps being added by the same IP (81.1.69.59) 'http://www.ConqueringSelfHarm.com/ Understanding and Conquering Self Harm - eBook'. Just wanted 2 note here. --Nate1481 01:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we request that this page be locked for editing by non-registered users, or some form of IP ban on the culprits?  Just within the past few weeks there's been a huge outbreak of persistent vandalism. Jlbrightbill 09:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an article which will attract vandals & has done the entire time I've followed it, in the specific case of the IP above blocking them would be the solution, the problem with part protecting the article is that it is exactly the kind of article someone might want to edit anonymously. --Nate1481 15:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam 

message: I was taking benadryl to get high( 14 pills every day ) and was taking them with alcohol . I overdosed one day and it left me with severe internal damage, possible stroke and grion injury. Would this be considered self harm or self destruction behavior? I was depressed at the time.
:While it's definitely self-destructive, this would likely fall outside of the definition of self-injury because your intent was to get high.  Basically another method for drug use, marijuana, cocaine, etc. Jlbrightbill 03:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: self harm?

message: Continiued attempts of this page are being vandalised by a unknown register with the IP 219.90.227.228. Can we temp ban this user please. --timberhardwood 18:35, 18 March 2007
:This is not vandalism.Whilst there is a stereotype of emo subculture and self-injury, anything stated on here must be based on 3rd party reliable sources, and not "my son was an emo and he did this". Also any evidence of correlations is possibly more appropriate for an emo page than here (since most people who self-harm have nothing to do with emosubculture). A similar thing happened with a recent report which claimed a correlation between goth subculture and self-harm, but in the end it was dropped from the page, as the research did not seem extensive or reliable. But here, we don't have any research to report on in the first place.I am also suspicious of the various accounts springing up that have made no other edits other than to revert changes or make comments on this issue... Mdwh 17:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: From the article:
In the strictest terms, self-harm is a general term for self-damaging activities (which could include alcohol abuse and bulimia), whereas self-injury refers more specifically to the practice of cutting, bruising, poisoning, over-dosing (without suicidal intent), burning or otherwise directly injuring the body.
Perhaps someone can rephrase this?  It seems a bit, well, oxymoron-ic, --buck 19:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Strict/General

message: I pruned down the external links section, it seemed a bit excessive- Wikipedia is not a links directory :) .  I didn't have time to visit all of the websites, so I pruned the less than notable URL's and those with suspicious discriptions.  CelticLabyrinth 22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: I believe we should change the articles name to Self Mutilation, first it sounds nicer(especially list of self mutilaters, and i believe it is usually classified technically as self mutilation. Im pretty sure it is called Self Mutilation in DSM4 not positive though.66.176.172.119 03:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Self-Mutilation is a biased and stigmatized definition of the practice.  Self-Injury is more suitable. Reesebw 17:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as I know, there isn't a "technical" name, and it isn't in the DSM as its own diagnosis. Mdwh 18:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-injury is the generally accepted professional terminology for desecration of the body in a manner that exceeds the boundaries of socially acceptable body modification.  Self-multilation implies something wholly different, and is, IMHO, phraseology that connoteds exactly what the user issuing the charge to change the name in the first place is suggesting of self-injury.  DashaKat 20:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  name change 

message: How exactly is Nail Biting self-injury? --Xinjinbei 07:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's a compulsive habit about doing harm to the body. Plus, the nail-biting article has this bit: "Extreme nailbiting can be considered to be a form of masochistic self-mutilation. Bitten fingertips can become very sensitive to pain, usually at the place the skin meets the edge of the nail. If the nail surrounds have been damaged, salty foods, (such as potato chips and pickles), can get between the skin and nail and cause pain and hypersensitivity." --OGoncho 09:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nail biting is not self-injury.  It falls under the auspices of compulsive behavior driven by an underlying dysregulation, probably anxiety, or non-aggressive self-stimulation.  This category also includes face picking, eye brow pulling, rubbing the skin, rolling objects between the fingers, lip chewing, etc. --DashaKat 12:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also: Nail Biting 

message: There may be a source for it being a misconception, but does the source state "this is occasionally true" (which was added in recently )? (I'm sure that there exists at least some cases where people do it for attention seeking reasons, but that's true of anything - I think we need a source to say that people occasionally self-harm to seek attention. Although we state it's a misconception, this seems to be a sneaky way to nonetheless label some self-harmers as attention seekers. It's a bit like saying "People occasionally smoke to seek attention" - technically it might be true, but it's obviously POV in terms of the impression it gives the reader. Maybe it can be phrased better?)
:The statement to which you are referring is wholly inaccurate.  I undertook to re-write the "Definintion" section, and included a link to a sub-section on Para-suicidality in the Suicide article to specifically cross-reference this section.
:I haven't looked at this artcle in a while, but it's pretty poor, to my way of thinking. --DashaKat 23:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit summary that added the source implied it covered it, I haven't had an opportunity to read it myself, if you still think it should be removed fair enough. --Nate1481( t/c) 10:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May have been mistaken, one added here, other here think, i may have confuse my refs, sorry.--Nate1481( t/c) 10:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention seeking 

message: Hi, You removed my link to the kids in trouble help page from the self injury page.
While topics such as depression, child abuse and suicide are more prominent topics on the Kids in Trouble Help Page (KITHP) there definately are resources there for self injury (cutting) see the helplinks page, also see a number of the stories. Also the helplinks and the hotlines not to mention the stories are directly and sometimes indirectly helpful to kids and teens who cut. I will also be adding more helplinks and information for kids and teens who self injure. I would appreciate it if you return the link, before I do. I hope this clarifies. Endabusenow 18:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Partly it's to keep the number of links down - if we allow one site with personal stories and links, there are hundreds of others that people will start adding, so we've been trying to keep the links down to sites which offer information about self-injury. What do other editors think? Mdwh 18:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: kids in trouble help page

message: There's a short article on slitting. I suggest it should be removed Maybe the term can be incorporated into self-injury if the term is popular enough. Brian Pearson 02:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article had been deleted. --Nate1481( t/c) 10:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Slitting"