Talk:Suicide methods/Archive 2

message: Forgive me for stating the obvious, but this page appears to be highly controversial. I can understand perfectly well the reasons for and against putting this page up; for example, in a school project about euthanasia, this article could be extremely helpful. However, there is also the fact that it's stating methods of committing suicide, and even going as far as telling you how easy or painless the methods are. However, what horrifies me is the fact that people are, in effect, saying "ah well, if someone commits suicide because of what is on this page, they can't sue because we have disclaimers. So yeah sure, let's keep it up!". Also, people appear to be wanting this page to stay up more for the fact that THEY CAN put the page up, rather than the fact it is particularly useful for many people. You can't really say "people who want to commit suicide aren't going to come to wikipedia" either; indeed this is the whole reason I found this page in the first place. What annoys me even more is the fact that, to the mere suggestion of having some sort of warning at the top of the page, people aggressively reply about how it would mean putting a warning on the top of every single page with violence on it when there is no point to do so. Why, may I ask? People put spoiler warnings up when the plot details are given away for books, films and video games without this much fuss. I completely agree that wikipedia should be a resource comepletely free of censorship, however at the same time I think it is perfectly acceptable to warn the average reader of a pages content BEFORE they start to read it. I should also note that teenagers can be very volatile in what they think due to the changes you all know are going in them. They might feel in a way that actually they would regret later on in life. They might act out on something that they wouldn't usually do. Sod what legislation says; would you, because of a method you placed on this very page, want to be responsible for the death of someone who isn't quite old enough to understand themselves? But yeah great page. Do whatever. --Ronius 13:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia.  It is grossly irresponsible.  If Wikipedia cannot display images of an erect penis, how can it justify contributing to the loss of even one human life?  Chelseaboy 16:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stating the obvious...

message: It might be worth putting the People seeking help on averting suicidal thoughts should refer to the above website. at the top of the page... Trollderella 00:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, I was thinking of it more as a disambig. If you came here looking for ways to kill yourself, you might be looking for resources for people who want to kill themselves... Trollderella 18:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohhh, evil.  The "this isn't really a disclaimer disclaimer."  Go forth and do it, TD.  And ten points to Hufflepuff, as well. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What, are we going to add a link to every fucking crisis hotline? I don't think so. --SPUI (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why do you need to be so rude? — Matt Crypto 22:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, make an article at List of crisis hotlines by country. --SPUI (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I disagree. People looking to kill themselves are not adressable like others. If one person reads this article and kills themselves afterwards, do you want that death on our hands? If one person reads that disclaimer and saves themselves, isn't that worth a line of italic text at the top? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree with Hipocrite. ~~ N (t/c) 15:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Anyone with experience care to weigh in on the above? I dimly remember (this is not supposed to be authoritative at all) hearing that it's very important that a suicidal version be dissuaded in any way possible... and if this disclaimer prevents the death of just one person out of the hundreds of suicide-contemplators who might see it, it's worth it. I don't think mentioning "Suicidal people are generally advised to seek help" is POV - it's certainly true. ~~ N (t/c) 00:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was me, it was true, and you've obviously lost this argument. Why can't I fucking walk away?  Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: So we put that in suicide under a "societal view of suicide". Anything else is fucking stupid. --SPUI (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You miss the point. Suicidal people aren't going to see that. If it is a breach of NPOV to have this in the template or at the top, it's tiny. ~~ N (t/c) 00:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am willing to let go on this one, but not on the template. A small message here might not harm NPOV by much, as long as it does not call suicidal people medical cases and such. If the message is general and strictly factual (non-biased), that is. --Sn0wflake 00:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: it was speedily kept.  I think the disclaimer on the top of the page is annoying and non-encylopedic.  If anywhere, a link to a suicide hotline should be placed in the "external links" section.  It doesn't matter if people might use this page for information on how to commit suicide themselves.  The fake disambiguation/disclaimer heading is kind of ridiculous.  --Kewp (t) 05:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking about it a little more, if people feel strongly about the disclaimer, it doesn't really matter, but I think the external link to befrienders.org should be moved to an external links section, because linking to that website might imply Wikipedia's endorsement of the website/organization in question.  The link to Crisis hotline seems okay, though.--Kewp (t) 05:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be happy to move that link to the list of crisis hotlines by country, but that article is up for deletion. As such, I will change the link once that article is kept. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Article is no longer up for deletion.  It was speedily kept, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide methods.  So I'm going to move the Befriender's link to list of crisis hotlines.--Kewp (t) 15:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry my mistake, I thought you were talking about this article... You can still make changes to an article that is up for deletion, but befrienders.org is already there.  --Kewp (t) 15:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am concerned that the deletion or merge of the other article will redlink this article. In the event that the list is deleted, I will start a wikipedia article on the Befrienders and link the italics at the top there. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going back to my earliest position here, I don't think this page needs a disclaimer at all, especially after you put this article up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide methods and considering the similar discussion over at Template_talk:Suicide. Also, why should befrienders.org be mentioned at the top of the page(Especially since it's run by the Samaritans)? Why this particular organization? If we put it there it seems like an endorsement of the website in question, even if it does eventually have its own article.--Kewp (t) 17:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a disclaimer, to start - it is a disambig, per Trollderella. List of crisis hotlines is fine by me, and much better than an individual organization. However, if that article is deleted, what are we to do? I would also argue that including suicide methods here is as much an endorsement of them as it is an endorsement of a link we put here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever you choose to call it, it's a disclaimer. same thing at Template talk:Suicide. Listing suicide methods is an endorsement of suicide?  Would you please elaborate further?  The article is not about crisis hotlines, it's about suicide methods, so the inclusion of any link pertaining to crisis hotlines seems irrelevent to me. --Kewp (t) 19:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Listing suicide methods could be seen as an endorsement of suicide, and I, personally, do see it as such. I don't see how I need to elaborate any further than to say that you believe that linking to a list of crisis hotlines is an endorsement of those hotlines. What is the balance of equities that favors the removal of the link to a bunch of crisis hotlines at the top of the article? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the article is not about crisis hotlines.  It's about suicide methods (a separate topic). You do need to elaborate when you say that the existence of this article is an endorsement of the topic matter--that's certainly not clear to me.  Incidentally, this is the main issue raised at Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates, about why disclaimers should not be used.  See Wikipedia:No_disclaimer_templates#Why_they_should_not_be_used in particular.--Kewp (t) 19:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is the balance of equities that favors the removal of a link to a list of a list of a bunch of crisis hotlines at the top of the article? (repition intentional). If you are arguing nodisclaimertemplates, could you describe what information at one of the five disclaimer pages is duplicated by inserting a link to a list of a list of a bunch of crisis hotlines at the top of the article? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Why then, if a disclaimer only disclaims legal liability, does the guideline list "the exception" to the rule: i.e. "Template:spoiler is the exception."  I think the guideline as it stands, is ambiguous, but it does provide a general philosophy for these kinds of things, both risk disclaimers and others.--Kewp (t) 07:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Please do not reinsert content regarding motivations or lethality of various methods without cites. Do not add a method to this list without a cite. As it stands, the article requires cites to back up the majority of it's facts. In the event that one believes the book listed in references is the cite for the fact given, please provide page numbers. I am still trimming down the assertions of fact, and motive that are not verified or defacto unverifiable (such as motivation for successful, rather than failed, suicide) Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cites required. 

message: Hello, I am a Wikipedia user, not a contributor, so I hope I add this comment correctly.
You cannot provide practical information about suicide methods on a Web page with a neutral POV.  That promotes death.  Some of you obviously realize that.  I have spent some time writing to the page author and anyone who thinks it is a good idea to keep this page online. 
The Internet has a collective POV on suicide that is identical to mine. Try Google. The #1 site with the most links by everyone including those who have gone through suicidal thinking and attempts and made links is http://www.metanoia.org/suicide/ which has had more than 4 million page views.  It is a self-help suicide prevention resource that is very effective for people in crisis while allowing free choice.  I have referred to it countless times myself. 
Because I have been suicidal myself and for other reasons I spent years discussing suicide with suicidal people anonymously online and then I went to grad school and became a social worker and worked with suicidal people in real life. 
I learned far more about suicide than is possible or desirable to say here, but here are some key points:
(1) Most suicidal people want to die.  They are often conflicted but a genuine death wish is usually involved.  Not always.
(2) Suicidal people can be very impulsive and they can often be influenced toward death or away from death. 
(3) Suicidal people often get on the Internet to find someone to talk to, advice or information. Many avoid the mental health system including hotlines for a variety of reasons.  One major reason is mental health professionals try to prevent the free choice of suicide (you get put in a hospital involuntarily). 
(5) Most suicide attempts fail. A primary reason is because it is common to use means that are not lethal, believing it will work. Suicide attempt survivors are often disappointed to be alive at first (for example, I was). They generally feel better later and want to be alive (I did).
(6) If there has been any easy access on the Net before now to practical information about suicide methods, I have never become aware of it in all my years online. What I saw on the Usenet group about suicide methods was wild speculation, funny Darwin Award stories, and outrageous fantasies -- maybe something dangerous got posted there later after I left. I have never been in a depression or suicide-oriented group, forum, or chat that allowed any how-to information about suicide. The famous online suicide pacts are made privately and suicide intervention is what you get if you talk or post in public. I have never hit on a Web site with practical information about how to do it.  The Web has so many sites this information may be somewhere (I would like the URLs) but it has been obscure. I would speculate that such sites would be unlikely to get a lot of links from living people.  It is common to meet people who think suicide is a choice and those who won't do anything to stop one but until now it has been virtually  unknown to find someone willing to provide information about how to do it effectively because all are perfectly aware of the consequences and they do not wish to be responsible for a death.  The only well-known resource for lay people is the book Final Exit which takes time and effort to get and the book is completely against suicide for depression.   In general it is safe to say that suicidal people have been getting suicide prevention information and support.  I know for an absolute fact that this has saved many lives without forcing anyone to stay alive.  In this way the Net has been pro-life while allowing free choice. Why is it that way? Why 4 million hits and the most links on free choice suicide prevention? Because all of us so far have voluntarily made it that way. That is what has emerged from the collective intelligence of the world.
: One might speculate that the reason that information on suicide methods is generally unavailable has something to do with the fact that the people who succeed in committing suicide aren't around afterwards to talk about it. The "collective intelligence" of the world is certainly not an entity without a vested interest in keeping people alive. I respect your expertise and your judgement, but if the information presented on this page is accurate (which I don't know), I feel that it ought to be there. "Voluntarily making it that way" does not appear to be a useful argument, given that you are arguing precisely for the suppression of this information. Perorative 11:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What method was it? The only description of "do it this way, not that way" I see on this page is that you should slash your wrists along instead of across the vein, which is extremely well-known. ~~ N (t/c) 23:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Tell us, we Wikipedians wanna know. Is it slashing wrists? --Arm 10:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please remove this page - it cannot be neutral 

message: Well, to update myself because I had not looked in a while, I did go looking and found there are now some sites even much worse than yours.  They are all very bad if the word bad has any meaning at all.  68.154.121.173 12:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  updating previous comment 

message: I have reverted additional additions which are either pure weseal or just plain uncited. Before adding anything to this page, please include a precise cite as to where such information can be found. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted again. 

message: Recent developments over at Template talk:Suicide render the use of a disclaimer in this or any other article related to suicide redundant. I am considering removing the disclaimer when the new template is implemented. Strong objetions? --Sn0wflake 03:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible removal of the disclaimer? 

message: I too feel that this page contains way too much information... but still, I don't think removing it is the best thing to do.  I added the following (which I took from the Suicide page:
:This page concerns suicide. For resources for those seeking help averting suicidal thoughts, see List of crisis hotlines by country.
That make anyone happy? JG of Borg 23:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have a template which covers that completely. --Sn0wflake 18:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, ok - feel free to add it in then - I didn't see it so I just took the words I saw on the suicide page and copied them here. JG of Borg 19:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, that's what you mean, that template... um, ok.  Doesn't seem very prominent, but I defer to the consensus.  Are you going to remove the warning from the main page too then? JG of Borg 19:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this make anyone happy? 

message: I removed their  edit as I don't think this particular example is common and I would like to see some sources of examples this type of suicide before it is put back in the article. At the top of the article is the sentence
:This is a list of a number of common suicide methods that are used by people who wish to commit suicide.
--Clawed 10:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shultz's recent edit 

message: I don't agree that the country execute the criminals "frequently".
:However it has notably done so, and is a good concrete example for this abstract method. JG of Borg 18:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tourist Execution 

message: Just because some feels that this topic is "wrong", or "disgusting", or whatever, is no reason to remove this article.
Why censor it? Not a single person here has given any reason to remove this article that does not stem from utterly subjective personal biases (this includes ethics). All articles should be kept by default, no matter how distasteful, unless someone can prove that it contains no informational value.
Any one of thousands of other articles give plenty of information on how to kill ones self or others. Even the most simple minded person who understands the basic fuctions of the brain, or heart, can easily infer that destroying/severely damaging them will result in death. Are you people going to erase all medical and anatomical knowledge on wikipedia as well? It's far more detailed, accurate, as well as more useful, in the pursuit of suicide, than anything that has been on this page. Anything that can heal, can harm.
All knowledge is power, and all power can be wielded as a weapon. You cannot disarm the few who would use knowledge with ill intent(another dubious and subjective phrase), without doing a far greater diservice to those who simply wish to learn.
The article needs to be cleaned up and expanded/completed, not removed. Opinions need to be removed, or stated as such, and facts need to be double checked. That is my opinion.
-Nick 69.205.xxx.xxx 19:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions, opinions 

message: Under the section on wrist slashing, it says that the goal is to bleed to death by slashing the veins, when in fact it would be far more effective to slash the arteries.  Blood trickles out of veins, but gushes out of arteries.  This also goes contrary to the oft-cited advice of "going down, not across"; while this does indeed open up a greater surface area, it is not practical for slicing arteries, as they are not visible through the skin, and are in fact hard to find.  Someone with more knowledge than me should incoporate this information in.
68.110.114.40 23:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Dispute 

message: When immolation was used as a punishment for crime (burning at the stake for heretics, witches, et al.), the death of the individual so burned either came quickly via smoke inhalation, or, depending on the climate/weather, death often did not occur for several days after the initial fire and was due to systemic failure from burns and/or infection. The suggestion that suicide by burning is quick if somewhat painful is likely inaccurate.--eleuthero 20:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burning - accuracy 

message: I have yet again removed everyone personal "wow wouldn't it be cool if someone cut their head off?" Cite any additions. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet again. 

message: Anyone voting for taking this page down is basing it on personal opinions and loosly based facts. As someone of four true suicide attempts I must say it contains far too little information on the different ways of killing yourself. It'd be nice seeing some the likely timeframe and odds of success, as well as possible damage if failed.
What's already on the page matches what your average 12-year old already knows, so don't claim it's "spreading the word" in any matter. Also, don't say suicidal people are suddenly going to kill themselves from some website impulse - it's offending their intelligence.
If you're likely to commit suicide, it wont be a short text about suicide that makes you do it. Trust me, been there, done that, and my experience matches the few truly suicidal people I've talked to.
-- Swede
:I think this could definitely use more information. For any ethical concerns about this leading to suicide, rest assured that if we are totally realistic and provide as much information as we can about the issue, I think we will acturally discourage suicide. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 19:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take this down? 

message: An earlier revision of this article said that Buddhist monks have killed themselves by stopping their breathing by willpower. This would definitely be interpreted as suicide by Western society. However, followers of Buddhist faith do not interpret this as suicide. I forgot the reason, though. I'm just posting this for your information. --Ixfd64 10:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "suicide" by stopping breathing 

message: Is this method a form of poisoning or asphyxiation? Or is it both? Gflores Talk 19:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: carbon monoxide method

message: I am aware that is has been resolved that a disclaimer does not belong on any of the suicide pages.  After careful consideration, I have come to agree with that decision.  Yet, I consider that it is irresponsible not to cover the controversial nature of suicide manuals and the like in this article.  There are many Wikipedia articles with a "controversies" section.  Why should Suicide methods be any different?  Indeed, I submit that not covering the controversy (which is not strictly a Wikipedia phenomenon btw) is in-and-of itself POV.  Two good illustrations of a controversies sections can be found Same-sex marriage and Jimmy Wales. Ycaps123 18:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one expressed any objections, I have added a controversies section to the article.  My addition is by no means the definitive explanation of the controversial nature of suicide manuals and I invite all of you to make any additions/revisions that would enhance the entry.  I do, however, ask that you not remove the category without discussing it here first. Ycaps123 10:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  add a "Controversies" section? 

message: In the "slashing wrists" section, the following was written:
"Sometimes one who is Cutting their wrists, may not mean to cut as deep as they do, resulting in an accidental suicide. This is the case with more and more teens in the past decades."
I have removed the part about this happening to more and more teens because it is not backed up with any evidence. If someone has evidence for this, they should put it back with a relevant citation.
193.217.28.16 14:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unreferenced claim 

message: As far as I know, this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, not a wikibooks. --84.249.252.211 22:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the warning from the article. --Clawed 23:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Google warning"