Talk:Suicide methods/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

misleading statistics

'Death by rail has a 90% success rate'. This is misleading as it is from the LA Times. The success rate on London Underground is about 40% where most victims suffer amputation, never electrocution and live on with a severely degraded quality of life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.137.115 (talk) 10:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this article is incomplete

I am trying to find suicide methods that guarantee death and ensure that the person doesn't end up alive and crippled or somehow disables. Please include more methods and how to attempt them.

a good bullet to the head should do the trick... dont worry i tryed before it works —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.242.238 (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.208.171.1 (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Watch Blade runner with Harrison Ford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.20.106 (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just Something to Consider with this particular Article

I love wikipedia, we all do, that's the beauty of it. However, by simply asking, is this section necessarily appropriate. Where exactly will this end? First it tells you that a noose could be used to kill yourself, then it lists it in methods...what next? Will it tell you how to make one, where to hang it, and how long it'll take?

I sincerely hope that the people here remove this article. Would that stop someone from committing suicide? I don't know, but it certainly wouldn't hinder their process. If anything, it provides a catalyst to those wanting to commit suicide a faster path into doing it...imagine if the process of their 'searching' did these people run across an article that helped them instead?

Then again, I'm one voice, what do you guys thinks? Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.94.68 (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article should be removed. I think this could in someway act as an aid to someone trying to commit suicide, and therefore is immoral. The suicide article is enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.57.230.43 (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Shush. This page is completely useless to anyone planning to commit suicide, beyond replicating some very elementary knowledge available to anyone with a basic education human biology. You hardly need a medical doctorate to know if you set yourself on fire, you might experience some excruicating pain and die from the burns, or that shooting yourself in the head might not be good for your long term survival prospects, do you? The Flash powder page is far more useful to the suicidal. Strange your efforts are aimed here, isn't it? 94.192.227.0 (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

what if you're doing a school project and need all this shiznit on suicide? huh? what you think were gonna make it up ourselves -.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.195.249.220 (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I’m very unsure if this article should be in Wikipedia too but I don’t see any way of getting rid of it, after all Jimbo Wales is committed to Libertarianism. Libertarianism generally is interpreted as meaning, that people can be free to do silly things with their own lives so long as they don’t harm other people, of course the terrible grief suffered by those Bereaved by Suicide is ignored in this calculation. I’ve known personally a family where a young man in his twenties killed himself and two decades later his mother hadn’t fully got over it. The Complete Manual of Suicide probably increased the suicide rate in Japan and this article will probably have a similar effect in English speaking areas. I’ve tried to reduce the harm by mentioning problems with some methods of suicide and adding advice to contact help lines. At least this article should reduce the numbers who die in agony through suicide and the numbers who survive suicide attempts with disabilities. By the way I approve of Assisted suicide in extreme situations. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh Noes, this article might hurt someones precious little feelings! Please. Our media thrives on portrayals of murders, you don't see many sensible people screaming "Won't somebody think of the feelings of the families of all those poor murder victims!" when the latest season of CSI airs, do you? Your argument that mentioning suicide leads to an increase suicides has been dealt with previously, the research shows no consensus with your opinion. Adding numbers to suicide 'help lines' has been discussed numerous times. Unless you have something new to add, respect the consensus established and stop vandalising the article, please. 94.192.227.0 (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly dislike this article

I strongly dislike this agree and believe that it should be moved whether or not does this article hold an NPOV stance. Its not just the way it's written. It's about content. A list like this could lead a person who was searching for suicide methods to commit suicide. Why not just delete this article before something negative happens and Wikipedia will/may have to face lawsuits and attention from the public media? I seriously have no idea why this article has to be here. List the methods? Fine. They have already been said in article Suicide. And that's plenty enough, isn't it? Prowikipedians (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
And, what's more disturbing is that over the past TWO YEARS, there have been FIVE NOMINATIONS FOR THE REMOVAL OF THIS ARTICLE. Prowikipedians (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That someone or other stongly dislikes this article is given. The subject is contentious. However, the quarrel has always resulted in the solution that this article is morally bonafide. --Ezeu (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Five nominations merely mean there have been five people who wish to have it removed. I think the fact that it's been kept every single time is a fairly strong consensus now. I would go through some of the reasons why I support the existence of the article, but it's been so thoroughly hashed out in all the previous discussions it seems pointless. Read the archives and past AfD discussions. Eve Hall (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Keep it then. Then some Wikipedians like me are going to use it a how-to-commit-suicide guidebook. And why thank you. Lets have Wikipedia establish some negative notability someday when a major group suicide starts by citing Wikipedia as their number one source. Prowikipedians (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you are aware of this, but people managed to kill themselvesin all sorts of ways before Wikipedia was even established. If someone is feeling suicidal, I sincerely doubt the existence or non-existence of this article is going to change their mind. And, unlike a Wikipedia article, most suicide notes do not cite their sources. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course. I don't know if YOU know about this, but WIKIPEDIA HAS BECOME ONE OF THE FIRST HITS FOR SOURCES OF INFORMATION.Prowikipedians (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but as a how-to-commit-suicide guidebook it's pretty useless, actually. It doesn't give the necessary details required to carry out any but the most obvious methods - I can't imagine anyone wouldn't realise drowning involves immersion in water, for example. It doesn't give recipes for drug cocktails, doesn't give heights for jumping or hanging etc. A simple google search turns up masses of how-to information, for anyone who actually wants to know details. There is some rather shoddy unsourced material in there currently though, and I agree the article needs cleaning up. Eve Hall (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, then you tell me. Where's the list of homicide methods? I don't see it on Wikipedia, do I? Article Suicide is enough. Prowikipedians (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the Portuguese penal code has to do with anything. Even if it applied in this situation, nobody is inciting or assisting anything. Since everything in the article needs a verifiable citation, then by definition we're not providing any information that isn't readily available elsewhere. In response to your previous comment, Wikipedia has a lot of information about homicide and murder, in particular a category with 88 articles and 18 sub-cats. Eve Hall (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Coolgamer (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Prowikipedians. This article is more like a "how to" guide than an encyclopedia article. Needs a major overhaul IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.200.219 (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

People who want to commit suicide are going to do it one way or another. A better course of action would be keeping your opinion to yourself instead of trying to be the Internet Police. Coolgamer (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true, many suicides are impulsive, if someone with what could be temporary depression comes acrosss this article and gets interested in the methods shown here that could be the difference between life and death. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Research consensus is overwhelmingly against you on this. This research is referred to (for example) by the Irish Association of Suicidology on p 8 and pp 10-11 of its Media Guidelines, and they also say (p 8): "Providing specific details of a suicide method gives vulnerable people the knowledge they need to take their own life" and "Media portrayal doesn't just affect choice of method, it can increase the numbers of suicides, as the examples below on pp 10-11 indicate" and "Written media (i.e. newspapers, magazines, books and websites) are more likely to provoke imitation than broadcast media". Your suggestion (that information affects a choice between methods, but does not increase the overall outcome) is similar to the argument advanced for many years in support of tobacco advertising (that advertising affected a choice between brands but did not increase the amount of smoking). This argument was also discredited by research and tobacco advertising bans in Europe have followed. Cheers Chelseaboy (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This will be a hugely contentious request, but taking into account the number of people who are likely to read this article in order to discover ways in which to commit suicide, I think Wikipedia has a humanitarian duty to provide a link to some sort of counselling website in encyclopaedic fashion (possibly after the comment that most do not act on their urges).

CharlieRCD (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added the link, here, I note the suggestion was made a year and a half ago and was not taken up before. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added links but they were removed, this removal will cost lives. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Try reading the rest of the discussion page before adding unencyclopedic content again and try to tone down your spurious emotional appeals. Thank you. 94.192.227.0 (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I say, "Keep it!" (if it can be reworked to be anything more than a list of ideas that anyone could dream up while sitting on the toilet). Maybe it is not intended as a how-to guide, but it is almost devoid of any sort of meaningful information. Certainly the fact that people object to the topic is utterly irrelevant. Never has the change-the-channel-if-you-don't-like-it argument been more apt than in defending controversial Internet content. In broadcasting, channel space is limited and there is a sense in which the content "comes into the home" and appears before relatively passive viewers, in particular, children. But censorship is dicey, even with broadcasting. On the Internet and within Wiki people who don't like it should just stay away. It is certainly true that this content (if better) might, in fact, aid people in doing something which others believe that they should be prevented from doing. But the Internet is not our nanny nor is it the morals police for a particular point-of-view. 74.242.247.197 (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand why this article has not been deleted. IT IS PRACTICALLY ASSISTING SUICIDE. We have enough educational material on suicide already. We do not need an article devoted to helping suicidal people to kill themselves. "the internet is not our nanny"? That is a ridiculous thing to say as it has nothing to do with this. In Wikipedia we have to follow the Wikipedia rules. I strongly disagree with this article. THIS IS WRONG! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HandGrenadePins (talk • contribs) 19:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This article does nothing of the sort, and methodology is a fairly important part of suicide as a subject. Certainly this article should refrain from becoming too instructional, for obvious reasons, but to ignore or remove it completely isn't necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.14.7 (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this article may HELP suicide candidates (in a good way I mean). A quick glance through the different methods usually brings up issues that might very well prevent the suicide from suceeding and instead permanently crippling the survivor, a discouraging issue, just because you want to be dead doesn't mean you would accept to end crippled. Worries about fouling up the suicide attempt will of course make the suicidal person search for other ways, but this buys time, and with a (considerable) amount of luck, the interest in comitting suicide might be reduced somewhat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.75.7.194 (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A member of a local family diagnosed with an incurable disease decided to spare her family the burden of caring for her, acquired a pistol, and shot herself in the head: she survived, totally paraluzed and a greater burden in many more ways than she realized. Suicide is not a viable answer to life's problems. We really do need to thing seriously about this. There are too many people who seem to promote suicide as something tragicly romantic but cool, in a Sorrows of Young Werther kind of way, to impressionable youth, for me to feel easy about a page devoted to "suicide methods" which sounds like what a despondent person would type into a search engine on a glum cloudy day. That automatically marks me as a pro-life bigot, phobic of alternate death styles, but apart from a subheading without how-to details under the article on suicide, do we really need a "suicide methods" page? Naaman Brown (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see any valid point, implicit nor explicit. Anyone who might have read the subsection on firearms within this article would be informed on the potential dangers of attempting to perform a suicide with such a technique -- the article clearly states that there is a possibility of surviving with numerous associated complications, such as chronic pain. If anything this article would discourage a suicidal person, not encourage.

Furthermore, there is no notion of suicide being "cool" in this article nor is there anything that suggests suicide is a viable answer to any problem.

I'm sorry that a relative has suffered from what you are describing, but sad as that may be, any argumentum ad misericordiam or an argument of the type "I don't like it" isn't a valid argument, it is a fallacy -- which should always be refrained from in talk pages. Posix memalign (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

To make it plain: It is very easy to find Internet info on how to commit suicide. Removing this article would do nothing to stop people finding such information. So removing it wouldn't serve any purpose.

That's a spurious argument. It is like arguing that there is no harm in having easy public access to guns, class-A drugs, or whatever other harmful materials, because somebody who really wanted to inflict harm on themselves or others would be able to find these anyway. By that logic, there would be little point in having any sort of regulations designed to preevent harm, because anybody who is determined to overcome the regulations could do so anyway.

The fact of the matter is that it is the responsibility of social institutions, like Wikipedia, to not act in any way that could unwittingly enable significant harm, even if this is unintentional. Therefore, it is essential that measures are taken to, where possible, prevent those who would likely harm themselves or others from doing so and to certainly not prevent tools that might encounrage harm. Sadly, this article falls into the latter category. Many people who would wish to commit suicide would be interested in suicide methods. This article abets vulnerable people to find out about suicide methods and therefore, more or less directly, abets suicide.

This is very morally questionable, therefore, as an article. That there are other articles that also teach suicide methods is neither here nor there. Wikipedia is supposedly a respectable institution. Such an argument is really sinking to a low in terms of justification and is the equivalent of saying, "well, everybody else is doing it!" and? this does not make morally repugnant behaviour any more legitimate.

That this question has come up before and rejected does not mean that it is one that is resolved, nor does it render it a legitimate article. Even if there were a consensus (which there does not seem to be), this also does not render the article legitimate. Rather, where basic moral issues are concerned, this should be decided on moral standards alone. Consensus is not enough, because there have been times where there has been consensus around flagrant immorality.

As for the question about whether there should be a link to a site to help people considering suicide, with moral considerations given their due weight, the common sense answer would be most certainly yes. Of course, technically such a link would not be encyclopedic content. However, there are many times when it is necessary to be flexible where extremes or great moral risk is concerned. It is for this same reason that warnings about the consumption of alcohol are, by law, placed on advertisements for beverages, even though this is not strictly advertising content, or similar notices are placed upon gambling adverts. These steps are taken because the extreme nature of the content and the associated dangers are recognized and therefore society collectively agrees to steps that would mitigate this.

Therefore, to summarize this long note, the key questions to consider here are: (1) Should Wikipedia have an article that serves to directly abet suicide and therefore tests the boundaries of morality? (2) Where such extreme risks of morality and humanity are at stake, what steps can Wikipedia take to mitigate this? Such as having a link to a page to help people at risk of suicide. (3) Is a how-to page appropriate encyclpaedic content for Wikipedia?

i dont see why this is a debate,especially since the people so far wanting it gone are going off the speculation that article on how people kill themself= people knowing how to kill themself i think its just as useful for people who have family members who they think are suicidal to lok out for,but this is just speculation aswell,so unless you find someway to prove that ONE sorce is killing people,go for it.but honestly wikipidia is sopposed to be impartial,just because it's a visted allot dosnt mean we have to get politically correct,that defeats nutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.4.241 (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Cutting wrists

I do not accept this as truth, as cutting wrists is one of the most common types of self-harm, which normally has nothing to do with suicide. Cutting wrists is in fact very unlikely to kill a person, and should therefore not be called suicidal behaviour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.210.34 (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the wrist-cutting is basically if you're just looking for attention. If you're serious, the gun is pretty much the way to go. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hanssen, this is totally outragious for you to say this. Firstly, not all cutters are self-harming for attention. In fact very very few do it for attention. If wrist-cutting is for attention, then why do so many self-harmers hide their wounds. This kind of ignorance is what has put the world into a mess. I hate to be insulting, but that was completely uncalled for.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Although this may be the case in a few instances, though none that I can think of, cutting the wrists IS a genuine method of suicide, as it CAN cause fatal bleeding when the radial artery is severed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.184.119 (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"none that I can think of". Self Harm is actually very very commonly found in the cutting of wrists, and although there is a possibility of death occurring from it, most people who self-harm do not know that. In reality most people who slit wrists are not suicidal. It makes no sense whatsoever do go for the wrists for a painful death when u can just as easily hit a more important organ. There are a huge number of self-harmers in the world, but very few are actually suicidal.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That's entirely correct, but that's not the issue. The original point of this talk section seems to state that wrist-cutting shouldn't be considered a suicide method, which it most definitely is.

Is there any evidence which states that this is actually suicide, rather than accidental suicide? The sources we have only state that it can cause death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HandGrenadePins (talk • contribs) 10:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, not all cutters do it for attention. I've cut in the past, but i let no one see my scars. Some of my friends do it, no ne see's them either. Cutting is just a way of letting out your pain through self harm. it takes the pain away from your heart and puts it in the wrist, but in a way that i think feels good. we don't do it because we want to die. Missedwardcullen (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony cut his arm, wrist or higher intending to kill himself.

Again I looked at the situation, saw no way out of it, just could not see a future of any kind. And opened up all the tablets, put them all in one pile together, looked at them again - it seemed like an hour but it was probably a couple of minutes - got a drink and took them all. Once they were inside me, I picked up the knife and cut myself across the arm, very deeply, there was a considerable amount of blood, the bedclothes were actually soaked in blood at this time. And just lay back. [1]

Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Gunshot wound

Why is there no information on how to be sure of successfully executing a suicide by gun in one shot? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You'll want to visit the methods file for that type of information. SolarisBigot (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an exact reason as to why this article should be deleted. The fact that people want to teach people how to commit suicide IS assisting suicide. We have to delete this before it gets too far, if it isn't too far already. This is completely irrelevant to Suicide and there is already a basic list there. Starting a subject of such controversy is dangerous anyway. Delete this page NOW! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HandGrenadePins (talk • contribs) 10:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt a discussion page on Wikipedia is going to spawn a wave of suicides, and the idea that the article must be deleted before "it gets too far" ignores the fact that Google readily suggests lots of related searches when you search for "ways to commit suicide." Unless you have a way to rid Google, Yahoo and every other major search engine of all references to suicide methods, there are a lot of ways someone can find out information about suicide methods. (The link I provided is usually divined from Google with the search "methods file," which isn't terribly imaginative or specialized.) The person posted a question that related to the content of the article, to which I responded with information that is far more specialized than what the article provides. Some distraught soul looking to end it all isn't likely to come to the discussion page when looking for details on ways to do the deed.

Simply put: let's be realistic. If someone is totally focused on committing suicide, removing one tiny drop of water from the ocean of information won't prevent the situation from happening. If the article is to be deleted, it should be due to lack of verifiable information, not because someone might stumble upon a method of self-destruction not otherwise available from numerous other sites. SolarisBigot (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia should keep the suicide page but leave any assisting suicide out of it. Agree?

How exactly is Wikipedia assisting? If I provide information on how to make ice, and someone uses ice to kill a person, did I "assist" the killer? If that's the case, there are literally thousands of articles that will have to be removed or edited to remove any "how it's done" information. SolarisBigot (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This senttence is false: "Death most often results if the bullet enters above the ear. This destroys the parietal lobe, which is responsible for breathing and critical life processes" The parietal lobe is responsible for sensory integration. The brainstem is responsible for breathing and other critical life processes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.230.8 (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC) YOU ARE TO AMAZING AND BEAUTIFUL TO DIE:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.84.209 (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

u forgot somefing

What about poisoning and starvation methods? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.127.114 (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Poisoning's got a section, but yeah, starvation could be included, probably with a link to 'hunger strike'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.135.137 (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't bleeding to death be in it's own category here?

What about freezing? It's mentioned in The Complete Manual of Suicide, but not on this page. 210.54.229.233 (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

re-organization

Would it be helpful if the methods were organized somehow, perhaps "political", "murder-suicide", etc.?joo-yoon (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Line that needs rewriting

Hello all people. I do agree that this page should be kept, but there is one line that is inappropriate, not academic/lacking a NPOV stance, and because of the controversy on this page, I don't want to edit it myself. Anyone who wants to edit it, it's in the drug overdose section. Here it is - "Considering the very high doses needed, vomiting or falling asleep before taking enough of the active agent might be a serious hurdle." That's not appropriate at all. It leans that the article IS meant to be a how-to on committing suicide, and the rest of it obviously shows it's not. Let's get to work, people! WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, when I read that part it did strike me as 'odd', if that makes sense. But I don't quite know how to go about editing that...I guess it could be removed as it's not referenced etc...this is my first visit to this page though, so I wouldn't want to go about editing a controversial page in that way yet either! 94.192.52.244 (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Positive aspect(s) of this article?

I don't think this article provides any form of catalyst to perform the act of suicide for those at risk to it.

Either way, as long as the consensus is to keep the article (which I assume is the reason it is still here) wouldn't it be a positive aspect if the article includes treatment of the various methods of suicide? By treatment I mean the case that the suicide has failed or the case that the victim is caught in the act of suicide by some arbitrary person and a rescue/emergency treatment/resuscitation is attempted by said person. The main aspect of the article is to explain the suicide method itself, but I think it would be a positive aspect if treatment would be outlined with links to more detailed information for each specific technique. Any such knowledge might be useful to the lay person -- although general emergency treatment and first aid could (and should) be read instead there is no way to know that every reader of this article actually bothers to read and learn emergency treatment and first aid. The fact is that someone reads this article, out of interest or boredom, either way, why not include such useful information that could potentially help to save lives? Also, some good faithed help might actually make the injury worse, e.g. moving someone with a broken neck after failed defenestration.

Another minor positive aspect (if you can call it that) would be to describe the sensory experience of the patient in each case (preferably worst case where applicable) as descriptions of suffering or potential suffering might be a variable which makes the act of suicide less appealing to those at risk?

I think every technique should include at least:

The technique itself.
How the body reacts to it (perhaps with somewhat emphasis on the negative aspects, i.e. pain, discomfort).
How to perform treatment.
How to not perform treatment.

Posix memalign (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Water and salt

both water and salt (in sufficient quantities can kill a person aswell. mention in article; not the most certain death however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.181.52 (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree water and salt need an honorable mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.125.34 (talk) 06:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Water and salt isn't much painless than immolation. You might as well go for a 30 second burn rather than 30 minutes of your insides ripping apart or non-stop vomiting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macs0451 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Put something on to help people

Wikipedia is the first place that most people turn to to help them find out about stuff. So I reckon that there should be somesort of a link to a site that helps people work through their sucide wish so that they don't do it. I think that there are like RedCross things about it but I'm not sure. Instead of telling people the possible mothods, it should show who they can go to for help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.239.188 (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, why ? Why not have a link to the Dignitas Clinic in Switzerland too, for those who only need 'help' in ending their lives? What on earth is your 'suicide wish' twaddle - have you been watching Oprah Winfrey?

We need to ignore all rules or have some sort of Wikipedia community wide discussion and add some sort of information for help on this page. JustGettingItRight (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a telephone directory, a self-help guide, or an advice column. While helping someone to not commit suicide is in many, if not most cases, a laudable goal, Wikipedia is not the proper forum.DSZ (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And IAR is a means to and end, not the end itself. If you actually have to cite IAR, you're doing it wrong. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. Links to sites offering help would be totally inappropriate in an encyclopedia. By all means engage in discussion with any users who offer threats (only if that is even policy? Not sure it is...) Sceptre I don't get your point about not citing IAR. It is always useful to offer explanation as to why you are doing something, especially when your actions could be interpreted wrongly. You could also try expressing your opinions in a less dickish manner? C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 10:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You can ignore all rules to do something, but you shouldn't cite IAR; see What "Ignore all Rules" does not mean. The odds are, someone who is looking up suicide methods on Wikipedia probably isn't going to commit suicide. I think that a warning on most of the articles about suicide would affect neutrality and our encyclopedic mission. It's hard to sacrifice our feelings for the encyclopedic cause, especially on topics such as this, but it really needs to be done... Sceptre ^(talk) 10:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, Google US is now adding a link to a suicide prevention hotline for people who search for 'ways to commit suicide' (http://i.imgur.com/rsX6G.png). Google is not a "telephone directory, a self-help guide, or an advice column" either, it's a search engine. If the addition of a link to some kind of geoIP based hotline prevents (even temporarily) ONE person from committing suicide, then it's worth it. Wikipedia is well-known for placing ads on the site begging for money (I wonder how that fits in with the 'encyclopedic cause'?), it should not be *above* doing this small act of kindness in return. You have the chance to do something good here. Please don't pass up on the opportunity. Kind Regards, an Everything2 user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.70.171 (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Google is a private company that can do as it pleases with its own website, including using it to promote certain views on suicide over others. Google has no commitment to maintain a neutral point of view. Wikipedia does. GideonF (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I added the link towards the top just the same as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide I think this is appropriate and similiarly justified.108.3.8.225 (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The link you added is already contained in the sidebar, should readers feel the urge to click it. Wikipedia is also not an advice column. Please provide some justification for this addition that has not been covered above. 94.192.227.0 (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree some banner should be added. I may be interested in suicide and this was the first or second result in google. I didn't notice any sidebar. I think some sort of warning should be added. It's funny you say that this is an encyclopedia and a banner has nothing to do with it, but what about the ads for wikipedia funding? This is the real world, it's normal if wikipedia does these ads, but where is the rule that says that there can't be a warning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.82.27.233 (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone researching suicide will not be offended, rather pleased to see a humanitarian approach to the prevention of suicide on Wikipedia. We as editors cannot do anything to physically prevent those seeking possible means of suicide from completing their objective. If all we can do is provide a potentially life saving alternative to death, then we should not be remiss in this opportunity. Consider the many who have family, friends, and/or loved ones whose lives will be missed. Do not disregard their suffering. Think of those desperate in a moment, ready to end their lives, but remorseful and regretful after a failed or reconsidered attempt. Those considering suicide may not be as resolute as you have decided, whereas death is final in its end. For this, I recommend a trivial and inconsequential (to the content) link to a suicide hotline. Google adds a suicide hot line to the top of any search for suicide. I think the same courtesy is applicable in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antibrian (talk • contribs) 06:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia is not Google. You also state that there is nothing that editors can do to prevent people seeking out the means; ergo is it not utterly pointless to to add your proposed disclaimer in the first place? Finally, if you read the rest of the talk page, you can see the content of your entire comment has debated previously. A disclaimer was against consensus and wikipedia policy then as well as now. 94.192.226.29 (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

There is no Murder Methods/Killing Methods page. There should be no Suicide Methods page. I do not care about the morality, I care about consistency. This page exists because it is an agenda being pushed by the right-to-suicide types. This page is sufficient: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Causes_of_death Please do remember to actually address my argument there is no Murder Methods page. 121.209.145.205 (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason why there shouldn't be an article on methods of murder. Many deletion debates have shown there is consensus for the existence of this page, I imagine most of those arguments would also apply to an article on methods of murder. Indeed, if the lack of consistency bothers you, why not create one? Eve Hall (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hemeway study of household firearms.

Reading the Hemenway study I see that the data didn't show a correlation between household firearms and suicide rate. This is not the same as saying there was "no such association ", it is simply saying that based on their data that they could not see whether there was an association or not. The present wording implies falsely that Hemenway found that there was no association. This should be corrected, but Yaf has reverted my attempt to make this correction twice now in quick succession. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The lack of correlation between household firearms and suicide rates precisely indicates no association. A correlation was found, however, amongst one small age group, i.e., children, as also noted in the same sentence. Falsely claiming the paper is "inconclusive", however, to disparage the paper because you disagree with the findings, is simply unacceptable. It is but pushing a POV value judgement onto the paper itself, which is Original Research on your part. Lets simply state the facts, quote the facts found in the paper, and not call the paper "inconclusive" when in actuality it did reach a conclusion that there was not a correlation for most age groups. Yaf (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, a lack of correlation doesn't indicate "yes association" or "no association". All it says is that the data wasn't good enough to know, in other words the data was inconclusive. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, a lack of correlation indicates no relationship, which is the same as saying in English "no association". If there were any correlation, whether positive correlation or negative correlation, there would be an association. Go back and read some elementary college statistics textbooks. Correlation values can range from -1.0 to 1.0, including 0.0. At the zero crossing, there is no correlation and no association. Statistics 101. It is POV and false to equate a correlation value of 0.0 with "inconclusive". Yaf (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you read that paper? It says that "the association lost its statistical significance". Without statistical significance you cannot draw a statistical conclusion, "inconclusive". You are trying to draw a conclusion, 'no association', where there is not significant data. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course I have read the paper. But, stating "the association lost its statistical significance" is statistician-speak for "no correlation". There was obviously sufficient data to analyze, else there would not have been a paper. "No correlation" clearly means "no association" which is the same as "the association lost its statistical significance', not that there were no data to analyze. I shall not participate in this stupid dialogue any further. Yaf (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. You can have a statistically significant data set showing correlation, or showing no correlation. You jump to an incorrect conclusion that when the data set is statistically insignificant. You cannot arbitarily choose one conclusion and ignore the other, when the reality is that the data set was insignificant to reach any conclusion. The paper describes that there are significant problems with the quality of the international data, and therefore making conclusions is hampered. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My fellow bipeds, could we not simply present the data and allow the reader to interpret it in their own way? 'Show, not tell', I believe is the policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.227.0 (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Useless

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate

Since there is a page covering "causes of death" and suicide is "self-induced death", there is no need to create/update/preserve this article other than trying to get personal attention and/or prove something. You might feel suicidal and feel an urge to anonymously express your despair to millions, yet *DO* please leave wiki out of it by not writing totally obsolete articles... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.58.224 (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Your link perfectly illustrates the necessity of this page or a category to equal its purpose. The List of causes of death by rate is a list page with every entry linking to extensive articles on that particular way of dying. Every, that is, save for the catch-all entry of "intentional injuries". That entry, however, has hundreds if not thousands of articles detailing its tools and methods including, among many others, firearms and military tactics. One article on self-inflicted intentional injury is no less necessary to a complete encyclopedia than any of those, and no more immoral (although, as exhaustively noted, its morality is irrelevant because Wikipedia is not censored).

And, just to disclaim, I am in no way suicidal. I am a social scientist and mass transit enthusiast coming to this page looking for information on the societal phenomenon of vehicular suicide, which I found with convenience and in much more reliable form than on a random site that in all likelihood IS actively encouraging its readers to commit suicide. I wish success for this article as for all others, and encourage it to continue to rid itself of naysayers and shit editors. Contributions/80.221.34.183 (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Could we possibly include a link to an anti-suicide charity?

In case someone is looking up this page for instructions, or in any case inspiration, could there be a link or something eyecatching to the Samaritans or similar? Preferably at the top, preferably attention grabbing? Wikipedia is the first source I (and thousands of others) check for virtually everything. 80.73.215.172 (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Why? Why can't you appreciate some people have actually had enough ,and have made a decision to end their own lives? Why does it have to be 'attention grabbing' or 'eye catching'?

This is already discussed above. If you have something to add to that debate, comment there please. The attitude of anti-suicide charities is a joke, regardless. 94.192.227.0 (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone researching suicide will not be offended, rather pleased to see a humanitarian approach to the prevention of suicide on Wikipedia. We as editors cannot do anything to physically prevent those seeking possible means of suicide from completing their objective. If all we can do is provide a potentially life saving alternative to death, then we should not be remiss in this opportunity. Consider the many who have family, friends, and/or loved ones whose lives will be missed. Do not disregard their suffering. Think of those desperate in a moment, ready to end their lives, but remorseful and regretful after a failed or reconsidered attempt. Those considering suicide may not be as resolute as you have decided, whereas death is final in its end. For this, I recommend a trivial and inconsequential (to the content) link to a suicide hotline. Google adds a suicide hot line to the top of any search for suicide. I think the same courtesy is applicable in this case. (note: i signed up to sign this statement.)

Page protection?

I have noticed that this page gets a decent amount of vandalism. Also, due to its controversial nature, I would like to propose that this page be at least lightly protected. Honestly I'm surprised it isn't already. -CharonM72 (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

With a total of 36 edits during the first 20 days of this month, the volume of vandalism is probably not insurmountable to the Wikipedia community. Being controversial is not in and of itself a reason to protect an article. I'd rather encourage more and preferably better referenced edits than less of them. 80.221.34.183 (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I vote for protection too, but on different grounds -- I think protection should be given more often and more readily to pages that get vandalized.

Here are my reasons:

It is very tiring as a Wikipedia member to have to correct and fix vandalized pages, it is not only very boring but a complete waste of my time that could instead be spent on something useful, I've personally come close a lot of times to just give up and let articles be ruined.
It is true that articles often have a lot of people who correct vandalism, BUT most of the Wikipedians who correct such vandalism only do so casually, they will e.g. not notice if there have been multiple edits recently and often only correct the last instance of vandalism -- allowing some vandalism to slip through, some of which can be subtle, yet very damaging -- e.g. changing numbers. Most articles only have a few dedicated people who throughly inspect changes and thus protect it properly and avoid this issue, if it were not for these people, many articles would suffer a lot.
People without an account very rarely contribute anything noteworthy to an article, people without an account usually don't know or care about the philosophy, guidelines nor rules of Wikipedia; furthermore they often don't even know the syntax, such as they have no idea what the syntax is for making references.

People who don't bother with creating an account are in general also too lazy to learn how to edit Wikipedia properly, thus they shouldn't be allowed to touch articles that often get pestered.

I'm personally quite sick and tired of vandalism, and I'm certain that I'm not the only one. Please protect this article now and keep these morons away.Posix memalign (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Useless

Morality/Ethics aside, this subject is not encyclopedic and really contributes nothing-- even the dullest individual knows that jumping off of a building results in death. And, as another person mentioned, it has a inherent problem: "Where does it end?" There are thousands of ways to commit suicide. I suggest that this be deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.113.116 (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What the dullest individual can be expected to know is probably a subjective assessment. For example, I thought even the dullest individual would know a) to not rehash tired old arguments, b) to not resort to an ad populum like "even the dullest individual knows..." and c) to sign their posts, but there you went and proved me wrong in all three respects! 80.221.34.183 (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh snap! You got my number. I made a whole new section and rehashed the argument because I feel so strongly about deleting this article. Believe me, I understand how much work people must have put into it-- I just don't think Wikipedia is the right place for it. And I personally spoke to a VERY experienced psychologists friend who was absolutely shocked by the content and believed that educating suicidal individuals on potential methods was dangerous. Let me rephrase that ... Experts say this article is very dangerous.--75.67.157.198 (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There are positive aspects about the article per se. Try to write the material in a manner that puts emphasis on the negative sides, i.e. what can go wrong, pain and suffering -- without moving away from the encyclopedic style. There is also the positive aspect that the subsections can inform how to aid in rescue from failed suicide attempts; i.e. what do to, and what not to do.

What are really the negative aspects? What information contained in this article is actually useful for the suicidal person in the act of suicide? There is no "step by step" guide here on how to exactly perform any said suicidal technique. Posix memalign (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

..........

i dont see why you some of you want this deleted. I say if some one wants to commit suicide let them it's there own life.You have no say in what they do with it.this article gives brife summarys about different ways to end your life if you see one that fits you look more into it and find out more about it. find out how to make a noose of where to shot your self in the head for certain death —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.176.143 (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Patient?

Why does this article refer to the person commiting suicide as a "patient"? It sounds ass-backwards to me; I've always thought of patients as people who are being nursed back to health. Death seems as far from health as you can get. Even if it's assumed that suicide is a cure for depression or a poor life, the autonomy inherent to suicide makes "patient" a poor choice of words. If I take aspirin for a headache, I'm not my own patient. I dunno. Maybe I'm missing something. If so, fill me in, somebody. If not, I'll be glad to change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InedibleHulk (talk • contribs) 07:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I can shed some light on this notion. The term patient is used to describe a person who receives medical treatment from a medical professional, the term is also frequently use to describe person in need of help in i.a. first aid texts, where the person providing care is not a professional.

Most people who commit suicide have a psychiatric disorder at the time of death; everyone who is having real suicidal thoughts should receive help, preferably from a medical professional such as a psychologist or psychiatrist or a general medical practitioner and would thus be considered a patient, a suicidal person who didn't "succeed" receives first aid care from a non-professional would also be considered a temporary patient of said person in that context.

Furthermore I think that by applying the term patient it implies that this person is not someone who is not feeling well and is someone who should seek help -- the primary goal of the article (as this is an encyclopedia) is to provide information in a cold and hard encyclopedic manner, but I should dare say that at least the second goal (although in my view it should be the first) should be to use a tone that puts emphasis on the negative aspects on suicide, how to help and how to prevent; although I'm not sure exactly how to incorporate all of that without breaking the encyclopedic premise.

I can agree that the term patient might be used in places where it is not obvious this person is receiving help, but again the idea is to stress that this is a person who suffers from something and we are looking for a solution, but I think you can more readily agree that in what I wrote e.g. here: "As in any class IV haemorrhage, aggressive resuscitation is required to prevent death of the patient; standard emergency bleeding control applies for pre-hospital treatment.", the term patient can be applied, it can likewise be applied in most of the other cases where it is currently used throughout the article.Posix memalign (talk) 07:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Pestides

30% of deaths from suicide are from pesticides yet this is not mentioned. Gunnell D, Eddleston M, Phillips MR, Konradsen F (2007). "The global distribution of fatal pesticide self-poisoning: systematic review". BMC Public Health. 7: 357. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-7-357. PMC 2262093. PMID 18154668.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Need better refs

This section so poorly referenced and needs to be improved:

According to the Centre for Suicide Research at Oxford University, "[a]ll research suggests that showing, in detail, methods of suicide does result in an increase of those methods immediately afterwards, so portrayal of methods of suicide is ill-advised."^[2] According to Mike Cobb of The Samaritans, an organisation which works with people contemplating suicide, "even showing a method on Casualty has led to an increase."^[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Attempts to delete

We have had 7 attempts to delete this article all based on the NYTs claim that exposure increases the risk! I have provided some proper evidence which is mixed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

ok....so why did u post this,its not like it needs its own section,just for a link to another section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.4.241 (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The "Advice" section

I question the value of the "Advice" section on this article. Per WP:NOTMANUAL, "an article should not read like [...] advice column", and it appears to me to be unencyclopaedic to "strongly advise" readers in this way. jftsang 01:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur; although I see several reasons it should stay I do not see a single reason it should stay as per the Wikipedia guidelines and regulations.Posix memalign (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. I'll remove it. Gigs (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There's not really much that needs to be offered in the way of advice anyway. The bottom line is, terminal dehydration is the way to go. It gives you a lot of time to think and reconsider (whose situation is THAT painful that he can't wait a week or two to think it over?), there's less potential for disastrous failure leading to permanent injury, no special equipment is required, it's not very painful, it doesn't make much of a mess, and you might be able to pass it off as death due to natural causes in some circumstances, if you wanted/needed to. It's perfect for people with, say, recurrent brief depression, because their depression will probably end before they die, so irrational suicide is prevented. And if they drink water and then get depressed again and decide to kill themselves, they have to start all over. I guess the ideal would be to not start committing suicide by any method, but this is not an ideal world, and remember aphorism 157. There's something to be said for harm reduction. Tisane (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Defenestration

Is that really the most accurate term to cover jumping to one's death? "Defenestration" usually refers to jumping out of a window, but what about jumping off a bridge and such? See Jumper (suicide) Tisane (talk) 09:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Police paper from 2001 : Dealing with Defenestrators Take a look at the abstract. 94.192.227.0 (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Very important to many lives!

I'm not here to tell you to remove this article or to tone it down, as this is an encyclopedia and this article has its place.

Some of you know of the duality going on inside the mind while observing anything, including the content of this article. You also realize many people reading this article find it for the first time linked to by the results of many desperate search engine queries.

It is possible to, while preserving all logical, unbiased, referenced information concerning the topic encyclopedically, subconsciously instill (or change the probability of the individual to evolve themself into) a relatively beneficial mindset in individuals reading the article more from their emotional vector than the logical one. You all mustn't forget the indisputable fact that every edit indirectly modifies the population by maybe nil, or maybe thousands depending on how long it lasts and it's interaction with other content.

This is a request in great respect to someone who knows the mind and can take the time to do what they could. This isn't skewing the information, or biased against euthanasia for example, as someone with euthanizing in mind is already reading the article generally straightforward and factually, with a probably existing construct of the topic from previously learned content, not affected by specific sentence structure and slipped-in directed associations. Again I'm fairly sure that there is no way this article is at its best, and I hope a direct request motivates someone to be bold and try some reconfiguration. Don't be scared of making it worse; it's already in a random place along the effectiveness continuum and if you know what I'm talking about your edits will probably only move it to be better.

Please don't reply if you're going to just say "subliminal messages don't exist." Yeah, the examples you've been presented with. Psychologists know very well, the effectiveness of manipulation based on many drastically differing models of the mind. There is notable and measurable effects even though they don't make complete sense yet, but we know that we CAN manipulate. I hope this person isn't lying, a few topics above me: "I have provided some proper evidence which is mixed. Doc James" concerning correlation between rate and this articles accessibility. We can absolutely analyze what increases and what decreases, at least to a little extent.

Some general ideas so far: Perhaps start the article with more information on suicide itself. At the moment, a statement reads "Though individuals with suicidal feelings may consider these methods, most eventually do not act on them." This is pretty much the only thing that may give a reality check or have some beneficial effect. I'm not counting the hotline number, as this is disregarded by most of the target. It doesn't have to be biased or skewed or picked and chosen. Again you can reorganize the same sentences to lead somewhere good or somewhere bad. Just keep in mind many perspectives while editing. 69.196.161.227 (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Altering the article in an attempt to manipulate readers is hardly upholding a neutral point of view , is it? 94.192.227.0 (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the advice and good tips in this article! --213.130.252.119 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

So thanks for nothing, then. Do run along, now. 94.192.227.0 (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the immolation section needs a quick rewording

 "One benefit of suicide by fire on other methods of suicide is the shocking display it can potentially cause with bystanders and other people in the field of view, similar to death by roof-jumping."

I think this is poorly worded.... Im not sure the word 'benefit' is appropriate (im also not sure if the sentence itself should really be there either). Since I'm new to editing ill leave this to someone else if they agree. ChunkyPastaSauce (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This has now been corrected by user maedin ChunkyPastaSauce (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, though I hadn't seen this comment first, or I would have left a message, :) Just now spotted it. Maedin\^talk 15:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Not Detailed Enough For Casual Reading

This article is rather bleak. I feel that the information provided is not thorough enough for viewers to get moderate information. Could we please add more methods such as blunt force trauma and electricity. Perhaps come to an agreement on the most painless method in conclusion? Demettri (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that such content has been taken as how to content or medical advice in the past by certain parties, hence it's removal.94.192.227.0 (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a fine line. After all, the dog article has a section on dog care, and the MediaWiki extension article has a section on usage. I suspect that pain varies from person to person anyway, although we can agree that certain methods, such as self-immolation, are probably going to be pretty painful for everyone. Maybe someone should start a suicide methods book over at Wikibooks? Tisane ^talk/_stalk 20:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft

EgyptAir flight 990 while it may have been crashed by actions of the reflief first officer but neither the NTSB or ECAA said that it was a suicide. It is believed by some people that he was saving the flight. So I don't see how this can be included on this page without a note at the very least.Jamesrules90 (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Brutal - Anybody with a human conscience....

...would realize that this article is unsuitable for a responsible institution such as Wikipedia. This can easily be merged as a subsection within the 'Suicide' article in Wikipedia. Clearly, this is being used as a how-to guide by people seeking to commit suicide and none of us want blood on our hands, right? Citing official policies, such as NPOV and lack of censorship does not really make a case and is analogous to saying that an evil action is alright because one was following orders. Ethical principles stand on their own and if one does believe that ethical principles do exist, this is certainaly an instance where these would apply.

I wrote on this earlier in the page, but the posting was already too high up, so this seems to have been overlooked. Therefore, given the importance of careful deliberation on this matter, I repost this below:

The fact of the matter is that it is the responsibility of social institutions, like Wikipedia, to not act in any way that could unwittingly enable significant harm, even if this is unintentional. Therefore, it is essential that measures are taken to, where possible, prevent those who would likely harm themselves or others from doing so and to certainly not prevent tools that might encounrage harm. Sadly, this article falls into the latter category. Many people who would wish to commit suicide would be interested in suicide methods. This article abets vulnerable people to find out about suicide methods and therefore, more or less directly, abets suicide.

This is very morally questionable, therefore, as an article. That there are other articles that also teach suicide methods is neither here nor there. Wikipedia is supposedly a respectable institution. Such an argument is really sinking to a low in terms of justification and is the equivalent of saying, "well, everybody else is doing it!" and? this does not make morally repugnant behaviour any more legitimate.

That this question has come up before and rejected does not mean that it is one that is resolved, nor does it render it a legitimate article. Even if there were a consensus (which there does not seem to be), this also does not render the article legitimate. Rather, where basic moral issues are concerned, this should be decided on moral standards alone. Consensus is not enough, because there have been times where there has been consensus around flagrant immorality.

As for the question about whether there should be a link to a site to help people considering suicide, with moral considerations given their due weight, the common sense answer would be most certainly yes. Of course, technically such a link would not be encyclopedic content. However, there are many times when it is necessary to be flexible where extremes or great moral risk is concerned. It is for this same reason that warnings about the consumption of alcohol are, by law, placed on advertisements for beverages, even though this is not strictly advertising content, or similar notices are placed upon gambling adverts. These steps are taken because the extreme nature of the content and the associated dangers are recognized and therefore society collectively agrees to steps that would mitigate this.

Therefore, to summarize this long note, the key questions to consider here are: (1) Should Wikipedia have an article that serves to directly abet suicide and therefore tests the boundaries of morality? (2) Where such extreme risks of morality and humanity are at stake, what steps can Wikipedia take to mitigate this? Such as having a link to a page to help people at risk of suicide. (3) Is a how-to page appropriate encyclpaedic content for Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.50.160 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The page already includes a link to philosophy of suicide, which sums up some of the anti-suicide views. I would hope that someone pondering suicide would consider not only possible methods but also all the pertinent moral and practical issues, given that is an irrevocable decision with such major repercussions (including opportunity costs). Tisane ^talk/_stalk 00:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In the pursuit of comprehensiveness, Wikipedia is amoral; potential harm is irrelevant. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTCENSORED, whose title I think sums up the reason for not excluding this article on "moral grounds". People looking to commit suicide will find a way. If you have access to a computer then you probably have access to a bottle of pills, a razor blade, something to form a noose, a heroine needle(?), a car, numerous other things. Suicide really isn't that hard, although most people take a few tries.(surprisingly not because of a lack of trying, but rather a lack of knowledge)

If you want to use this site to try to scare off people, for instance by informing them that lying on some railroad tracks and getting run over by a train might not actually kill them but leave them horribly maimed, then go ahead. Just make sure you don't add undue weight to those aspects, and provide reliable sources. More info on the ineffectiveness, pain and discomfort, and embarrassment of various methods of suicide would be more info for the article anyways.(notable info even)Wikiposter0123 (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Surprisingly non-offensive

I was all set to get angry, but you folks have done a good job here. Importantly, I don't think there's much here that would be "useful" for someone who was looking for advice, and I appreciate that. (I dunno if you've been censoring that stuff, or if it just happened that way.) Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 07:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's actually quite bad for receiving specific info on how to do the things mentioned. Like tying a noose for instance is left out. Thanks for posting. :) Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Self harm and suicide

Not wanting to start a fight with anyone, but I think that the paragraph on self-harm may need revision. http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=443 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.165.213.34 (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Copcide

An extra method that should be added - deliberately inducing the police to shoot you. There is definitely a trend recently in the UK, but it is currently not oficially recognised as such [eg Mark Saunders http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8262629.stm] . If it is happening in the UK where firearms are restricted I am sure it must be more prevalent in eg the USA.

86.189.3.19 (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This concept is discussed in 2 sections of the article, Suicide methods#Suicide attack and Suicide methods#Indirect suicide as well its own article, Suicide by cop. ~~ GB fan ~~ 12:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Best Article Picture Ever!

kudos Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.83.122 (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Mistake in Article?

The article says "In Germany, 7% of all suicides occur in this manner, making this type account for the largest share of overall suicides in the country.[26]"

[26] says "Undoubtedly, railway suicides represent an important, however a still minor, compared with suicide means like hanging or poisoning, proportion on suicides by all means."

Maybe I am mistaken, but isn't the article wrong? (largest share vs. still minor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.247.206 (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Help link again

I think this might be one of the few areas where a header with help is suggested - nothing that messes with the content...just a heads up for people who might be down. Maybe it could start with people who tried to commit suicide and...whatever. Even if they then went on to, I think the order could hold the integrity of it, whilst maybe helping one or two people who are besides themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.27.73 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 19 November 2010

This is an article about suicide methods, not moral advice about prevention. The article should not have anything to do with encouragement or otherwise, but simply to be an informative piece on which methods are commonly used.

If you want to tell people not to commit suicide, that's fine. Make your own web site about it, or write a self-help book and earn loads of money along the way. However, this is not what Wikipedia is about. 115.78.224.215 (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Links to help sites

I know Wikipedia can't be a "how to guide", but for people who are actually trying to find a means of suicide acceptable to them, perhaps we could provide some links to those sites or where to find that information? Detailed information on how to commit suicide properly would be very useful to some people. --70.112.54.22 (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please delete this article

Information is gained, to use in some way. Suicide methods article serves only two kind of persons 1. For those who want to commit suicide in easiest way / less painful way , it list almost all possible ways of suicides. 2. For those who are doing research in psychology of suicidal persons.

Article helps most for suicidal persons. He search "suicide methods + wiki" and find a suitable method with first link of wiki article. No time wastage. Now a days for immediate information everyone is using "wiki". If information is not available on Wiki then a user has to surf pages and dig out the information and figure our the all possible ways . Then he will compare then and figure out the best possible way. It will increase the time window . More unexpected events can happen in this increased time frame and may be some interruption stop or delay his decision. With providing all options at a single page , wikipedia helps him/her make faster decisions with available things near him/her.

I agree that this page may help psychology students . But I think everyone in this discussion agree with me that saving 1 life is more important than helping billions of students in study. Students can wait they can read more , It won't harm them in any way.

But removing this kind of articles (Suicide / making bombs etc ) can certainly save lifes. 1 second is enough to change the course of events . Wiki has become fastest way of getting good quality of information.

Power comes with more responsibilities .. 1 second and a person has gone. Give him/her 1 more second to decide. May be he/she opt to live or circumstance forced him/her to live.

And really how can a sane humans discuss and list most effective methods of suicides ? Does anybody really need this kind of information.

I agree with you. We should delete this article. We should delete this article and save lives. DragoNNized (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)DragoNNized

Speak for yourself. There are people suffering unspeakable torment out there that don't want you forcing them tho go on living and suffering just to inflate your ego. --75.108.199.245 (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Source for Wrist Cutting section

My account is not yet confirmed. Would someone who is please add this source to the wrist cutting section to eliminate the citation needed tag. http://www.brooksidepress.org/Products/OperationalMedicine/DATA/operationalmed/Manuals/Standard1stAid/chapter3.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumguysr (talk • contribs) 02:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Really?

You need a source to confirm that "drowning involves physical and mental anguish" ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.0.133 (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, yes that sentence would need a citation. Since it is reasonable to challenge it. I have actually removed it since it doesn't even appear in the main article. GB fan (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Add Mohamed Bouazizi as a famous example of immolation

The mention of immolation as a form of political protest deserves a reference to Mohamed Bouazizi whose self-immolation in January 2011 was a catalyst for the uprising in Tunisia. 98.114.173.140 (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

this page needs a section: what to do if you feel suicidal like this one

(Redacted) copyright violation

this is from here: but anything else will do too, as wiki is of the opinion that suicide is an important subject and it is but it is also a subject that should be handled with care and all articles about suicide need a bit about suicide prevention. Fryfan20 (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed multiple times. Some of the conversations are:

These are all talking about different ways of adding disclaimers to the article. GB fan please review my editing 18:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.