Talk:Gender differences in suicide/Archive 1

Archive 1

Diagrams

Can somebody do something about the diagrams that show suicide rates in the United States? They should probably be placed under the global suicide rate diagrams, to make the text wider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.171.0.122 (talk • contribs)

M/F ratio age 20-24

"American males between the ages of 20 and 24 have a suicide rate that is seven times higher than that of women."

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/suicide/youthsuicide.htm

The graph says the M/F ratio 20-24 is 5.1 (as of 2005). Am I missing something? I'm going to get rid of the line (since the rate of 5.1 is of no special deviation) until someone can explain what I might be missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samvnkauffman (talk • contribs)

Revising and cleaning up Gender and suicide

Hello All. I am a student at Rice University and I am planning on editing and improving this page over the course of the next few weeks. As it stands the page has no introduction, no sections, and isn't very well organized. I hope to go through the current information and clean up/consolidate what is currently there. Particularly, I want to present the statistics that are on the page in a more readable manner. I will also clarify the difference between gender and sex, as the article focuses on the latter despite its title. Currently the article primarily discusses the US, Western Europe, and China; it is my goal to include some information about the gender/suicide disparity in other countries, particularly those of Asia and Africa. In doing so, I hope to also be able to add additional material about the social causes of the suicide gap. If I have enough time, I will also try to address some LGBT-related suicide issues, as I believe this will fall under the umbrella of 'gender'. I would appreciate any comments or tips, as I am still a fairly new editor. I am looking forward to expanding this page, as I feel this is an important issue that isn't well-developed yet on Wikipedia!

CoeA (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I just submitted my changes to the article. Almost all of the original information, with the exception of a few uncited claims, is still in the current version. I just tried to reorganize the headings and make everything look a little cleaner. There's also some new information about factors that have helped cause the gender paradox. I agree with Lady of Shallot that the article could definitely benefit from more information about transgendered individuals. I may try to tackle this on my own, but I would appreciate the advice of someone with more knowledge in the field.

CoeA (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

After reading your article I have a few suggestions for possible revisions. One small suggestion is switching your second and third sentence in the lead section as readers may like to know what the gap is before the fact that they vary by country. Additionally you switch tenses from present to past tense. I also think moving the methods section after factors of gender paradox will give the article more balance and help maintain a more neutral point of view from the beginning. I was left wondering about other explanations outside of gendered expectations until the very end. This might help to make your article more neutral by its function as an additional explanations aside from gendered expectations on men and women. Additionally is there any follow up data on the preventative programs that are targeted at certain genders? This might be helpful to include in this section. I also think the first line in the U.S. section on global trends of suicide is confusing. Could you maybe clarify the couple opening lines? Do suicide ratios vary by year or state or age group? The sentence, “typically males die from suicide three to four times more often as females, and not unusually five or more times as often” is also confusing. Finally the section on Non-western nations could be expanded and fleshed out. Right now it just feels like a bunch of facts in a row. I think you have a great article so far and your facts are well researched and informative! Great job so far; I think you have a great entry and keep up the good work!

Risadieken (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

CoeA, Your contribution has added a lot to the article, and definitely made it much easier to read and understand. In addition to the improvements suggested by Risadieken above, I have a few comments myself! I think that you could expand your overview in addition to just re-arranging it. You could add some information about the different types of explanation for the difference (sociological differences vs. physical differences in methods vs. different expectations). This could help readers better mentally outline your article and have a good frame for approaching reading it. In terms of a few Wiki notes, you have a fair number of links and good citations, but your links could be a little more balanced and plentiful (for example in "Factors" section you link for hegemonic masculinity but not femininity). If you can, look at adding more links and explanations from the perspective of someone who knows very little about sociology.

I think Risadieken's suggestion to move the "Methods" section up is a good one, and also think that you can improve a lot of your section titles. Methods could expand a little bit to something like Differing methods by gender-- the paragraph isn't actually a replacement for the suicide methods article, but is an analysis of how males and females typically use different methods. You could also maybe consider moving the Methods section inside of your "Gender Paradox" main section to give it more context.

Lastly, your charts and pictures look great, but could be improved. In the table it's unclear of what time period the data came from. A user has to scroll down to the reverences section to check and see the publish date of the source, but that still doesn't tell what date range the information in the table actually covers. The two maps of the US are also a little old-- are there updated versions available from the same organizations? It would be interesting to see if the rates changed with the financial crisis and economic downturn. Overall though this is a great contribution thus far. The article is much improved from its previous versions. Good luck with the rest of your edits, and message me if you would like any more comments or clarifications.

matt.9.johnson (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Risadieken and Matt.9.johnson

Thank you for your comments! You definitely gave me some useful tips to work with. Your perspectives helped me recognize some major problems that still need to be addressed. I think the reason the article might seem a little disjointed (mixed tenses, weird section order, outdated graphs) is because I was hesitant to rewrite and delete previous information from the article. I ended up inserting some older sentences into newer edits because they seemed to flow better. I will make sure to go back through and update the older information. I'm not quite sure how to change the coding for the graphs, so I may reach out for help from another editor. I'll do my best to clarify and expand the sections that you both found confusing. As it stands I am using some of the most up to date literature, but I will do my best to try and find sources that address male suicide rates in response to more recent economic events.

Thanks for taking the time to give me some feedback. If any other editors are watching this page and want to make changes, I think you've given them somewhere to start as well. CoeA (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Gender vs. Sex

Technically, this article should be called Sex and Suicide, as gender is different than sex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watersoftheoasis (talk • contribs) 01:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think "Sex and suicide" would definitely give the wrong idea about what this article is about... — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a more useful change would be to include information about transgendered persons and suicide. LadyofShalott 01:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It is true that gender is different from sex, but gender is made up of the social roles and expectations associated with being a certain sex, and that is what this article is tying to suicide rates. The article does not assert that men are genetically more likely to commit suicide and therefore it does not make sense to title it Sex differences in suicide. I think the title should be changed back. Weatherby551 (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Weatherby551. Sex differences in suicide implies that there is a biological basis for men committing suicide more frequently than women. The scholarly literature I have found does not indicate that this is the case. The suicide gap in the western world is based primarily around social constructions of gender. Now that the page has been edited to draw a distinction between gender and sex, I think that the title should be changed back. CoeA (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the name of the page from "Sex differences in suicide" to "Gender differences in suicide". I believe this change reflects the subject matter that is in the article while conforming to the Wikipedia standards that led to the original name change. CoeA (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This title better reflects the terminology used in the articles cited and current scholarly practice.DStrassmann (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Factors

Concerning this text:-

"One common explanation relies on the social constructions of hegemonic masculinity and femininity. In a review of the literature on gender and suicide, male suicide rates were explained in terms of traditional gender roles. Male gender roles tend to emphasize greater levels of strength, independence, and risk-taking behavior.[7]"

This is a misleading representation of the citation, which for instance clearly says:-

"In short, then, suicide is clearly the result of a complex interaction of a number of precipitating factors and, in this review, we have focused on the social determinants of suicide."

The reader atm is being misled and this seems like point pushing. Also is this "explanation " common? I'd edit myself but will probably get blocked. CSDarrow (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Original Research

"This is likely due to several factors, including a higher risk for depression among females in the United State" k, but this is original research aka made up bullshit and needs to be removed Bumblebritches57 (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Um... that's not WP:OR since it's cited by an WP:RS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Evolutionary Explanations Missing

My prose isn't good enough to actually make an addition, but I think a evolutionary perspective is needed. The theory argues that men die of suicide more often than women because they do not value their lives as much as women. Since men are not essential to the survival of their offspring, and their potential for reproduction is much more varied, men have evolved to be less fearful of taking risks than women have. If a woman under natural conditions were to die, her children would most likely die as well. Therefore women have evolved to be more fearful of death and physical risk than men, and are therefore less likely to die of suicide. Under this theory suicide is just an expression of males' general willingness to take risks

Chimes of Freedom (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

References

I agree that an evolutionary perspective is relevant here, and should be added.

For starters, see this brief overview: Is killing yourself adaptive? That depends: An evolutionary theory about suicide. Memills (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

China

I reverted an edit claiming that the source didn't list 30% as an actual amount - however the person who edited was looking at the wrong article, and not the one cited. Countered (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2913725/

"More than 30% of all deaths to rural females 15 to 29 years of age are due to suicide."

  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8840421

"The comparatively low suicide rate (4.8 per 100,000 population)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countered (talk • contribs)

I removed the sentence "It has been found that suicide makes up for about 30% of deaths of women living in rural China." again because, firstly, it is obviously bs (in the available articles it is mentioned that the suicide rate in rural china is about 3x higher than in urban areas, which would keep it in the ppm region per year and still at most in the low percent region over a lifetime), secondly, it is not contained in the cited reference and thirdly, even though it is contained in the reference cited above, the citation IT refers to (Phillips (or Phyllips? there is inconsistency withing the cited article) et. al) is nowhere to be found (it was only presented at a conference). --Felix Tritschler (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Felix Tritschler The ref is clear. If you want to remove that sentence, you'll need other refs refuting it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I did, by saying that "in the (other) available articles (cited here) it is mentioned that the suicide rate in rural china is about 3x higher than in urban areas, which would keep it in the ppm region per year and still at most in the low percent region over a lifetime. So I removed this sentence again. --Felix Tritschler (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Table

The current table is outdated and for an unknown reason features US, as if the information presented is somehow promotional of the states. (88.104.201.232 (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC))

Thank you for pointing that out. I updated the numbers using the WHO database as recommended on the WHO suicide prevention page. Per WP:CALC, I used the most recent and most complete data possible (2009 seemed like best year as 2010 was missing quite a few) to find the top 10 suicide rates. You can find the Excel file I used to sort the rates at this link. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice work whoever's had a shot at this page.

It is very difficult to choose a 'representative' sample of countries as an illustration. Perhaps one parameter might be significant countries mentioned in the text, and then maybe adding a range of countries that includes some that are likely to be familiar to readers (bearing in mind it is an English language Wiki), some to achieve balance simply from the size or international activity of countries and get a balance of ethnicities. The inclusion of Latvia for instance, seems a little strange strange.

I didn't manage to quite the same figures using the WHO tool, which is admittedly a bit fiddly, nor did I see the suicides listed as per hundred thousand, although that is good that the researchers have got those figures. This paper http://www.who.int/gender/documents/en/whopaper6.pdf lists them all but just for 1999 (not for quotation).

The statement, "For males the rate of attempted suicide remains fairly constant when controlled for age," has not been supported with a source and perhaps needs to be clarified or expanded. We notice a very large difference by age in this study: "Gender and Ethnic Differences in Older Adult Suicide" (table 1): http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/MH/Documents/OA%20Suicide.pdf

One or two other papers that might be of interest... http://susan-blumenthal.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Susan-Blumenthal-Suicide_and_Gender.pdf http://www.medlive.cn/uploadfile/2011/1118/20111118110957720.pdf http://www.psychology.org.au/inpsych/2012/august/beaton/

sorry I'm not signed in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.125.187 (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Paradox"

I don't see any explanation in the article about why the gender difference in suicide rates are a paradox. I'm not sure if that word is being used correctly in this context, even though one of the sources refers to it as such.

It's surprising that suicidal ideation rate doesn't appear to correlate with successful suicide rate, but I wouldn't call it a paradox. It might be a paradox if, accounting for all differences between men and women, men still commit suicide at a higher rate while maintaining lower suicidal ideation rates. But it's not very absurd to think that there are great differences between the genders that might lead to this.

I've noticed it's become a trend among the social sciences to label every apparent contradiction as a 'paradox'. Should this article stay faithful to such interpretations? — Fuebar ^{[talk | cont]} 04:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC) No. 24.107.236.113 (talk) 03:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gender differences in suicide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120122021659/http://www.who.int:80/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/ to http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

"reported suicide attempts are 3 times more common among females than males"

The full citation isn't given, but I'm looking at http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html and all I see is "keep in mind that there are about 3 female attempts for every male attempt" and "3 female attempts for each male attempt" but no actual data. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6013a1.htm showed rates per 1000 in the US of 0.4 for men and 0.5 for women, a ratio of 4:5 (see table 1). I therefore propose to remove the 3:1 figure which is currently unsupported by actual data and replace with the 5:4 figure derived from the 1058 suicide attempts recorded in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, United States, 2008-2009. Double Happiness (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The second citation on that (Crosby et al.) actually shows no statistical difference between suicide attempts between females and males, although it does suggest women are more likely to have suicidal thoughts. Has anyone seen any research that actually indicates females attempt suicide more often than males? --Cperryk (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

In response to this information, I'm going to remove the statement. It seems to have come from thin air, and diverts attention away from the staggering difference in suicide deaths. 66.207.219.214 (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Why did you remove all of this, especially given what the sourced lead states? How do you know that all of that is unsourced? Flyer22 (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the source cited at the end, and it doesn't seem to claim that(boy was it expensive buying that PDF, but I felt like wiping some of the slime off of this article). The claim itself is also disputed here in the talk page, in addition to not being part of the source cited. It also seems thematically inconsistent with the rest of the paragraph; it could turn out that the claim is true, but it still wouldn't belong there, and it would deserve its own paragraph. 66.207.219.214 (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Along with what you removed, was the following line: "Females report attempting suicide at a higher rate than males in the United States." The sourced lead states, "Statistics indicate that males die by suicide more frequently than do females; however, reported suicide attempts and suicidal ideation are more common among females." And Cperryk (talk · contribs) stated above in this section, "The second citation on that (Crosby et al.) actually shows no statistical difference between suicide attempts between females and males, although it does suggest women are more likely to have suicidal thoughts." So that is why I asked why you removed all of the content. That females are more prone to attempt suicide and fail at it because they use ineffective suicide methods more often than males do is covered in WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That stated, this aspect is already covered and sourced lower in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

March 2017

As seen with this edit (followup edit here), I have altered the lead and it again includes the "suicide attempts are between two and four times more frequent among females" factor and the "different methods" factor (as it should).

As seen with this and this edit, an IP and I are in disagreement about the wording regarding suicidal thoughts. The IP wants to indicate that suicidal thoughts being more common among females than among males is simply due to girls and women reporting the matter more often. I've reverted on the basis that we should simply go by what the source (or sources) state. The sentence had stated "however one study suggests the prevalence of suicidal thoughts was higher among females than it was among males." This is true, and it's simply reporting what the source states. I understand the IP's objection; the IP's objection is that we do not know for certain that females think about suicide more often than males do. Still, the sentence was specifically attributed to one study and that study states, "The prevalence of suicidal thoughts was significantly higher among females than it was among males, but there was no statistically significant difference for suicide planning or suicide attempts." I've since changed the sentence to "The extent of suicidal thoughts is not clear, but research suggests that suicidal thoughts are more common among females than among males.", and added an additional source for it. The IP will no doubt object to this wording as well, but I see no need to undermine/cast doubt on the data by adding "that females were more likely to report" suicidal thoughts. If there is evidence to the contrary, then yeah. But what evidence to the contrary exists? And when it comes to matters such as these, "report" being a factor is obvious anyway. We don't usually add a qualifier such as "men report" and "women report"; we usually state the matter as fact, per the data, unless there is data to indicate otherwise. The new sentence already states "research indicates" which shows some existence of doubt. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

> The IP wants to indicate that suicidal thoughts being more common among females than among males is simply due to girls and women reporting the matter more often

No. This was not stated. I simply don't believe in interpreting the research, as that constitutes original research, which has no place in a wikipedia article. The research measures the reporting of suicidal thoughts. That is what is measured. If you want to interpret this as this meaning that females have more suicidal thoughts than males, it would require you to put your conjecture on the table that both males and females are equally likely to report suicidal thoughts given some number of them. Another plausible interpretation would be that males are less likely to report suicidal thoughts, which lines up nicely with the research that males are less likely to seek help in this regard in general, which may contribute to their higher risk of suicide. I don't know the correct answer, but conjecturing one way or another has no place in a wikipedia article.

Regardless, what is measured is reports, not thoughts. Anything else is your conjecturing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:190:4200:DF2E:0:0:0:F162 (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

>but I see no need to undermine/cast doubt on the data

This isn't casting doubt on the data. This is about interpretation OF data. For example, if I ask people how fast they drive, and I get an answer, that's not the same as measuring how fast they drive. This is like finding a research article that polls people on their driving speed, then quotes the results of the article as if it measured their ACTUAL speed of driving. Do you not see the difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:190:4200:DF2E:0:0:0:F162 (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting note here, but citation #6 does not seem to back up the claim in the lead that females attempt suicide "2 - 4 times more often than males." In fact I can't find that figure in any of the sources. Citation #6 makes the claim, but gives a reference to this article for the data: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12217397_Suicide_acts_in_8_states_Incidence_and_case_fatality_rates_by_demographics_and_method (it is their #2 citation). This seems to be a decent chunk of good data, but it's regionally biased mostly to California, so it certainly doesn't reflect a worldwide view on the subject. Regardless, it represents 91,000 attempts, of which 56% were female. A far cry from the "2 - 4 times as likely" figure. I don't think this "2 - 4 times as likely" figure should be in the lead, and perhaps it shouldn't be in the article at all. Not unless somebody finds some big concrete data sets backing up that claim, rather than articles making references to other articles ad infinitum. I'm starting to wonder if the idea that females are "much more likely" to attempt suicide is mythology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:190:4200:DF2E:0:0:0:F162 (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted you on this and this per the what I stated above, and per this already having been debated and settled at the Suicide talk page, which is why this content is also at Suicide#Sex. See Talk:Suicide/Archive 6#Not supported by majority of sources. Pay attention to the sources I listed there. Also see this discussion.

The sentence states, "Suicide attempts are between two and four times more frequent among females." The first source to back that up states, "Females attempt suicide nearly 4 times more frequently than males." The second source to back that up states, "Women are three to four times more likely than men to attempt suicide." The third source to back that up is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and it states, "Rates of non-fatal suicidal behaviour tend to be 2-3 times higher in women than in men." At the Suicide article, we have used "two and four times" because that is the range given by sources; the sources on this matter state "two to three times," "three to four times" or "nearly four times." Not only did you remove this material, but you removed the sourced material on the gender paradox, which notes that "researchers have attributed the difference between attempted and completed suicides among the sexes to males using more lethal means to end their lives." And the first source for that gender paradox sentence states "women in the same range attempt suicide three times as often as men", while the third source for that gender paradox sentence states "females appear to attempt suicide more often."

I'm alerting WP:Med to this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

We simply follow high quality sources. Please see WP:MEDRS for what these are. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. And, IP, in addition to what Doc James stated above, you can see that he pointed to a 2015 review in this section. The review states, "One of the most consistent findings in suicide research is that women make more suicide attempts than men, but men are more likely to die in their attempts than women. [...] One reason for the lack of investment in female suicidal behavior may be that there has been a tendency to view suicidal behavior in women as manipulative and nonserious [...] In most countries, men die by suicide at 2–4 times the rate of women, despite the fact that women make twice as many suicide attempts as men."

And then there are the sources I pointed to in the aforementioned archived discussion:

Click on this to see the sources.

1. This 2004 Praeger Guide to the Psychology of Gender source, from Greenwood Publishing Group, page 96, states, "The WHO (2003) reports that at sites all over the world, women attempt suicide more frequently than men, and the world rate is 3.5 to 1. However, it is also reported that except in China and parts of India, men commit suicide more frequently than women do. The world rate for suicide completion is 3.5. men to each woman." 2. This 2006 Handbook of Girls' and Women's Psychological Health source, from Oxford University Press, page 130, states, "In most countries, suicide rates are highest in men, those who are divorced or separated, unemployed, poor, and socially isolated (McKenzie et al., 2003). In terms of suicide, women in some cultural groups are at more risk than women in other cultural groups, and men are generally more at risk than women. Paradoxically, then, women are more likely to attempt suicide, but men are much more likely to die by suicide." 3. This 2008 Kaplan & Sadock's Concise Textbook of Clinical Psychiatry source, from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, page 428, states, "Men commit suicide more than four times as often as women, a rate that is stable over all ages. Women, however, are four times more likely to attempt suicide than men." 4. This 2009 Textbook of International Health: Global Health in a Dynamic World source, from Oxford University Press, page 261, states, "Even though women attempt suicide more often than men, the completed suicide rate is 3.5 times higher among men." 5. This 2009 Contemporary Topics in Women's Mental Health: Global perspectives in a changing society source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 122, states, "Relatively few studies have investigated completed suicides in women [12] despite this puzzling phenomenon and the large number of attempted suicides. This is in part due to a focus on mortality by suicide, and since the mortality is highest amongst men, that is where most research is focused. Suicide attempts, however, are approximately 10-20 times as common as completed suicides, and the gender difference, in many countries, is much greater than for completed suicide [13]. It can be said that suicidal morbidity is much higher in women, but also for the whole disease burden for suicidality, if morbidity and mortality are combined. While suicide is a predominantly male phenomenon, suicidality as a whole is predominantly a female phenomenon [12, 14]. Regardless of which of the sexes carries the greater burden, the paramount reason for a deeper understanding of the gender paradox is to increase our arsenal in the battle to prevent attempted and completed suicide." 6. This 2009 Oxford Textbook of Suicidology and Suicide Prevention source, from Pennsylvania State University/OUP Oxford, page 232, states, "In most countries of the world, the sex ratio (male to female) of completed suicides is around 3:1, and at the same time, women attempt suicide approximately three times more often than men." 7. This 2010 Essentials of Abnormal Psychology source, from Cengage Learning, page 246, states, "Although males commit suicide more often than females in most of the world, females attempt suicide at least three times as often (Berman & Jobes, 1991; Kuo et al., 2001)." 8. This 2010 Sociology of Deviant Behavior source, from Cengage Learning, page 311, states, "Suicide occurs more commonly among men than among women in almost all countries. In fact, men's rates generally average three to four times higher than women's, although women attempt suicide more often than men (Canetto and Lester, 1995b)." 9. This 2012 Behavioral Science in Medicine source, from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, page 139, states, "Although women attempt suicide four times more often than men do, men successfully commit suicide three times more often than women do. One reason for this difference is that men tend to use more violent and hence lethal means than women." 10. This 2014 A Sociology Of Mental Health And Illness source, from McGraw-Hill Education (UK), page 48, states, "Although women attempt suicide more frequently then men, the figures for actual suicide are consistently higher for men than women." 11. This 2014 Abnormal Psychology: An Integrative Approach source, from Cengage Learning, page 292, states, "Although males commit suicide more often than females in most of the world (e.g., CDC, 2013), females attempt suicide at least 3 times as often (Berman & Jobes, 1991; Kuo et al., 2001)." 12. This 2016 Deviance and Deviants: A Sociological Approach source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 179, states, "There is a gender paradox in suicide: even though women are more likely than men to have suicidal thoughts and attempt suicide, men are more likely to commit suicide than women."

Research does not support the idea that females being much more likely to attempt suicide is mythology. Clearly, I can replace any of the existing sources on this matter with other sources because the research is consistent on the statement that women are more likely than men to attempt suicide. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The current content is well sourced and accurately reflects those sources. Jytdog (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Can't find this data in any of the sources. Please provide source for the data. I followed citation #6, led down the rabbit hole as reported above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:190:4200:DF2E:0:0:0:F162 (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, the separate issue that you are claiming a reported suicidal thought is the same as a suicidal thought is silly. See the example as given above. Original research/conjecturing has no place in a wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:190:4200:DF2E:0:0:0:F162 (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I figured out your misunderstanding! You are mis-quoting the research. The research states that women are 3 - 4 times to NON-FATALLY attempt suicide. They are not 2 - 4 times more likely to attempt suicide. That is massive distinction. If you correct this phrasing, I'd be okay with it. If you just state "2 - 4 times more likely to attempt suicide" -- that suggests the inclusion of successful attempts, wheras the sourced data that you yourself link specifically and explicitly is talking about non-fatal suicide attempts. Across all attempts, it is almost exactly equal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:190:4200:DF2E:0:0:0:F162 (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not misquoting any research. You are not listening. I explained the matter quite well above, pointing to past discussion and including a number of sources supporting "two to three times," "three to four times" or "nearly four times", as well as the fact that "researchers have attributed the difference between attempted and completed suicides among the sexes to males using more lethal means to end their lives." And yet you still felt it was appropriate to remove all of this material yet again. The only one engaging in appropriate interpretation at this talk page is you. And given the number of sources I've provided above, you might as well move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

IP editor, Flyer has done a ton of work to show the sources and quote from them in the hatted section above. You are not dealing with what this huge mass of sources actually says. What you must do in order to gain consensus for your changes, is to cite here on the Talk page, proposed different content, with a mass of sources clearly supporting it. I will not be replying here further until you propose very well sourced alternate content, and if you continue to edit war to remove the content you don't like, you will be blocked. I suggest others stop responding here as well, until the IP proposes very well sourced alternate content. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

There are two issues here:

1). The quote, from the WHO, is exactly "Rates of non-fatal suicidal behaviour tend to be 2-3 times higher in women than in men."https://books.google.com/books?id=YBdnDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA130

The quote is not "suicide attempts are 2 - 4 times higher than in men. Flyer22 quotes a list of sources.

The first source cites the WHO, which again states non-fatal suicidal attempts for this data. So, no new information here, and we are still at non-fatal suicidal attempts.

The second source cites the WHO again, which again states non-fatal suicidal attempts.

The third source does not contain a citation for the data.

The fourth source cites the WHO, which states that non-fatal suicidal attempts are 2-4 times higher in women than in men.

The fifth source cites the WHO, which states that non-fatal suicidal attempts are 2-4 times higher in women than in men.

I'll keep going, but unless somebody provides additional unique sources that state quite clearly, with data, that "overall suicide attempts are 2 - 4 times higher in women", I would say that this result is highly contentious, and that the accurate representation, as backed by the World Health Organization and another large (but USA-biased dataset), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12217397_Suicide_acts_in_8_states_Incidence_and_case_fatality_rates_by_demographics_and_method of about 91,000 suicide attempts also backs the claim that it is specifically non-fatal suicide attempts that are much higher in women than in men.

Second issue: 2) The reporting that "suicidal thoughts are higher in women." I'm not seeing ANY sources for this. There is some polls stated, but that's not appropriate to make such a strong claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:190:4200:DF2E:0:0:0:F162 (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

What you have done here is not what is required. Please read what I wrote which is painfully clear. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You aren't meeting the standards of wikipedia. There is a hierchy of sources from best to worst. The best are journal articles that contain data. Worse is journal articles that contain no data that merely cite those that do contain data -- because the data can be misconstrued and taken out of context. Worse yet are encyclopedias/almanacs/etc that contain excessive commentary and little to no original research.

So far out of all the cited articles linked, two contain data. Both of the ones that contain data (WHO and the other one I linked) state clearly and openly that non-fatal suicidal attempts (NOT overall suicide rates) are higher among then men.

Therefore, I am reverting the article to the prior state as it is a more accurate representation of the citations that you and others have listed. In the mean time, please gather your thoughts, citations, and data if you have any to share. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:190:4200:DF2E:0:0:0:F162 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Or rather, I will be reverting it to the prior state the exact moment that I can. In the mean time, I recommend bringing in external experts or thinking about how to phrase the wording accurately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:190:4200:DF2E:0:0:0:F162 (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for making your intention to edit war very clear. You already did edit war in letter and spirit and were given a pass by User:El C, whom I have now pinged. Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend trying to stick to an intuitive, straight-forward viewing of the sources, IP. Because you're increasingly coming across as circular and tendentious. El_C 04:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

IP, the first source in the template list I provided above states, "Women reported attempting suicide about two to three times as often as men." and "The WHO (2003) reports that at sites all over the world, women attempt suicide more frequently than men, and the world rate is 3.5 to 1. However, it is also reported that except in China and parts of India, men commit suicide more frequently than women do. The world rate for suicide completion is 3.5. men to each woman." It does not state "non-fatal suicidal attempts."

The second source in the template list I provided above states, "In most countries, suicide rates are highest in men, those who are divorced or separated, unemployed, poor, and socially isolated (McKenzie et al., 2003). In terms of suicide, women in some cultural groups are at more risk than women in other cultural groups, and men are generally more at risk than women. Paradoxically, then, women are more likely to attempt suicide, but men are much more likely to die by suicide." It does not state "non-fatal suicidal attempts."

The third source in the template list I provided above states, "Men commit suicide more than four times as often as women, a rate that is stable over all ages. Women, however, are four times more likely to attempt suicide than men." It does not state "non-fatal suicidal attempts."

The fourth source in the template list I provided above states, "Even though women attempt suicide more often than men, the completed suicide rate is 3.5 times higher among men." It does not state "non-fatal suicidal attempts."

The fifth source in the template list I provided above states, "Relatively few studies have investigated completed suicides in women [12] despite this puzzling phenomenon and the large number of attempted suicides. This is in part due to a focus on mortality by suicide, and since the mortality is highest amongst men, that is where most research is focused. Suicide attempts, however, are approximately 10-20 times as common as completed suicides, and the gender difference, in many countries, is much greater than for completed suicide [13]. It can be said that suicidal morbidity is much higher in women, but also for the whole disease burden for suicidality, if morbidity and mortality are combined. While suicide is a predominantly male phenomenon, suicidality as a whole is predominantly a female phenomenon [12, 14]."

And then, of course, there are the other sources I listed in the template, such as the sixth source which cites the WHO and states, "In most countries of the world, the sex ratio (male to female) of completed suicides is around 3:1, and at the same time, women attempt suicide approximately three times more often than men." So I don't know why you keep focusing on the wording "non-fatal suicidal attempts," but you sound an awful lot like the editor who made such arguments in the aforementioned past discussions. Furthermore, non-fatal suicidal attempts are usually simply referred to as "suicide attempts" while successful suicide attempts are usually simply referred to as "suicide" or "completed suicides." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Causes

Hi,

this site http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Suicide/Pages/Causes.aspx doesn't mention gender roles etc. as a cause of suidide among men. Overall, mental health, particularly depression, is often claimed as the most common cause. Perhaps time for a rewrite?

T 88.89.5.214 (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

But other good sources do. So not sure why this would support a rewrite? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, gender roles are not even mentioned as a cause in the Wiki main article on suicide. Random googling is of course not The Way, but is at least a weak indicator: from self-published self-help "Over 90 percent of people who die by suicide have a mental illness at the time of their death. And the most common mental illness is depression. Untreated depression is the number one cause for suicide ..." via the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/health/suicide-rate-rises-sharply-in-us.html) and BCMJ (http://www.bcmj.org/articles/silent-epidemic-male-suicide) to the NHS (http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Suicide/Pages/Causes.aspx ) all fail to mention gender roles. It's not that gendre roles may not play a part, but AFAICS they shouldn't be presented as the main part, and certainly not as the only part. The truth? Possibly. Nothing but the truth? Possibly. The whole truth? Absolutely not. That there are good sources for one possible aspect doesn't support elevating one possible aspect to explain the actual whole. T 88.89.5.214 (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

What are you proposing and why? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

China and gender roles

I just wanted to point out how ludicrous the claims in this section are. It claims that higher suicide among Chinese women are because of "gander roles" and "family expectations", despite the fact that these same roles and expectations exist all other the world, and to a greater extent than china. It seems the writer was against these issues and just wanted to find an example to blame female suicide on them, despite the fact that female suicide is higher in every other country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.235.26.131 (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Undid revision - SUICIDE ATTEMPTS (one thing is the ideation and another is the planning and attempt) - September 2017

The suicide attempts argument misconception seems to flow from the use of the word "likely" as in "X are 3 times more likely to attempt suicide than Y", and then thinking they actually attempt suicide 3 times more. But if you look at the stats it is not like that at all: stats mention millions of females reportedly having suicidal thoughts, which is why they are more likely.

But the actual suicide attempt numbers have no difference in gender, thus why I had edited mentioning non-fatal behaviour, and adding the suicide ideation. See for example references on year 2015 and 2008-2009 study where it results "The prevalence of suicidal thoughts was significantly higher among females than it was among males, but there was no statistically significant difference for suicide planning or suicide attempts. 2A00:23C4:7177:3C00:5047:980:C236:3373 (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The IP is referring to this revert I made. IP, like I noted on your talk page, we have already gone over this extensively in the #March 2017 section above, where I provided reliable sources supporting the current wording. We go by what the sources state with WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Then is it so ? Goodbye 2A00:23C4:7177:3C00:5047:980:C236:3373 (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Is what so? Look at the sources I provided in the previous section. I also pointed to a review. How do you explain those sources? Should we just ignore them and give one source more weight? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Then moreover (sorry for this long break I did take, I did try to read as much as possible meanwhile, and still I lack proper understanding of your position), I believe there's also a misconception (which is probably the main one — at least with regards to the terminology used in suicide literature —) involving use of the term "non-fatal", as in thinking "non-fatal suicide behavior" equals "non-fatal suicide attempt". That's very deviating, since "suicide behavior", as per Suicide Behaviors Questionnaire-Revised refers to suicide ideation, plans to commit suicide, and actual attempts (not just attempts).

Although there's a reasonable number of "papers" reporting more attempts by females (in a fairly misleading way to be said, to imply some form of "gracious view", possibly) I believe there're as many if not more, clearly stating there's no difference with regards to just attempts (see example I provided two weeks ago for example). Females instead, are reported with more suicidal behavior, not suicide attempts, since they report more suicide ideation (a lot more) and parasuicides (self-harm with non-fatal intent) than males, particularly in the "hot age interval" of 15-34 (second leading cause of death) where taboos play a great role for sexual identity. Thus re-quoting my very first objection, it makes sense to say that females are more likely to attempt suicide, but in numbers they do not (article's perspective being "there're thrice as many females as males that do attempt suicide" is a completely failure then): that's just not what the gender paradox of suicide is about. 2A00:23C4:7177:3C00:8DFE:E933:C4A4:AF74 (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

And along with what I'm writing, with regards to parasuicide please have a look at this study on Suicide Intent I found a couple of hours ago. Aim was to measure suicide intent and so they made the SIS (Suicide Intent Score).. it's a very detailed study to be said. Under "Suicide Intent Scale scores" (page 2 of the pdf) it goes stating that "Males scored significantly higher on the SIS than females, both overall and for each of the two parts of the SIS". However, in case, I could provide much more evidence, unconnected to parasuicide at all. 2A00:23C4:7177:3C00:8DFE:E933:C4A4:AF74 (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The thing is that we need to go by what the reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. When going by the literature, it generally reports what I cited with various sources above -- females attempt suicide more often than males do, or females are significantly likelier than males to attempt suicide. Numerous sources state that females are "two times," "three times," "four times" or "two to four times" more likely. "Three times" is more common. And the sources are pretty consistent in stating that males succeed at suicide more often because they use deadlier methods. It is not up to us to speculate what the sources mean or that the literature has been confusing issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, all right, but consider another facet with regards to the abnormous weight given to ideation compared to actual attempts. The source I provided two weeks ago giving clear numbers on ideation and attempts (among others) shortly depicts this very long to read 2014 study based on USA mental care, giving estimates for year 2013. As said above, suicidal behavior is said of suicidal thoughts (the ideation part, as it is called, I believe) even if serious as to follow a plan to commit suicide (or even a parasuicide, self-injury), and actual attempts (whether together with a plan or not). The study considers suicidal behavior in aged 18+ while, for obvious reasons, in adolescents aged 12-17 Major Depressive Episodes (called MDEs) in the first place. The result for this "younger group" are that more than thrice as many female as male adolescents go through MDEs (about 2 million females versus 600,000 males). Suicidal behavior for this age group however, is considered as well (questionnaires for the two age groups were slightly different), but the result is that one-fourth of the 13.6% (825,000 adolescents) treated for mental problems (thus 3.4%) either had suicidal thoughts or attempted suicide, and about two-thirds of these (thus about 2.2%) were females. Thus, twice as many female as male adolescents (about 20,000 versus 10,000) were treated either because they had suicidal thoughts or because they actually did attempt suicide.

Then with regards to adults, there's no mention of a gender divergence for actual attempts, and why would there not be in such a detailed study, unless there is no noteworthy divergence? It is just noted that among adults as well, more women do present suicidal thoughts, even though just 5% more than men. However, a difference in suicide attempts is noted only for the youngest adults (aged 18-22), with females reporting suicide attempt twice than their male peers. I would believe then, since there's no mention other than for that specific 4-years age group, that there is no difference whatsoever, just as reported by other sources (see the above one I provided two weeks ago, for example, stating: "there was no statistically significant difference for suicide planning or suicide attempts"). Also consider the age group 18-22 is one of those with lower suicide rates (and still males complete suicide at higher rates than females), and one of the most prone (if not the one most prone) to parasuicides.

For both groups (adolescents and adults) it's worth considering taboos and stigmas regarding social expectations during adolescence especially, which could easily be used, together with parasuicides, to criticize the actual realism of the given image where males go through suicidal thoughts and attempt suicide as less as one-third as often their female peers do. In conclusion, considering self-harm (parasuicide) and stigmas/taboos towards young males, it would be nothing but a matter of looking at the data with objectiveness instead of being conservative towards younger females. Excuse me, how would it be then, if not so, that according to the article "Suicide attempts are between two and four times more frequent among females"? Best wishes! 2A00:23C4:7177:3C00:8DFE:E933:C4A4:AF74 (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

You are going by one source based on USA mental care, and are extrapolating from it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Fine, that's correct: my last comment is mostly based on that one article but it's quite of a weighting one, as it's very recent, and very detailed belonging to American society. You bring yours if you wish to.. (I know you did in the past, but it would be correct of you). I have no hurries. 2A00:23C4:7177:3C00:8DFE:E933:C4A4:AF74 (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I've already made my argument with scholarly sources. WP:Due weight is policy. We give most of our weight to what the vast majority of reliable sources state. And we do not extrapolate sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I just woke up after a non-restful sleep. And you still keep on mentioning that scholarly sources do state what you argument is about (higher female attempts with higher male suicide rates). Please, read the introduction to this scholarly source for example then, being the first result showing up on google searching "gender paradox of suicide". It does state it is about suicidal behavior being higher in females, rather than attempts. End of story. I just don't understand it why you still keep on assuming your argument is correct. Have a good day. 2A00:23C4:7177:3C00:8DFE:E933:C4A4:AF74 (talk) 07:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

And moreover, searching for "gender paradox in suicide" this is the first result google shows up, a scholarly source stating the same thing: it's about ideation and behavior being higher in females, no mention at all, of attempts being higher in females, let alone "two to four times".

Overall females do have higher rates of parasuicides (that is true) I can agree with that, which is rather non-fatal self harm (coupled with suicidal thoughts I believe) though, not actual suicide attempts. 2A00:23C4:7177:3C00:8DFE:E933:C4A4:AF74 (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, I do believe after all the gender paradox of suicide is about males reporting suicide rates over three times more than females, in the first place, but for the sake of degression, it is about comparing that with the fact females report having higher suicidal behavior. 2A00:23C4:7177:3C00:8DFE:E933:C4A4:AF74 (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not assuming anything. Read WP:Due weight. Going by the way you keep pulling out some random source, it does not seem that you have. Per WP:Due weight, I am going by what the vast majority of the literature states, while you are engaging in WP:OR and are WP:Edit warring, which is why Jytdog was repeatedly reverting you and EdJohnston blocked you for 24 hours; he blocked you for edit warring. Per Diannaa, you've also been engaging in WP:Copyvio editing. It seems that El C needs to go ahead and semi-protect this article, and that other suicide articles you are editing to slant things towards males being the more affected sex should be semi-protected as well. Maybe then you will log into your registered Wikipedia account, not that this will help your problematic edits stay. Because of your POV and WP:Copyvio issues, I had to choose this version to revert the article to. Diannaa had wiped out the option to click on previous that I could have reverted to and edited.

And to address your slant editing again, regardless of males committing suicide more, like this 2009 "Contemporary Topics in Women's Mental Health: Global perspectives in a changing society" source I previously cited states, "Relatively few studies have investigated completed suicides in women [12] despite this puzzling phenomenon and the large number of attempted suicides. This is in part due to a focus on mortality by suicide, and since the mortality is highest amongst men, that is where most research is focused. Suicide attempts, however, are approximately 10-20 times as common as completed suicides, and the gender difference, in many countries, is much greater than for completed suicide [13]. It can be said that suicidal morbidity is much higher in women, but also for the whole disease burden for suicidality, if morbidity and mortality are combined. While suicide is a predominantly male phenomenon, suicidality as a whole is predominantly a female phenomenon [12, 14]. Regardless of which of the sexes carries the greater burden, the paramount reason for a deeper understanding of the gender paradox is to increase our arsenal in the battle to prevent attempted and completed suicide." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Reading your last few lines exclusively I guess your stance is that since males suicide more, the general stance must be to protect females trying to?? ? ? ? ?? ?

Oh please give it a break. 2A00:23C4:7177:3C00:6885:6DC6:7A23:3CFE (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Look, I'm not even readin your trash right now. I'll just copy-paste my POV and stance, I had written yesterday for my own pleasure, after being blocked for 24 hours.

With regards to such a sensible topic, stereotypes are produced on the basis of gender bias (stigmas and taboos with regards to sexual identity are notably prominent in suicide). Such stereotypes lead to an overrepresentation of females in suicide, and I guess have been technically supported by the following two mistakes: 1) confusing the contexts in which data is reported, as in taking for granted that the expression "females are more likely to attempt suicide" actually means that they notably do 2) underestimating parasuicide attempts, as in the overuse of expressions such as "nonfatal suicide behavior" and even "females attempt suicide three times more", thinking they encompass exclusively real attempts at suicide (with a real suicide intent, which lacks in parasuicides by definition)

Such POV is supported by reliable (both primary and) secondary sources which, particularly in recent years I found out they've been questioning the previous "erroneously gracious" perspective of the paradox. Again because of how (agreed) very sensible the topic is, leads somehow to indulging on gender-based stigmas and taboos: specifically overrepresenting females by granting more attention to young women (which, as confirmed by sources, are those accounting for most of the major depressive and self-harm episodes) than to everyone else.

With the above being said and sourced (on the article and its talk page), it is just a matter of comparing the sources giving, as per policies, due weight to the ones that appear the most reliable. I did attempt to compare them on the talk page since two weeks ago (when I started editing the article), but as it can be confirmed we've been having misunderstandings.

Now I'm bored, but still alive eh :_) 2A00:23C4:7177:3C00:6885:6DC6:7A23:3CFE (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Giving it a break is what you should be doing. I stand by what I've stated and see no reason to repeat myself on this matter yet again. Do stop repeating yourself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Undid Revision - Same User involved - September 30

World map showing male–female suicide ratios for each country as per 2015 data provided by WHO. World ratio being 1.7 is used as the initial interval limit.

Today I edited the article 15 times in four hours, introducing the following 6 sources (which I had already in the last two weeks) as well as this map... but it all got summarily reverted:

1) The gender paradox in suicidal behavior and its impact on the suicidal process

2) Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors Among U.S. Adults (2015)

3) Challenges and obstacles in gathering suicide data

4) and 5) Studies on the relation between suicide and economics (an extensively studied argument.. remember all those bankers suiciding in recent years with 2008 economic crisis by the way?)

6) Suicide article from Our World In Data website

What was wrong with those edits? The sources on which they rely were all very recent and reliable.

Up to last week your stance was to have the article's lede report that the gender paradox in suicide is about males dying more while females attempting as much. Duh? Fortunately, a few days ago we somehow got to a fine agreement with regards to that (after unaccounted efforts). Now you're trying to do what? What's wrong with those edits? How and why exactly, are they unwelcome? All that they do is shift the weight on different cultures, which is perfectly sourced, indeed it is reported all over the article that gender differences can vary significantly among different countries. What's hard to accept with regards to my edits then? Why did you revert commenting with.. "not again"? What's your purpose? Anyway, Have a good day! ...because this topic is insane, really. 2A00:23C4:7177:3C00:195C:A869:7790:B0F5 (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I mean.. oldest source of the given 6 is six years old, while the other 5 are all as recent as 2014 at most. And, obviously they all come from reliable publishers and authors (at least I know nothing on the contrary in such regard). While on the other hand, you have had (and still do) the article citing very outdated sources and less reliable sources. Now what? 2A00:23C4:7177:3C00:195C:A869:7790:B0F5 (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

And obviously I have no idea what you mean with "stop relying on primary sources".. Duh. What's primary in official raw data about suicides??? ??? ?

I understand what WP:PRIMARY is about, but can't make any reason why your second revert came with comment on primary sources, with all I wrote being just plain common sense, and very well sourced (not sure whether primary, secondary or tertiary, but sure I don't see why it should be reverted for relying on primary ones). 2A00:23C4:7177:3C00:195C:A869:7790:B0F5 (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the revert in question. I don't know what "fine agreement" you are referring to. Either way, we should not be relying on individual studies for broad statements. And there is no need to add individual studies for statements that are already supported by non-primary sources. I clearly don't see an issue with including this, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Granted that I'm supposed to understand what criteria you used to determine that any of my given 6 sources are primary, without your help, I believe the exact edited part which you contest is the following:

Globally, crude data unveils that in countries driven by sustained capitalistic uncertainty based on profit, suicides tend to flourish together with gender-based suicide differences. Relation between suicidal behavior and economics has been studied extensively resulting in male suicide rates increases being higher than those of females in times of recession, denoting among other important facets, a correlation between unemployment and gender-based suicide differences. Many researchers have attempted to find explanations for why gender is such a significant indicator for suicide in Western cultures. Since the 1950s at least, data from the United States show completed suicides have always been over three times more frequent among men. By the end of 1970s, in the UK male suicide rate increased from almost 1.7 times to over three times that of female's during the 1990s.

Obviously on the very moment I had vaguely sniffed the chance that it may have been worded in a way that may result unwelcome, since bringing up political and economic concepts on the grounds of "Western cultures", is quite of a rough topic, given nonetheless that the topic revolves around such a sensible subject as suicide. However, the first part, if I would reword it, it would be shorter, and to the point.. I guess.. I was wrong in mentioning capitalism as the discriminant element, which is mass consumption instead (India's and China's economies, and alike, differ from those of the West in which they much less revolve around consumption of goods and services, not in the economic system being different):

Raw data show that in consumer-driven countries, and particularly in times of political instability (recession), suicide rates tend to flourish in combination with higher male mortality by suicide.

The reason why I felt it was important to write that part is that, as commented in the editing box "this looks as the most notable global factor (profit-based political scenarios from the contrast between western culture countries and that of the rest of the world)". If it's the most notable, why not include it straight from the top: after all, the Factors section does conclude by it, mentioning unemployment, developing countries and individualism, all three correlated to capitalistic ideology. Thus I was not really adding anything which wasn't there already.

It looks as you obviously will not swallow having removed the previous stance of the lede, based on similar ratios of attempted and completed suicides, by females and males respectively. However, although I can understand the bitterness of it, sources are just not there to confirm your beloved stance, thus just get over it. Above all, please explain what you mean by "we should not be relying on individual studies for broad statements". What is the extent of your disagreement in the relation between the "broad statements" I introduced, and the given sources? Thank you. 2A00:23C4:7177:3C00:195C:A869:7790:B0F5 (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Update to above comment: Please note I did remove and replace a few parts in my above comment. I must admit I got lost in the traditional dichotomy capitalism-socialism. But the point remains just the same and very well sourced, may I say? It's just that I lack proper familiarity with global economic systems. 2A00:23C4:7177:3C00:D0A1:4157:726B:E7AD (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess an even better wording to the above proposed addition would be:

Raw data and recent studies suggest that in consumer-driven countries, and particularly in times of political instability during recessions, suicide rates tend to flourish in combination with higher male mortality by suicide.

I'm gonna add it to the article soon (together with given 2 sources), hoping nobody disapproves. 2A00:23C4:7177:3C00:D0A1:4157:726B:E7AD (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Which two sources Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The same 2 sources. I did just reword because it really is not about political stability but rather exclusively about economics indeed. I added the two sources at the end of the phrase as well. Not gonna be adding it before 2-3 hours anyway. 2A00:23C4:7177:3C00:D0A1:4157:726B:E7AD (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

They are both primary sources. Please stop using primary sources and interpreting them. Please summarize secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Uhmm.. I guess I know where this is going: you say it's unsourced because they're primary, but without elaborating any further. Then in case, I will just edit once for posterity. You're free to revert.. more than me, that much we can agree on, since I'm not an acknowledged regular user with a username nor [who knows how many] friendly peers (other editors) ready to support me, as we've been there last week already. 2A00:23C4:7177:3C00:D0A1:4157:726B:E7AD (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

No I am not saying "unsourced". I am saying you are continuing your pattern of using only primary sources and interpreting them, and you will continue to be reverted as long as you keep doing that. thanks for linking to your prior block; you are on the edge of another block for edit warring which will be much longer. You are wasting your own time, and the time of me and other users who could be building content. Please engage with the spirit and letter of the policies and guidelines that govern Wikipedia - that way your edits can stick and we don't have to keep arguing. Please use recent secondary sources, and summarize them. That is what we do here in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Then you mean it just doesn't belong, but again, without elaborating further. That's just common practice of you. Edit: You would be better elaborating on the exact reasons that statement doesn't belong. 2A00:23C4:7177:3C00:D0A1:4157:726B:E7AD (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Flyer and I keep telling you, and you are ignoring us. Use secondary sources, not primary sources, and summarize them; do not interpret them. What do you not understand about that? Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

What is that I'm supposed to engage in? This trash of yours is unwelcome. 2A00:23C4:7177:3C00:D0A1:4157:726B:E7AD (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You are editing Wikipedia. Every time you do that, you agree to follow community policies and guidelines, per the Terms of Use that are linked at the bottom of every page in Wikipedia. The policies and guidelines are not "trash" and they are not "mine", they are ours. And yours. Everybody needs time to learn them, but you have to actually try to learn them. Please engage with them. See User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_1:_secondary_sources for an intro. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

IP, you stated, "However, although I can understand the bitterness of it, sources are just not there to confirm your beloved stance, thus just get over it." It appears to me that this applies to you, not to me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Lack of weight for economic aspects (and previous bias)

I thought about requesting an unblock during the one week block I've been on, instead I ended trying to write what I think as understandingly as I could, to later just post here at the talk page, so this post has taken me a week to complete. I'm willing to discuss the controversy with circumstantiation if you will, and in any case I won't be editing the article anymore, without fine accordance arising from discussion first. Since last week before being blocked, I calmly contest the given picture of Factors (knowledgeable of how biased the article has been up to last month by the way) but instead I ended in an edit-war including the Statistics section, apparently. I simply believe the Factors section should include economic, together with gender roles related aspects, which complete each other (this is the widely accepted view, I believe): reliable sources I come across give much more weight to stressing events related to employment and economic success (rather than to bereavement and divorce), which then produce suicidal effects (stress, depression, mental disorders..) on both inter-gender and same-sex relationships (the gender roles part).

Maybe it looks as a small shift in the due weight, but it's actually index of an erroneous stance which has been biasing the whole article since before I landed on it. Given the sensibility and complexity of the subject (stigma and taboos, foolishness, shame, depression, ancestrality) it's just fine to support a slight bias towards females, and after all it's part of public acceptance at some degree, but given other reliable sources, and given it's a male issue for the vast majority of populations in the first place, there's reasonably too very much since it also serves as a substitute for unaccounted westernization being a major factor.

• I'm not contesting the meaning of what is written, but rather how it is (which does affect the meaning anyway). The way the article is posing is like if the differences are caused by some [difficult to grasp] problem between gender roles, when in fact that problem ("hegemonic gender roles") is actually correlated to the differences between Western countries and others, as per used sources, and these differences are to be given more weight: different economies of countries reporting different male–female ratios.

It almost does appear as gender roles have an effect on the economies, yet it's not gender roles having an effect on employment and economic expectations, likely socioeconomical aspects do, definitely they do complete each other at least. Gender roles without factoring global economic details may be appropriate under Overview perhaps, not under Factors, which is kind of leaving out then, the western-basis tied to socioeconomics perspective. Socioeconomics (perhaps gender roles combined with macroeconomical aspects then), is the most notable globally accepted cause for the gender paradox (e.g. we all know employment status and economic inadequacy are weighting causes of suicide among males).

So it's like if the article is still (after changes accomplished in the last week of September) permeated by some western feminine bias.. lacking some "manhood", if you will. It's understandable given the nature of the topic but it's greatly misleading: cultural values in the article may be erroneously correlated, in my opinion. As raw suicide rates and uncountable studies on the correlation between socioeconomics and suicide clearly suggest, Western economies (consumer-driven) are closely tied to these gender differences: China and India have ratios under global average, and they're much less consumer-driven than Western countries given that China is a socialist labour-based country, and India (together with Eastern Mediterranean countries) is far from consumeristic attributes of the West. This is the most common objective concept, found across "Gender differences in suicide" literature, as far as I can research: it's correlated to socioeconomical (wealth, unemployment), before gender-based aspects (divorce, bereavement).

That's all that I was trying to modify, and I wouldn't be willing by now to be disruptive or bring up the previous tone on which I stopped replying, I hope that's clear. I'm willing to look for a compromise which, as per talk page contributions I've been negated because of avoidance of appreciable circumstantiation. Either way you look at this, a compromise is needed between old bias and new: a balance so to speak. So generally speaking I do stand for both of the following edits I suggested (which then caused my one week block) but again, I'm willing to be compromising as needed (as I was since the beginning by the way), and have no intention to be disruptive:

• mention of the most notable factor being of socioeconomical nature (a shorter ending would be: "[..] male suicide rates tend to flourish." —instead of "[..] suicide rates tend to flourish in combination with higher male mortality by suicide"— because indeed Northern American and European countries report low suicide rates compared to other countries where there's lack of prevention)
• an obvious synthesis of the conclusions (the stark difference between Western countries and others) mentioned pretty much by every source (and as such kept days)

Yes of course I'll admit some degree of OR on my side (when all I was attempting after all, was to include simple information, synthesizing publicly accepted conclusions over suicide rates), but that's nothing compared to the situation in which that section (and the article as a whole until three weeks ago) is streaming. The given picture looks like that where westernization has little bearing on the subject: it's almost like if developing nations are missing something we westernized proudly possess, with a "we're proud of our gender roles" pointless stance.

Thanks for reading all this (if you did). SuperSucker (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

In a brief summary, what are you stating that you want done with this article? And what sources do you have that directly support you, meaning with you extrapolating from them? Also, keep in mind what I stated about WP:Due weight -- that we give most of the weight to what the vast majority of reliable sources state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Briefly economic aspects need to be given more weight between factors: employment status and economic expectations. Also westernization is important part missing. Remove the feminine bias involving preference over mention of marital status and preservation of western values. Sources I'll have to post them at a later moment but those from last weeks (number 4 and 5, but also 6 and 8 mention economic aspects with due weight) are weighting enough maybe. There're many sources out there, reliable and recent, mentioning economic/financial related aspects with at least the same weight of gender related aspects (speaking about social risk factors obviously, since on the medical level mental illnesses are always the major factors.. but we don't care about those do we?). SuperSucker (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You don't seem to be dealing with the topic of this article... Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Not? What's it then? SuperSucker (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At this point, I feel like I'll just keep repeating myself if I continue discussion with you. Even in this section, you keep listing sources and extrapolating from them. These sources are not for you to draw your own conclusions from. You've been pointed to WP:Weight. You've been pointed to WP:Primary. You've been pointed to WP:OR/WP:Synthesis. Maybe you need to be pointed to the WP:Equal validity section of WP:NPOV as well. Your snarky "but we don't care about those do we?" comment and and similar are not helping a thing. And it cannot be helped that Wikipedia has rules and that Jytdog and I are following those roles. Since he has reverted you the most, and often has access to sources that I do not, I suggest you specifically propose additions for him to analyze. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That tone is orver I said. 2A00:23C4:7177:3C00:FD6B:B439:DF61:8FC5 (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

In many ways, this is very odd: I landed casually on the article because it was the World Suicide Prevention Day, and then after my one week block had expired some economist with a Psychology specialization (a behavioral economist) is assigned the Nobel Prize in Economics, and then the day after (yesterday) it's World Mental Health Day, with mental health being the most correlated factor in suicide behavior. Not sure abut the exact chronology of the events but they's a very oddly timing I can tell.

What's the point? The point is sources and weight: there're tons, recent and reliable supporting my stance, but it seems we just keep on acting on denial while the article keeps on being viewed 400+ times per day. It's also odd I found that recent study mentioning past overrepresentation of females with regards to this topic, while the article streams past decades views. So I guess it's all about either willing to stick to updated views, or to keep outdated ones with the article being of some relevant interest (400 views per day is not few).

So I don't regret having engaged in what is summarely called an edit war and being subsequentially blocked because of it. I still, just can't grasp your tone and working venues. Best wishes and all the best then, since per WP:HOLIC, a month of wikipedia shall be enough. _) SuperSucker (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gender differences in suicide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130403142805/http://www.northeastern.edu/womensstudies/graduate/courses/course_material/men_women_social/documents/Udry_Nature_of_Gender.pdf to http://www.northeastern.edu/womensstudies/graduate/courses/course_material/men_women_social/documents/Udry_Nature_of_Gender.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Violence against men?

PolarYukon, regarding this, why should Category:Violence against men be included? Not only is "violence against men" not as clearly defined as "violence against women," I see no indication that a man taking his own life is commonly considered violence against men. Also notice that Category:Violence against women is not included in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I see that PolarYukon was blocked for 72 hours a week by Swarm due to warnings over adding the violence against men category and similar. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed, per above. I left in Category:Men's health, but Category:Women's health is not yet in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Mentions about Prevention missing

I ask if and where mentions about stigma and taboo are to be added exactly.

These are the observations from here and here:

"In much of the world, suicide is stigmatized and condemned for religious or cultural reasons. In some countries, suicidal behaviour is a criminal offence punishable by law. Suicide is therefore often a secretive act surrounded by taboo, and may be unrecognized, misclassified or deliberately hidden in official records of death."

"Stigma, particularly surrounding mental disorders and suicide, means many people thinking of taking their own life or who have attempted suicide are not seeking help and are therefore not getting the help they need. The prevention of suicide has not been adequately addressed due to a lack of awareness of suicide as a major public health problem and the taboo in many societies to openly discuss it."

"Raising community awareness and breaking down the taboo is important for countries to make progress in preventing suicide."

2A00:23C4:714F:FA00:41DD:651A:8737:35D5 (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

 I added them yesterday and nobody seems to object so to me it's fine where they are (at Overview, rather than under Preventive strategies). I simply added a couple of terms with links, to the already existing paragraph afterall. But very needed. 2A00:23C4:714F:FA00:41DD:651A:8737:35D5 (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Undid revision - Observation at Overview missing - 5 January 2018

Why remove an observation so fit for that section?

" Western countries have highest male-female suicide ratios above 3 male suicides every 1 female, while Asian have the lowest. "

What's wrong with it exactly? 2A00:23C4:714F:FA00:41DD:651A:8737:35D5 (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

All right on this. I just got to an answer myself, being that giving mention of cultural differences can be unfit/inappropriate. Still the gap is about them actually, thus some rephrasing could be the way to go. Something like:

".. and Western countries report greater differences compared to Asian."

About the referenced being old, rather claimed such, I believe the most cited one (by scholar S. Canetto) distinguishing between Western countries and non Western, plus www.who.int data shold be well enough. 2A00:23C4:714F:FA00:F40C:F566:13CE:A433 (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Now this got somehow funny with mentioned reference removed (I believe the whole article was actually written based on that one reference). However.. the western relation must be mentioned on many other academic papers I'm fairly sure, if not only because male/female suicide rates on their own, in this regard are loud enough.2A00:23C4:714F:FA00:1CC4:E786:5BB0:D1BD (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Lede map has wrong data

Data does not match for some countries such as Portugal Morocco and Tunisia (see who suicide ratios).

It was compiled 10 years ago thus I don't know. 2A00:23C4:714F:FA00:B094:A932:6BB5:C3C2 (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I just added this following update version of it:

Male to female ratio of suicide rates in 2015.

2A00:23C4:714F:FA00:B094:A932:6BB5:C3C2 (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay so this is based on the data here?[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Entirely, I just updated its description. I think to show them both is better because of the layout. What do you think? Like it is at World_Suicide_Prevention_Day#Gender 2A00:23C4:714F:FA00:A152:629C:36AC:3A2F (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me tbh EvergreenFir (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

IMO one is enough. With two side by side it is more difficult to make out the details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it looks easier to view. 2A00:23C4:714F:FA00:C84B:E9F9:49F5:2E90 (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Male to female ratio of age-standardized suicide rates in 2015. Average is 1.7.

Why the efforts to also add this one? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to add it because it differentiates a lot more between the ratio intervals: it's easier to tell the differences. If you will, it's more statistical than the blue one. 2A00:23C4:714F:FA00:C84B:E9F9:49F5:2E90 (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Tendency to favor the fair sex and at the same time omit reprimand towards our western values is quite unfair

We can get the point it's difficult to comply with academic views before mainstream ones, but can't get it right in writing.

Facts (not mainstream media), are:

i) Females do not fail attempting suicide that many times more than males.

ii) The gender paradox in itself isn't about attempts Versus completed, just about male:female completed suicides discrepancy.

iii) The gender paradox is due to westernization.

So if we can't get it right it's not going to by itself. Sources do not lack on either view, I agree, it's just a matter of the way we get it written which is badly distorted. SuperSucker (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I stand by my arguments seen at Talk:Gender differences in suicide/Archive 1. We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, your IP editing at World Suicide Prevention Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs more reviewing, but I haven't gotten around to doing that yet. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but about last Undo, maybe we could request comments? SuperSucker (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources for section about Prevention (and not only)

I find the Prevention strategies section a little awkward and outdated, although minimal as it should since the subject is not prevention.

So these are two (actually 3) recent surveys/reports with regards to gender in suicide (they can be used to expand the rest of the article, in case, since they're plenty of on-topic information):

a) "Suicide Attempts among Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Adults", 2014, by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention

b) "Men, Suicide and Society", 2012, full report and media version by the Samaritans from their website

SuperSucker (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Image

Male to female ratio of suicide rates in 2015. Green is more male suicides.

The image caption needs updating at least. Also the three maps together makes it to small to see. Will place one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Given SuperSucker's synthesis, I don't trust the way he worded and sourced some matters on the image's description, or the image itself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Same goes for File:Male-Female ratios of suicide rates 2015.png. He has lost any trust I might have been able to put into his edits. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Well... SuperSucker (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not after any of your bitcoins. You need a common enemy to feel those bitcoins are worth anything. SuperSucker (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm also drunk now thus stick to what it is worth that I did. SuperSucker (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

____

References

Disruptive editing and slow edit warring

SuperSucker, how many times must Jytdog, Doc James and I revert you on stuff like this? We have already been over what the majority of statistics and literature states, WP:Synthesis, WP:Undue weight, and the way the sections are best ordered. We have also gotten this article repeatedly semi-protected from your IP editing. And yet you continue to do the same thing over and over again with your registered account. At this point, I am ready to have you banned from editing suicide articles. All you do is keep adding synthesis, undue weight and twisting text toward your POV. The fact that we often ignore your posts on this talk page should tell you something. Our silence does not mean that we agree with your reasoning. Stop it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

And stop using poor sourcing too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

SuperSucker, regarding this and this, where you go on about bitcoins and state "who cares anyway?... Europeans did not repeteadly bomb Asia since the 1940s," it's even clearer that we need to address your behavior at WP:ANI. The source does not state "However, separating intentional suicide attempts, from non-suicidal self-harm, is not currently done in the United States, when gathering statistics at the national level." What it states is "However, because of the way these data are collected, we are not able to distinguish intentional suicide attempts from non-intentional self-harm behaviors." That is not the same thing. For all we know, the source is speaking for itself. There is no indication that it is talking about all of the United States; and the source certainly does not state that. Read WP:Synthesis. American Foundation for Suicide Prevention is a poor source on the WP:MEDRS level. And where do any of the sources state "this difference is even more pronounced in those over the age of 65, with tenfold more males than females dying by suicide"?

Jytdog and Doc James, thoughts? With all of the WP:Synthesis this editor has added to this and other suicide articles, plus the editor's POV-pushing and other disruptive editing, I feel that this is something to take ANI. Gathering the evidence is time-consuming, but something needs to be done. Protecting the article from the editor's IPs and reporting the editor for edit warring is apparently not enough. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I invite you to read the statistics.. and read the sources... in europe and the americas you have 3:1 male:female suicides while in south and east asia almost 1:1. How long before you will tell this is western systemic bias and that south and east asian societies may very well not miss our cultural values? How many more women and especially men will this one article keep in the dark of ignorance?.. I was among them years ago when I first ever came across this article.. that's why I'm undoubtedly passionate about having landed on it years later to find it as untruthful as it was. How many more bitcoins before it's worth changing it? How old.. SuperSucker (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

And I invite you to go by what the sources explicitly state, and the literature with WP:Due weight, and to stick to what the sources state. We have already been over this: Talk:Gender differences in suicide/Archive 1#March 2017. We do not go by talk of "western systemic bias" unless the sources specifically state that. We do not attribute matters to "all of the United States" unless sources specifically state that. But you already know this! We have addressed you on WP:Synthesis times over. Since your passion keeps going into the WP:Synthesis territory and you keep edit warring with your POV in mind, I don't care how passionate you are about this topic. If Jytdog doesn't do it first, I am certain that I will be making an ANI case on you in the future. I do not have the time, nor the patience, to keep dealing with you on this.

And thank you for this, Doc James, regarding the "over the age of 65" text. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Money and western values are too good for you that's all. Goodbye, too drunk to give anyone a blowjob this time. SuperSucker (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Male-Female suicide ratios 2015 (age-standardized).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Male-female?

Isn't it time to include suicides from those who do not ascribe as male or female? 72.94.178.112 (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, death investigation and autopsy data typically do not include other gender/sex categories. The bulk of the data, to the best of my knowledge, are older and use the binary sex options (as do corresponding birth certificates indicating assigned sex at birth). There are data out there about LGBTQ and suicide in general, so maybe we can look there. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Walter Heyer has a new book out called "Translife Survivors." He says it's 19%. 72.94.178.112 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

This topic is specifically about sex/gender differences in suicide. And the academic literature, old and new, is focused on comparing boys to girls and men to women. General statistics about suicide, including general suicide among LGBT youth statistics, don't belong in this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

It does now that we're including more than two genders. 72.94.178.112 (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

What other genders? What literature on gender differences in suicide are comparing the rates of suicide among men and women (or boys and girls), or one or the other, to non-binary genders? The literature does compare the rates of LGBT suicide to non-LGBT suicide, but that's not specifically comparing gender differences in suicide between the two groups. For the literature on comparing gender differences in suicide, it's not just about whatever gender they identify as; it's about their sex, much like the literature on the human sex ratio is. This is because researchers want to document how many males vs. females die as a result of suicide, or attempt suicide, and why. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Use of term commit

Hi there, This page is protected to prevent vandalism, but I was hoping someone might read this. It is considered better to say “complete suicide” than commit, because of the connotations, mostly the relation to “commit a crime”. It is considered that using complete instead helps to remove stigma associated with a loved one having died by suicide. Thanks Bonnie9595 (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Bonnie9595, see Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 17#RFC: Categories with committed suicide in title, which links to previous discussions had on Wikipedia about this. Also notice just how big that discussion is and how it concluded. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Statistics Section

Under the United States section, the statement "According to the CDC, as of 2013 the suicide rates of Whites and American Indians are more than twice the rates of African Americans and Hispanics", while accurate, is not most recent data available and is no longer current. Recent data also includes the Asian/PI category as well

The Non-Western nations section is out of date based on List of countries by suicide rate and the WHO Interactive map evaluating age-standardized suicide rates from 2016

I am also unsure if a broad generalization about "A higher male mortality from suicide is also evident from data of non-Western countries: the Caribbean" when recent data from 2016 has multiple Caribbean nations at the bottom of the list when organized by suicide rate (ex. Barbados, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Grenada, and Jamaica) on the List of countries by suicide rate page.

The last sentence is also out of date as one citation is from 1987 and the other is a 2012 link to data from 2011. The most recent data show a few countries with suicide rate skewed towards women, represented by rates <1 also on the List of countries by suicide rate page.

--MSneurokid (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Wrong color

The map in the first paragraph is in wrong color. Can somebody fix that?City (RiME (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

nonbinary

The page on nonbinary gender states that 43% report attempting suicide. Would more information on suicide numbers regarding nonbinary people be relevant here or would it be giving the topic undue weight considering the small population size compared to male and female genders? Feralcateater000 (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be undue weight; also, the page title seems to be a misnomer, as these sorts of articles are typically titled "sex differences in..." Crossroads ^-talk- 06:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Methods numbers

Hi, the ref for EAAD methods by numbers (source 24) states explicitly that "Self-poisoning (X60–X69) ranked as the second highest suicide method for both males (14.0%) and females (29.0%) in EAAD countries combined", while the WIKI-article's "The same study found that the second most common methods were firearms (9.7%) for men ..." does not occur anywhere in the source, and therefore appears to be SYNTH. Pls replace the present formulation with the correct one from the source. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Confusing table on the incidence of male–female suicide ratio by country (2015)

I find the table on the incidence of male–female suicide ratio by country (2015) rather confusing.

It is ranked, but the ranking has nothing to do with either the male/female-ratio or the suicide rate.

Is there some data not represented in the table or should the ranking be removed?

Trinekc (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2021

The last sentence is missing a word. Replace "suicide rates in China – for both and men" with "suicide rates in China – for both women and men". Thanks. 69.162.253.10 (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Moving the top section and clarifying some of the sources

Hi. GBFEE and JayBeeEll I noticed that you reverted some of my changes, and was wondering if you could give me more feedback? Some of the summeries of citations have been altered to be exceptionally vague about what's in the source, and that there are some citations that need aditional clarification from other studies. I am sorry if my editing summery wasn't informative enough, but sometimes I hit confirm after going away for a bit and don't remember everything I did. Can you clarify as to which parts you have issue with? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Tiggy The Terrible, I said some things on your talk page.[2] We can talk more here on the discussion page. I don't edit all day like a lot of other editors here, so I request that you wait for my replies at a certain time of day if we want to avoid edit warring and want to come to a consensus on things. I can also make room to comment at times I'm not usually on Wikipedia, but I'd rather not do that. GBFEE (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

You also removed important information from the lead, when you shouldn't. Discuss. GBFEE (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

My feedback is that you shouldn't write edit summaries that are transparently dishonest. Further, if you continue to treat Wikipedia as a venue for pushing your point of view, you are likely to end up blocked -- knock it off. --JBL (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel like I was being dishonest, but that wasn't my intention at all. I was just trying to move and condense some of the stuff in the header. I copied everything down, but I found one piece of what I thought was duplicate content that I remeoved. If it wasn't I'm sorry. However, it seemed redundent. I don't see all that much controvercial content on this page, though I am confused as to why one of my sources that is continuing on from the info in the header was buried after my last edit a little while ago. I thought it was probably because the header was getting too long, so I thought that making an overview section worked better. Would you like me to bring the new sources over to the talk page so we can talk about them and their inclusion? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Tiggy (can I call you Tiggy?), what sentence are you referring to on your talk page?[3] Do you have a non-primary resource for it, which is better and is the type of resource we should use? What wording do you propose? GBFEE (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You can. :) My citation was specifically this one. I'm afraid I can't dig up an article on it, so that is the only version. Sorry. Is it acceptable? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That resource is still in the article. I don't understand your complaint about "buried". What are you proposing? For that resource,[4] the issue I had with how you used it is that you said "However, this notion [that researchers have partly attributed the difference between suicide and attempted suicide among the sexes to males using more lethal means to end their lives] has been challenged by research" and "this is backed up by research showing that even when men and women use the same methods, men are still more likely to die from them." But the resource doesn't dispute that males using more lethal methods is one of the reasons. It argues that it's not the only reason for higher suicide rates in males. The sentence you challenged always said says "partly attributed".

For appropriate resources, see the medical guidance. Wikipedia says don't prefer primary resources. So I'm going to change primary resources in the page to more appropriate ones. When a primary resource is used, an editor's interpretation of what it's saying must be left out. It can only be used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. GBFEE (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Men and women"

[5] Do you also consider the under-18 group to be men and women? Ignoring this group is not "more respectful". GBFEE (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Mistake in first paragraph

The first paragraph states that "females die by suicide more frequently". However, the linked source and the following paragraph state the opposite - that men die more frequently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makryz (talk • contribs) 22:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I think the first paragraph got switched somehow, because all the other sources say it's men who die more with women having more non-fatal ideologies. Isro! (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It was a mistake I made when updating resources.[6][7] I spotted it just as the Makryz account commented. GBFEE (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I also changed the first resource again.[8] Of course I know what the gender paradox of suicide is, if the "Moving the top section and clarifying some of the sources" discussion above isn't any indication. But thanks, Makryz account, for your diligence. :) GBFEE (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Resources

Because of the type of resources we're supposed to use for this information, including this,[9] I'm still going to remove resources and use appropriate ones in their place. This page isn't a top "do it" thing for me. So I'm working toward helping other pages right now. Some primary resources may remain, but I will try to remove as many of them as I can. GBFEE (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding a source and editing misleading content.

Hello, i don't know how to edit the article but i see in the "Differing methods by gender" a source (Varnik, A; et al. (2008)) which gives only european data to advance an hypothesis. There's an article which covers WHO worldwide data says essentially the opposite of this, it should be added or the section which is supported by ref 29 should be revised to acknowledge that europe is a statistical anomaly. Here i report the relevant part:

"The first, and surprising, finding from the CA is that the correspondence maps for men and women are very similar. This is because there is a much larger difference in suicide methods between countries than between genders. Where a suicide method is particularly popular in men, it will often also be popular in women, and vice versa. In general, underlying suicide patterns tell us more about the availability and acceptability of suicide methods than about gender disparities. The European data, however, provide a notable exception to the congruence between men and women."

Ajdacic-Gross, Vladeta, et al. "Methods of suicide: international suicide patterns derived from the WHO mortality database." Bulletin of the World Health Organization 86 (2008): 726-732

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2649482/ 131.175.28.194 (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)