Talk:Senicide

...87 address the motives of old people to commit suicide. Of these suicides, twenty three percent were motivated by impatience, twenty percent by humiliation, fourteen percent by vanity, and eleven percent by suffering...

Starvation was the most widely used, accounting for thirty percent of the sixty-one cases available. Suicide via the use of weapons was second most prevalent making up twenty-one percent of the cases, followed by the use of poison in eighteen percent of the cases. [1]

No point in giving percentages, but I didn't have the sources so I deduced the real numbers. Someone may care to check them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.75.48.150 (talk • contribs)

Ache

Is it worth having a section on the Ache tribe?? When they became too old or too disabled to be productive members of the tribe, Aché women were violently murdered by another man in their tribe.[33] Unproductive elderly Aché men were exiled from the group. Sep 26 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.237.114 (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Serial killers?

Is it worth having a section on killers who largely targeted the elderly? Such as John Bodkin Adams (acquitted but now thought to have killed 165) or Harold Shipman? Surely it's relevant? Malick78 (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

messy and misleading

The whole section 'History' is pointless. The first half of it is not about senicide, but about the fact that some suicides were committed by elderly people (nor is clear from the citation to which period and culture the statistics refer). In the second half, there are some allegations about ancient Greece and Rome, yet no real evidence that senicide actually existed there. In fact, the article contains very little evidence that ANY culture (save for the Tamils) had ever practiced true senicide: nearly all references are to 'legends' and 'beliefs' about other cultures. Real and imaginary practices are hopelessly confused. If someone interested in anthropology want to get any information on senicide, they will get none from this article. The article badly needs: a) Sufficient sourcing; b) Division into two subsections: 1) 'Senicide in popular beliefs' (perhaps 'Senicide in cultural sterepotypes'); 2) 'Senicide in actual practices'.89.178.26.83 (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Created out of some twisted POV, much of the article completely conflates suicide and senicide, e.g. Many modern Christians do not accept the practice of suicide or senicide, holding that only God should have control over a person's life and death (many modern Christians will make a sharp difference about these two things, I presume). Luckily, the section "by culture" sticks to the topic. I will remove all stuff that does not directly relate to actual senicide. –Austronesier (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Logan's run?

Seems like a good candidate for the "Senicide in Fiction" section.

---

Lead too short?

I removed the {{lead too short|date=May 2018}} template from the article. Honestly the substance of this article isn't very comprehensive, I think the short lead that exists now is adequate.Киан (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Views

Do religious and philosophical views need to be separate sections? The two are very similar and have a lot of overlap. Might make the article easier to understand by having one section title views with subsections of the different views on senicide. Article_Evaluation Breano21 (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I can't parse the statement about Seneca and Nero

"However, one of the most famous examples of deviation from this code occurred when the physician of Seneca, a philosopher and tutor of Nero, provided the scholar, who was 69 years old at the time, with poison for one of his many failed attempts at suicide."

i'm having trouble figuring out what happened in this sentence. Who provided whom with poison? Seneca? Nero? some unnamed physician? can anyone please clear this upMattman00000 (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I read it as Seneca the younger was the philsopher who attempted suicide repeatedly. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Correct parsing requires knowledge that Seneca was a scholar and Nero died young. I have rephrased it, although I still have no idea why the section "Philosophical views" is even here. –Austronesier (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

'contemporary culture' section is misleading

The modern western world does not consciously expose their elderly to conditions that would bring about their deaths. 2A02:C7C:587F:CC00:C154:B56F:B44B:82FB (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Changes since 2023

Hi @Wikipus, it seems you've been very active in editing this article since last year. The POV has shifted a lot though, and I'm a bit concerned about the current state of the article. A lot of it seems to treat senicide as a natural choice even when resources are not scarce. I think it would be more sensible if the article focused on the negatives of senicide first, we are talking about killing people after all. Also, a lot of this doesn't have any citations, which is never good in an article like this (see WP:NOTESSAY). Thanks for expanding the article though, I wrote this comment instead of reverting because the structure is better than before you started editing here. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@HansVonStuttgart Thanks, Hans. will come back to you later due to serious health issues. Sorry. Wikipus (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)