Talk:Suicide

Help for suicidal people

I think there should be two hatnotes below the existing ones. The first one should link to the Wikipedia article on suicide crisis lines, saying something like: If you are feeling suicidal, you deserve to feel better and can find worldwide crisis lines from people who will listen to you from this article: List of suicide crisis lines

And the second one should say: For a list of resources actively maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, see Meta:Mental health resources.

They should be a couple spaces below the already existing ones so it'll catch the eye of suicidal people immediately Stephanie921 (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding this type of hatnote gets discussed every few months on this talk page. It hasn't received enough support to achieve consensus, I also suggest you read the old discussions in the archives so as not to retread old ground.--Megaman en m (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

When my battery's charged I will, although if it hasn't achieved consensus yet I don't see that as a reason not to try again. People might feel differently this time Stephanie921 (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't even have the "for information on prevention" note in the first place. We definitely shouldn't be adding any more. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 10:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

There should be a link to support services for suicidal people. -cspan02 (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the information in the banner at the top regarding this? DonIago (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Well one reason "not to try" is because it's officially endorsing certain beliefs and by extent condemning other ones. Not everybody believes in the same things, including regarding suicide, not everybody thinks it's unethical, or something to be prevented, some believe the exact opposite, different people and societies across time view it in many many different ways.

It's not our place to support certain beliefs and not all the rest. Wikipedia should be a place of impartiality. The article should only contain the relevant and unbiased information on the topic, not prejudicial notes. 76.253.186.239 (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times in the past, but yet I strongly believe this should be added in some way or another. I will admit than in times in the past, this singular Wikipedia article almost ended up in my death. I think that while Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view, it is just morally wrong to ignore what the article could do, and have this page without any form of advice. The content certainly shouldn't be censored, but we don't want to cause or encourage suicide without at least giving a little bit of help. I think there should at least be one final consensus either way, and to leave a notice about that at the top of this page to stop further discussion. Has ArbCom discussed this at all? ~ Eejit43 (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I hear you, however, you'd be forcing your view/beliefs onto others.

While you say: "it is just morally wrong to ignore what the article could do, and have this page without any form of advice", and: "but we don't want to cause or encourage suicide without at least giving a little bit of help". I would contend for just the opposite, suicide is neither morally wrong, nor morally neutral, but rather it's morally good, and trying to make people doubt themselves or not due so is just morally wrong; and that it's morally wrong to perpetuate the idea that suicide is universally viewed as unequivocally wrong. I'd say we should definitely give help, help for the people who wish to perform suicide to do so comfortably and effectively, something that people are often deprived of when they do die. I'd say any act of prevention any barrier is extremely cruel and wrong.

We all believe different things. What I said wasn't some joke hypothetical, that's genuinely what I believe, but I'm also not one to dismiss other people's perspectives or to force my view onto them, I'd say we should represent all view in the article itself, and not chose to give one special weight disregarding all others. 76.253.186.239 (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't think I'd actually be able to see the other side, but I do understand where you are coming from. I think a simple hatnote with a link to meta:Mental health resources would be fine. Like on this talk page: "The Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety team maintains a list of crisis support resources." That is just a statement of fact, and doesn't have any biases.

Coming back to this later: abiding by Wikipedia policies is important, and the existing links on Suicide and Suicide methods to Suicide prevention are pretty good- maybe nothing more is needed? The request for comment also provided some good insight into reasons why and why not. So in that case I guess maybe there is nothing else to be done... I'll think on it some more! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The ONLY question that is relevant is "Is including such a note encyclopedic?" And the answer is "no". Coverage of such services in the article and links to articles on such service are, a "get help here" note isn't. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Something similar to a simple hatnote like they proposed is absolutely not something “forcing your view/beliefs onto others.”. I understand your reasoning in your comments but I heavily disagree. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Fortunately, suicide is illegal..that keeps people from doing it Anonymous8206 (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

That's just factually inaccurate. You might want to read the article. DonIago (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Suicide legislation#Laws in individual jurisdictions (table) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The point probably wasn't that it is legal, the point was likely that the illegality of it doesn't stop people from doing it. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I really, really hope you aren't serious... ~ Eejit43 (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe they were being sarcastic Justanotherguy54 (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

"Killed yourself" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Killed yourself has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 29 § Killed yourself until a consensus is reached. An anonymous username, not my real name 18:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

ADHD shouldn’t be listed here as a mental disorder. It’s not a mental health condition but is a neurodevelopmental condition or neurodivergence. 213.31.91.185 (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Neurodevelopmental conditions are a type of mental disorder. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Really?

Though it probably has been discussed before in connection with this article, because of the importance of this subject, I'd like to question this anyway: "Common methods of suicide include hanging, pesticide poisoning, and firearms." How can we define those methods as more common that the fact that many more people seem to end their lives in a longer more drawn-out way through continual substance abuse? In my opinion an autopsy that reveals organ failure or other health disasters due to such abuse should always be included in suicide statistics. Is that done? SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I think they're distinct processes, even if they're largely related.

More importantly, though, we have to use statistics available to us, and if they do not count what you're suggesting, that's how it is. With consensus perhaps it could be specified precisely what is counted and what is not in the statistics; I would not be part of that consensus because for anyone that interested they can (and should) click through to sources. Kimen8 (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Substance abuse is a quite extensive article and does include this. I would say we keep it that way and include the links where they fit in this article. Open for suggestions. 2A02:1406:1E:F8FE:B0FF:1638:F6D4:A5DC (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal:

Change "Common methods of suicide include hanging, pesticide poisoning, and firearms."

to

"Common methods of suicide include hanging, pesticide poisoning, firearms and substance abuse." --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Suicide is an event. Your own description of deaths from substance abuse as drawn-out excludes them from consideration as suicides. An intentional overdose is a suicide, death by long term effects isn't. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

That's just an opinion, not a fact. I see no difference between "an intentional overdose" once or several times. The very word "abuse" entails "intentional" and if that abuse leads to death, it's suicude. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

How do you figure that each use of drugs is "an intentional overdose"? Also, by your reasoning, every time a speeder is killed in a wreck it is suicide. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Not all drug use leads to death. Severe abuse usually does. Driving is irrelevant unless the driver intentionally abuses the car severly by crashing on purpose. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

You're missing the point.

The other editor said An intentional overdose is a suicide, death by long term effects isn't., and you respond by saying there is no difference between "an intentional overdose" once or several times. So the implied logical connection is that you consider each use to be an (intentional) overdose.

Also, you're going to need a source for "severe abuse" usually leading to death. Plenty of substance abuse does not lead to death; I'd say the majority does not lead to death.

Moreover, without invoking Freud, good luck showing that all (or even most) substance abuse is suicidal. Plenty of people do not begin for suicidal reasons, and do not continue for suicidal reasons. Plenty of people begin for whatever (non-suicidal) reason and get addicted and thus do not stop, and are not suicidal. Plenty of people abuse substances without being suicidal and maintain functioning.

What my comment boils down to is without WP:MEDRS sources to back up your claim, you can speculate and offer your opinion, but it won't trickle down to article changes. Kimen8 (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

OK so severe drug abuse is safe. Fine fine. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

No. It's just not suicide. You seem to understand the difference when it comes to the example of driving. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• No. If someone overdoses it's generally an accidental death. If someone just ruins their heart or something on other drugs, it's generally an accidental death. They didnt' set out to die, and presumably would like to continue being alive and using substances. GMG^talk 14:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Crisis hotline image in lead

I recently removed a crisis hotline image in the lead section, but I'm adding this onto the Talk page because it seems to be a disputed edit. User @Dustfreeworld added this from the Suicide prevention article Special:Diff/1172475298, then added a cute little hidden-comment after it was removed by another editor Special:Diff/1190507116. I certainly don't think the correct approach is to keep re-adding the image after it was removed 3 times without talk page consensus (as well as adding that hidden-comment along with it to deter further amateur editors from removing the image), so my rationale for removing this while it was in the lead is that this article is about suicide, not suicide prevention. Crisis hotlines do not have a direct relation to suicide, but do have a direct relation to suicide prevention, which has its own article. There is already no consensus to add crisis hotlines as a hatnote, and adding the same thing in image form at the top seems to be POV-pushing the same idea behind adding crisis hotlines at the top. Crisis hotlines correctly have little weight in the lead, and there are many other topics in the lead that warrant illustration. — Karnataka 06:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Remove mention of nihilism

Nihilism is a philosophical concept and is inappropriate to be listed as a risk factor for suicide. People who are nihilist do not necessarily have a greater risk factor for suicide. Cateydotnet (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not currently able to review them, but that sentence is cited to three different sources. Presuming that all three specifically reference nihilism, are you saying they're wrong? Can you provide another source that disputes it? DonIago (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)