Talk:Suicide methods/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

hypothermia

what about intentionally freezing to death (hypothermia?) never heard of anyone trying that, but theoretically it'd be possible (131.130.121.106 20:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Just take a look at the links section and you'll find http://suicidemethods.net/text/halfofit.htm#chapcold

was more thinking on the lines of "why isn't this covered here" (too rare?) (131.130.121.106 14:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC))

FYI, this was the famous method of suicide practiced by old Inuit who were no longer productive members of society, or who could not keep up with the nomadic group. I have heard it described as a relatively pleasant death, though I'd have to find a source to confirm that. -Willmcw 03:50, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Mushrooms and Plants

It's not a common way to die and it can be very painful but do some people commit suicide by eating poisonous plants? I'm thinking that it could be a potential alternative... - maybe a neglected one up to now.

Simfish 21:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Catching" the Train

I don't know about elsewhere but I find this method is often used in Australia. --Kintaro 21:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Stopping breathing

According to my former science teacher, if you stop breathing you'll end up losing consciousness, at which point you'll resume (involontary) breathing. Therefore you can't kill yourself this way. --Army1987 21:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Might be so. This article however examines not "how to commit suicide", but rather suicide methods in general, who used them and when, how they did it and such. It is true that some people, such as Buryat monks in Soviet prisons who are mentioned, actually allegedly committed suicide this way without any other "tools"; supposedly, the possibility to do this was reached by meditation and such maybe. I am not the one to decide how true are these claims; but in this article, that method is talked about in that "supposedly"/"allegedly" status, that is, it is not claimed that it is really possible or that people done it for sure.DeirYassin 23:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

How-to guide

Despite the interesting topic, isn't this article coming close to becoming a "how-to" manual? Wikipedia:How-to seems to discourage such articles. -Willmcw 03:50, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

There is some discussion going about this and the new notice at the top of the article at the village pump. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 06:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Village pump discussion: to disclaim or no

Moved from the Village Pump.

I stumbled across Suicide methods while RC patrolling the other day, and looking at the article it looks like a how to of suicide and discusses your various options for doing so. However, the last thing a suicidal person needs is a weapon or a plan. I'm not saying we should remove the article. As a wikipedian, I see its encyclopedic value. However, as a person, I'm a bit disturbed by it.

Would adding a template/table like the one at the top of this article be unreasonable? -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 21:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Very emphatic support. ~~ N (t/c) 21:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Likewise. Tricky issue. I can't think of a better (partial) solution than this notice. A little more brainstorming wouldn't hurt, either, which should also be linked to from Talk:Suicide methods. Andrewa 02:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and doing this. ~~ N (t/c) 02:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a pretty good solution: good enough to merit another template of this type (hint hint, don't use Talk-Notice CSS attribute: what if they disabled it o.O). Perhaps Template:Danger... — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 03:05, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

No disclaimer templates, please. --cesarb 15:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This is really more of a warning than a disclaimer, as I see it. (IANAL.) ~~ N (t/c) 15:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This one might be good, but let's avoid creating a template out of it. --cesarb 15:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This notice is not a disclaimer IMO, in terms of Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates#What are disclaimer templates, but the discussion there is relevant, as is this page relevant to the discussion there. If we find a similar article that needs a similar notice, that's when we need to talk about a template. This may well be a once-off. Andrewa 21:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I've added some more information. --Ixfd64 03:57, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Nickptar, for adding that template. This article seems almost like a "how-to". -Willmcw 04:05, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned by this template. It strikes me as an unhelpful (however well-meant) departure from NPOV, as it clearly takes the stance that suicide is not approved behavior. Readers who are interested in suicide methods for academic reasons do not need to be told emergency services may be necessary to prevent suicide; readers who are actually interested in killing themselves will not be deterred and may instead find dark humor in the notice ("medical emergency? Duh, I'm gonna die!"). I think it would be far more helpful to work external links to counseling services into the article somehow, instead of offering articles for further reading. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 22:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to say I don't like this either. Do read Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. It has an important reason contra: if readers can expect disclaimer templates like these, not having them could be a liability. Why not paste this on Suicide, for example, or all other topics related to suicide? If suicide methods reads too much like a howto, it should be rewritten, but disclaimers, no matter how well-intended, are usually not the solution to anything, and create problems of their own. JRM · Talk 22:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I also do not agree with the inclusion of the disclaimer. Not only does it favour a specific point-of-view, but it is also quite obvious that suicide is "harmful" to a person. This disclaimer serves no purpose and has no use to anybody. Suicidal or not. --Sn0wflake 22:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The current disclaimer seems to be comic in nature. I don't believe there is any person who wants to kill himself but doesn't know how to, then comes on this page, chooses a way and uses it. The current disclaimer is more "humorous" than "encyclopedic".--Army1987 22:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I created the temporary template on my subpage, and started this discussion at the VP. To be honest, I didn't necesarily think that the disclaimer should be in the article, which is why I was hesitant in being bold and asked for opinoins instead of directly adding it to the article. I agree with Snowflake and JRM; the article needs to be rewritten instead of having the notice/disclaimer added. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree with JRM. Count me "undecided". I don't think this template is likely to dissuade anyone, but on the very unlikely chance it does, it might help. This article does seem encyclopedic, though. ~~ N (t/c) 22:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I've replaced the warning with a standard navigation template, {{suicide}}. Are there changes to the template that should be made? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 22:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I like it. I really like the link to crisis hotline in there. Addresses JRM's comment well. ~~ N (t/c) 22:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I like it too, although I'd also be interested to see how the suggested article rewrite went too.

This template should IMO also replace the notice on the suicide article. I was a little disappointed to see the disclaimer appear there, especially as there is no discussion at talk:suicide. I think this article is a very special case. Andrewa 23:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops, right... missed that one. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 23:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

While there is a great deal of debate over whether suicide is wrong in specific circumstances, such as voluntary euthanasia (a topic we don't seem to cover and should), there is I think no doubt that suicidal thoughts are often associated with clinical depression and are a genuine medical emergency. This article could be extremely dangerous in such circumstances.

If I can attempt a parallel, we have no problem describing the workings of nuclear bombs here. But, what if the secret of the implosion device was still a well-kept secret? I think that, in the public interest, Wikipedia would not allow it to be published in our pages. OK, it's not a good parallel, as our refusing to publish it wouldn't be effective in preventing terrorists or non-weapons states from getting the information. It's not a well-kept secret and it's hard to imagine it being one! Best I could come up with. But in this case, this article is a very likely place for a depressed person to come. A well-worded message will save the lives of people who will later thank us. This is not about expressing a POV concerning suicide in general, it's just about helping those people.

That's why I think it's a special case where the general disclaimers may need a little help. But maybe this box is enough. Agree it's a very good direction. Andrewa 23:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Ex-crisis guy here, I really think it's important to tell people that serious suicidal thoughts are a medical condition, and not normal whatsoever. A typical suicide contemplates many times and backs off - my understanding from people saved against their temporary will was that they thought that people really considering killing themselves was perfectly normal. It's those people who might read the notice and think that it's an emergency - as such, I added the blurb into the template. Hipocrite 23:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for showing up. Actually, we wouldn't publish nuclear weapons information because we'd be thrown in jail. And I doubt that Wikipedia will encourage (or discourage) anyone from committing suicide. But this isn't POV, you're right, it's social responsibility. (Half-seriously, maybe we should tell people why it won't work.) ~~ N (t/c) 23:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

As an aside, knowing how to build an atom bomb is not really the most important part of actually constructing one. One has to have the experience, resources, and safety precautions needed to build such a thing without being killed by an explosion or radiation poisoning. An article from the internet can't provide those. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 23:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there's a lot more to producing a bomb than just having the drawings, or even the fissile material and the drawings. I find it a bit funny just thinking about a terrorist sitting with some sub-critical slugs of Pu-239 and one of the Internet bombs for beginners pages and wondering what to do next. My example was more what if we had information that was going to make a difference, and were allowed to publish it? I think we wouldn't, which would be a special case, because it would be accurate and encyclopedic. Andrewa 00:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that having something like this is not only neccessary, but very welcome to Wikipedia. I think that it certainly creates the impression that we're a safe, welcome environment. Hipocrite is certainly right; at the very least I could see someone who was seriously contemplating it, that saw the notice, and ended up backing off again that night, which may not seem like much, but it's something, at least. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

And to put it another way, it might serve to redirect prospective users' efforts elsewhere. I'd much rather have somebody editing Wikipedia somewhere after getting distracted by the notice, instead of offing themselves. May be a bit extreme, but.... -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I really doubt someone worked up to the point of intending to kill themselves is going to have any interest in editing Wikipedia to pass the remaining time. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 06:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not so much the ones that are directly intending as considering. Look at livejournal and think of all the untapped emo power out there! Ah, don't worry, I'm not too serious. But in a way, I'm not. I know when I'm in a dangerous mood like that, finding something to do (i.e. Wikipedia) is a great method of distraction. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

This line of thought is slightly unrealistic. There is a very significative difference between one having suicidal thoughts and one's actual decision to commit suicide. Somebody with suicidal thoughts will likely ignore the disclaimer in the same way one ignores advertisement from a politician they dislike. Somebody who actually inteds to commit suicide will go on with it, regardless of any disclaimer. This argument seems to ignore that most people who consider suicide mostly just need to feel loved or have some form of attention, it's not some disorder or medical condition. On the other hand, what might be helpful to all is a short message such as "Help for people having suicidal thoughts is avaliable at this link" and that's it. No POV. No bullshit. Just a friendly reminder to address all concerns. --Sn0wflake 12:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

There will be some cultural variation, but in Australia where we have both an appalling suicide rate and a long history of counselling services (possibly as a result, see Lifeline), I think it's generally recognised that the step from having suicidal thoughts to having a specific plan is a very important and dangerous one that can convert anything from a bad mood to genuine diagnosable depression into a tragedy. Conversely, support given to the potential victim at this stage is particularly important and effective. Andrewa 19:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

"Somebody who actually inteds to commit suicide will go on with it, regardless of any disclaimer." - I have to say I disagree with that. Suicidal people, at least the ones which I have delt with, are looking for reasons to reconcider taking their own life and seeing that disclaimer might give them the push they need to stop and think about what they're doing. I think it would be best to get the perspective of a therapist or psycologist on this issue; they would have a better idea of how suicidal people think than a bunch of arm chair psycologists and philosophers (myself included). -- A concerned citizen 11/11/2005

Hi folks, I thought I would mention there is at least one other example of that occurred at Hurricane Katrina. There was a debate there, and it was removed. I think in special cases it is worth putting up these notes. The guideline page (Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates) seems to pertain to disclaimers against factual inaccuracy and content issues, neither of which are what is being considered here. In fact, I'm not entirely sure that this should be considered a "disclaimer" per say. We're not claiming that anything in the article is false, offensive, or illegal. Rather we are suggesting that people who are considering putting the information to a particular use should consider other alternatives. While, I understand the concern that this could lead to run away usage of such templates, I hope that we can stop it somewhere else down the line.

With regard to the skepticism about its impact above, the warning seems weird, no doubt. But then again, to us so does committing suicide. Using our own reasoning as a model for other people only works insofar as the other people reason like we do. Since they are on the brink of suicide many don't. And supposing that they did, coming across a website that is a cold and calculated description of how to commit suicide might reinforce the idea that "no one cares whether I live or die." On the other hand coming across that same page with a note asking them to please get help, might challenge that notion.

We have policies to prevent our 'pedia from turning into a mess, and this is very important. However, if such policies result in callousness, I would hope that people might think of reforming them. Rather than appealing to an existing guideline, I would hope that we might come up with a new guideline that might allow for this case without opening the doors to abuse.

That said, I think that the current statement should be in the suicide template, but should also occur at the top of every page on suicide. Its presence in small type and the bottom of a side infobox is likely to go unnoticed. I didn't notice it when I started typing this comment. Sorry for the length! --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 20:57, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I (the author of this article and most of what is written here, although due to my bad English most is reworded already lol) am against such warnings, due to facts already mentioned (that they are not going to be helpful in any case) and also due to the fact that this is encyclopedia, a knowledge base, any such disclaimers or pseudo-disclaimers can be treated as a precedent by others who will e.g. want to set similar disclaimers for religious material (such as material about supposedly dangerous sects or cults), material about drugs, smoking and drinking alcohol, etc., which will lead to inevitable long and useless discutions, and any such disclaimers (or pseudodisclaimers) won't help much anyways. Just a commentless link to such a hotline, with maybe links to pro-suicide sites too for it to be NPOV, might be done under template with article list though. The current way it is done is not very bad either I guess. DeirYassin 16:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I will WP:IAR and delete any links to pro-suicide sites, and if anyone thinks that is behavior warenting a ban, I propose that they bring me up for RFAr, because nothing short of a ban is going to change that, so sorry. I have not had time to review the two current links, but I will shortly. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have edited the template for it to comform to a neutral point of view. The last thing somebody having suicidal thoughts needs to hear is that they are "diseased", as the former message implied. Let's forget religious POVs for a moment and remember that we are editing a NPOV encyclopedia, shall we. --Sn0wflake 23:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV edit is actually to remove the words "generally considered." From the perspective of a crisis response, the fact that a crisis is ongoing is the first thing that needs to be resolved - The conversation is "You need help, everything is ok, you can talk about it, here's what you can do." Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Socrates

Hello all - An anon added Socrates to famous people who killed themselves by poisoning. The statement asserted some skepticism regarding the truth of this story. I have never heard of any skepticism, and our Socrates entry doesn't appear to suggest any. If there are references for this, feel free to add it back in (and maybe into the Socrates entry). --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)