Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2020 July 21

Language desk
< July 20	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 21

suicide terminology, Robin Williams

Hi,

I came across the Robin Williams "committed suicide". Based on the most recent medical and mental health research, this should be changed to "died by suicide". However, when I went to edit, there was a notice that said specifically not to change "Committed suicide" and to go to the Talk page for additional information.

The Talk" page has extensive discussion to change the sentence to "died by suicide" with credible supporting data. However despite all the discussion, no final action to change "commit suicide" to "death by suicide" has been taken. This indicates a lack of decision making "somewhere".

Is the individual who put in "don't change this term" someone who has authority over this article, and if so, why haven't they addressed the indication that the correct term by 2020 standards is "died by suicide"? Or was this direction (to not change it) arbitrarily entered by another user, and therefore someone without authority?

66.31.67.37 (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Nobody has autority over any WP article, so it must be your own lack of decision making. Go and change the wording if you believe you know the 2020 standards. 2003:F5:6F0C:9500:ADC4:5DDA:DFDD:360E (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Marco PB

This isn't really a suitable query for the Reference Desk. I suggest you copy your post and insert it either at the Robin Williams article's talk page or at the Help desk. Deor (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The consensus on Wikipedia is that "commit suicide" is normal English and fine for use.--Khajidha (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I would like to hear the OP explain what they think the distinction would be between the two terms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The OP has posted links to three pages. I picked one of these at random: "Why mental health advocates use the words 'died by suicide'" (NBC). The strapline [not sure if this is the correct term] is: "By changing the way we speak, we remove the culpability from the person who has lost their life." Thus it's not necessary even to skimread the article to know that the distinction, or anyway a distinction, is: Seeming to blame, versus not seeming to blame, the person who killed themself. I haven't thought about the matter and don't want to give an opinion, but it appears that the OP has a point that's worth consideration. I don't think that the right place for a discussion is here (because no guidelines are made here), the article's talk page (because if it's worth consideration, it's worth consideration for far more than one biography), or the help desk (which tells people how to do things according to existing policy). Possibly Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), though I suspect that even that is not the best place. Wherever it's proposed, whoever proposes it should have worked on the draft to phrase what's posted for maximum persuasiveness. (This won't be easy, as verbosity will count against it.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Not Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) (at first, anyway), but perhaps Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). The problem is that a discussion did start at Talk:Robin Williams, and proceeded some way. Attempting to start a different discussion of the same question at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) will probably bring an immediate accusation of "forum shopping" and a quick closure. If the discussion was improper, then you could claim this. Meanwhile, I'll point out that as "die by suicide" (or other retention of "suicide" without "commit") raises the hackles of some people, you could simply bypass "suicide" as well; for example: "In August 2014, at age 63, Williams {killed himself by hanging} / {hung himself} at his home in Paradise Cay, California. His widow, Susan Schneider Williams, attributed this to his struggle with Lewy body disease, as did the autopsy and medical experts." -- Hoary (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Wasn't there already an RFC about this a while ago? Maybe look in the Village Pump or WP:MOS archives.

Anyway, my objection to "died by suicide" is not that it removes "blame" from the person, but that it removes agency. It makes it sound like something that just happened to the person, rather than something the person did. I don't mind "killed himself", at least not for that reason, though it does strike me as a bit blunt. --Trovatore (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It sounds kind of euphemistic or passive-voice. As you say, it's as if someone else did it. Wikipedia is not about being "politically correct". If there were a consistent manual-of-style guideline, we would then also have to say "death by murder", etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Which unfortunately brings to mind the comedy film Murder by Death. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.211.254 (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This being the language desk, I have to insist that it is not passive voice. Syntactically, it's definitely active voice. It's semantically similar to passive constructions, though — see unaccusative verb. --Trovatore (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should revive the old-fashioned "died by his own hand". (Or "killed by his own hand", as I saw it rendered once, although that rather brings to mind Evil Dead II). Iapetus (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

If you take the idiom "killed by his own hand" too literally, it could bring to mind Alien hand syndrome (a.k.a. "Dr. Strangelove syndrome")... AnonMoos (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Since there's not really a good verb form for "suicide", I think in the case we are describing directly how someone died, it would be best to stick with "killed himself." Or, if in dispute, until a consensus is established as to which is best, then just go with how the majority of sources describe it. Ditch ∝ 23:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem with using how the majority of sources describe it is that they often don't. They beat around the bush. They talk about the person's depression, or mental health issues, or in one case I saw recently "stopped taking his prescribed medication". Readers are left to work it out for themselves. Wikipedia is clearly not the only organisation finding it difficult to find perfect words to say someone killed themselves. I personally have no issue with "committed suicide", but I'm old and often see no need to change an expression that's never bothered me in the past. I also wonder how universal this issue is across the English speaking world. Is the attempt to find different words limited to the United States? (Not picking on that country, but it's relevant to the Robin Williams case which began this discussion.) Having written that, I looked at Shane Tuck, an Australian footballer who died three days ago. After his death his article initially said "died after committing suicide", but it was changed earlier today by an apparently Australian based IP editor to "died by suicide", with an Edit summary of ""Committing suicide" makes it sound like a crime, i.e. "committing murder" or "committing an armed robbery". We need to be careful about the terminology we use around the insidious illness that is depression." So it seems the same debate exists in Australia, without a uniform view on the matter. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Suicide has become the taboo subject of the new millennium and naming it has to be avoided or at least euphemised. Much as homosexual men were once described as "confirmed bachelors". That at least was understandable, as homosexual acts were illegal everywhere back then. But so what if suicide is still illegal in some places? We don't shrink from graphically describing murders, genocides, rape, and all manner of non-fatal violence. The more gruesome, the better. But if you do it to yourself, we have be to sensitive and not say it in so many words. Whom is it we're protecting? The bereaved family and friends? Gimme a break. Nothing would be worse than becoming aware of the event in the first place. The media doesn't give a toss about the family and friends of murder victims. Unforgiveable double standards. </rant> -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The "died by suicide" brigade don't give a toss about the people really hurt by suicide - the wives, children. siblings, families, friends, of those who kill themselves. But we've got to be oh so sensitive not to say anything negative about dead people who have inflicted permanent hurt upon living people. Suicide is a supremely selfish action. DuncanHill (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

It is precisely this oft-repeated lie that makes people insist on expressions like died by suicide. Suicide is something that happens to people, not something they do, so any expression implying agency on the victim's part is misleading, including the expression killed themselves. Suicide is caused by mental illness, not by a free decision made by someone of sound mind. Robin Williams's suicide was due to dementia. The use of non-misleading expressions can only help those left behind, as it can only be easier to live with the knowledge that mental disease killed their loved one than to falsely believe that the victim caused their own death. There is nothing to be gained by using a misleading expression when there are other expressions available. The insistence on the factually incorrect expression committed suicide seems to be due to an emotionally immature lack of empathy for suicide victims and their families combined with an equally childish notion that one's own wish to use a given expression should trump any other concern. Getting angry when told to be nice to people is the reaction of a child, not of an emotionally mature adult. 2A02:2121:303:C022:E8C9:4E68:1EA:7B83 (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

While I disagree with "died by suicide" on the basis that suicide involves free will, otherwise it would be called an accident or a killing, I agree that victim-blaming is at best highly counterproductive. Who ever thought that putting the weight of families and friends on someone's shoulders makes people suffering from depression want to go on living? Did you realize that the same argument is used in favor of suicide in some cultures: "imagine the shame my family will face if I ignore this error I made"? DuncanHill, I think it would be best if you didn't mention this opinion near anyone you think may be tempted to commit suicide. 93.136.103.194 (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

"Suicide is something that happens to people, not something they do" is factually false. Unless you're arguing for the medieval notion of the victim being "possessed by a demon". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't remember where it was the last time it came up, but I do remember that we recognize the distinction of "committed suicide" and "died by suicide" is that some countries see it as a crime so it is better to use "died by suicide" for such deaths in those countries, whereas in places like the US, where this isn't the case, "committed suicide" has been standard language. So this is like following the national language pref, not because we were doing it out of respect. But if there is a valid argument that we should standardize on "died by suicide" across the board, that needs to be a sitewide RFC to establish that. --Masem (t) 05:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian Style Guide mandates the use of "killed himseld/herself" in place of committed suicide, since commit implies a crime, which suicide now isn't and says that some relatives would object to the old term.--Phil Holmes (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I've never quite understood that argument. There's no crime in committing something to memory; the word "commit" has zero pejorative connotation in any other sense. --Jayron32 15:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. "Commit" does NOT imply a crime. Language means what it means in normal usage, not what someone claims it implies, and these days nobody regards suicide as a crime. I don't comprehend that argument at all. It's not convincing in the slightest. It's probably more likely to encourage me to push harder to retain that language. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

BTW - What people say in most wedding vows is often described as making a commitment to life with a partner. Clearly not a crime. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

We should commit ourselves to using good English. "Died by suicide" is bloody awful English, and makes me want to kill myself. Look up hyperbole before you go running to nanny. DuncanHill (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There is also the somewhat old-fashioned (but not obsolete) phrase "died by his/her own hand". It has a sense of agency and does not appear to suggest wrongdoing.  --Lambiam 11:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Nor does "committed suicide". Unless committing to marriage suggests wrongdoing. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Those are different meanings completely; the latter has nothing to do with this conversation. The parallel is to committing a crime, and that's where the suggestion of wrongdoing comes in. "Commit: carry out or perpetrate (a mistake, crime, or immoral act)" says the first dicdef I stumbled on, and the point of those who call for this change in usage is to remove the moral approbation from the description of the means of death. From a Wikipedian point of view, I'd say using "commit" applies a non-neutral POV, even though it's a commonplace non-neutral POV. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure you mean approbation? --Trovatore (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

probably not, but the word sounded nice.--jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

opprobrium.  --Lambiam 22:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: - When I say someone "committed suicide" I mean it in a completely neutral way. It's simply a description of something that happened. No moral judgement involved at all. Who are you to be able to claim that ANYONE says it with a non-neutral POV? Your claim itself is potentially quite insulting. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't much bother me. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think the phrase "commit suicide" aptly conveys the "commitment" intrinsic to the act of suicide. Bus stop (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  @HiLo48 and Bus stop: – Which of the 10 senses listed at Wiktionary for the English verb commit covers the use in commit suicide best, in your opinion? (Obviously you can rule out the intransitive senses, but that leaves seven transitive ones. And sense 6 is only transitive when used reflexively, so that one does not fit.)  --Lambiam 22:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

As JackofOz points out below, the meaning of individual words in a common expression is irrelevant. The meaning of the whole expression is all that matters, and we all know what "commit suicide" means. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• The problem with idioms, which "commit suicide" surely is, is that they usually cannot be analysed word by word with a reasonable expectation of coming up with the meaning. Two plus two does not usually equal four in such matters. Since time immemorial, we have said "commit suicide" - not "make suicide" or "do suicide" or "complete suicide" or anything else. True, suicide has been technically illegal in some places, but you can't prosecute a dead person, so the only crime worth realistically considering is attempted suicide, in which case we don't even use the word "commit". In that case we say "he attempted suicide". When was the last time anyone was ever prosecuted for such a heinous "crime"? Being the sole survivor of a joint suicide attempt is a different matter. So the whole supposed criminal aspect of suicide in the above debate is an utter furphy. When someone says "He committed suicide" in response to "How did he die?", neither party to the conversation has any thought of any law being broken. The whole basis of this issue is lacking any substance. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  In many countries you can have to do prison time for attempted suicide; see Suicide legislation. I see no instances of the death penalty for this crime. Until relatively recently, the Catholic Church punished people who died by their own hand by depriving them of a "Christian burial" (see Christian views on suicide). Just like there was a time when white folks thought appearing in blackface was an innocent joke, unaware of the racist history and background, people may now think the idiom is neutral, unaware of the original meaning.  --Lambiam 15:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  How is "the idiom" not neutral, Lambiam? It should not be necessary to discuss blackface in order to discuss the phrase commit suicide. Bus stop (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  People using the idiom now may be unaware of its origin. Originally the verb expressed a condemnation. This can be seen in the corresponding idiomatic verbs in other Western languages as well. For example, in the French the idiom is commettre un suicide. The transitive verb commettre, applied to an act, signals that the act is reprehensible. Likewise for German Selbstmord begehen and Dutch zelfmoord plegen. In each of these languages, "to commit <an act>" or its equivalent, applied to any other act than suicide, implies that the act is seen as wrong. This is, of course, not a coincidence, and the only reason this verb with its connotation of reprehension is also the idiomatic choice for the act of suicide is that this act too was considered reprehensible. You may experience the idiom as neutral, but others may still experience the connotation of the original sense of the verb.  --Lambiam 20:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  In most discussions at this desk, that would be called the etymological fallacy. --Trovatore (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  If someone maintains a term must mean something because of its etymology, irrespective of how people using the term mean or experience it, it is a fallacy. But in my reply above I referred to how some people may still experience the original connotation of a term, which is something that is susceptible to being tested.  --Lambiam 09:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  Well, no need to look to the past. It's not hard to find modern rather pejorative connotations of "commit": (. . . a mistake, crime, or immoral act); . . . crime, sin. It is a modern common synonym for 'to perpetrate'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  That's true, but what's not obvious is that any of those have anything to do with the phrase "commit suicide". --Trovatore (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  Trovatore, On what basis can you say that with absolute certainty? It seems well established that sin and crime have been tied-up to suicide. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  Where did I mention absolute certainty? I said it was not obvious. I think the burden of proof is on those who claim that the phrase implies wrongdoing. --Trovatore (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  Why would it matter whether you think crime or sin is wrong? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  Not following you. --Trovatore (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  You said you have to be convinced of wrong doing? Why? Why does your sense of wrong doing matter? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  No, I didn't say that. The people who want to change how other people talk are the ones claiming that "commit suicide" implies wrongdoing. Because they are the ones who want other people do to something different, the burden of proof is on them. --Trovatore (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  It is already well established with citations that people do say it another way. Rather, you insist that everyone must accept without comment the way you insist upon saying it. Any reasonable person knowing the modern definition of commit and the history of suicide (or even familiar with modern phrases 'commit crime', 'commit sin') would at least acknowledge that the phrasing has presented well-known issues, which are documented in modern reliable sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  Others are free to comment, but I have no respect for any comment that doesn't shoulder its burden of proof. --Trovatore (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Commit" has many modern meanings. Choosing one of them that clearly differs from the meaning intended by the user of the word, and being offended by that choice, is ignoring how language works. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Commit like all words has a primary definition. What are you saying with commit, by the way? Are you making assumptions about both suicide and how it happens? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

My point here is simple and consistent. "Committed suicide" is simply a description of something that has happened. It's not a judgemental expression. And it is an expression with that non-judgemental meaning. What the individual words in that expression may mean to people is irrelevant to the meaning of the whole expression. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

So, your assumption is that 'committed suicide' is neutral? Neutral how? Suicide just something people do? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I choose my words carefully, and don't really want to type them again. Please don't misrepresent me by suggesting I mean something different from or more than what I have written. HiLo48 (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I did not misrepresent anything. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps not directly, but you asked three questions implying my view may be different from what I had already said. It's not. OK? HiLo48 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What has given the phrase its staying power? Its origin is not necessarily why it has persisted. Maybe it has persisted due to the irreversibility of suicide. "Commit" suggests that there is no turning back. Bus stop (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, basically "committed" vs. merely "attempted". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

As I sort of said above, if all laws criminalising suicide were abolished, and all religious rules making suicide a sin were rescinded (re-sinned-ed :), we would still say "he committed suicide", because that is the idiom we all use, and language is not changed by fiat from any authority, no matter how much some people may wish it were so. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The sources cited by the OP could be used in an article about the general subject of suicide. They don't apply to specific suicides in articles. In those cases, such as Williams, it's whatever the sources for his death call it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Way up above I addressed the problem with using "whatever the sources for his death call it". You see, they often don't call it anything. They beat around the bush. They talk about the person's depression, or mental health issues, or in one case I saw recently "stopped taking his prescribed medication". Readers are left to work it out for themselves. And so are we here at Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

All that we are discussing is a style issue. I don't think it matters how the sources say the person took their own life. We are writing the article in our own words. Bus stop (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)