Talk:List of countries by suicide rate/Archive 2

Update on Belarus in 2011

Previous 28.3 number is confirmed here http://www.vitebsk-region.gov.by/ru/actual/suicid_profilakt/den_predotvrash and here http://democraticbelarus.eu/node/9698 . I speak Russian therefore can confirm http://naviny.by/rubrics/zdorovie/2010/02/26/ic_articles_292_166818/ as well (actually they have English version - http://naviny.by/rubrics/english/2010/09/07/ic_news_259_351648/ ). There are even newer numbers at WHO http://www.euro.who.int/en/where-we-work/member-states/belarus/facts-and-figures which correlate nicely both with economical cycle, and all post-Soviet time no1 Lithuania. Keeping 2003 year statistics is completely misleading and unacceptable.

Greenland Suicide Rate

A recently article featured in Al Jazeera today (10/13/10) describes Greenland as the suicide capital of the world. However, the current information on the page does not even list Greenland in these top 106 countries (based upon WHO reports). Perhaps an update is needed for the information listed on this page. http://blogs.aljazeera.net/europe/2010/09/23/rising-suicide-rate-baffles-greenland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.198.176 (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"Updated" figures for Belgium

I see that current data for Belgium is for 1999. There are somewhat more up-to-date numbers available (from 2004), but not through the WHO and only in French/Dutch. See here: http://www.preventionsuicide.be/ressource/static/files/Le_Suicide_BELGIQUE__Mode_de_compatibilite_.pdf (the source mentioned there is http://www.iph.fgov.be/epidemio/spma/ which is an official site of the government of Belgium)

Can I use these figures to update the numbers for Belgium? (C.d.rose (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC))

I see no problem. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Socrates

I think that an image of the death of Socrates is not a good image for this website. I don't think Socrates' death can be properly called suicide. Thanks. user: guillermogp --114.45.232.12 (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This article creates a false impression

The impression given is that suicide is far more common in countries that have a more advanced system of actually finding out data about who commits suicide. If you wanted to find out how common suicide was in Chad or Niger or Mali, for example, you would have no idea because these countries are too poor to even begin to gather such statistics. Thus the whole thing is heavily weighted towards countries that have the ability to gather the data.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing you can do about that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Greenland stats require special handling

The table that shows Greenland as the suicide capital of the world is misleading at a minimum and statistically inaccurate as it is currently portrayed in this table. Greenland's population, as listed at http://bank.stat.gl/database/Greenland/Population/Population%20in%20Greenland%20(July)/Population%20in%20Greenland%20(July).asp shows the following data: Population July 1st by time and residence, 2013, Total = 56,483 On July 1st 2013, there where 56,483 inhabitants living in Greenland. Yet this Wiki page table shows Greenland under a statistical table of "Suicide Rate per 100,000". This means that these statistics for Greenland are inaccurate and cannot be directly compared to the suicide rates in countries with populations of more than 100,000. The Greenland statistics either require a special notice, mathematical manipulation and a special notice, or removal from the chart for failure to have the correct sample size of population for the stated comparison.

FURTHERMORE, the statistics on Greenland's suicide rate appear to be incorrect. The suicide rate in 2010 for Greenland was 63 citizens and in 2011 the number was 47. These numbers come from the statistics reporting web site (full URL): http://bank.stat.gl/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=SUELDM1&ti=Manner+of+death+by+manner+of+death%2C+age%2C+place%2C+time+and+sex&path=../Database/Greenland/Health/National%20Board%20of%20Health/&lang=1

This data presented in this correction here call into question the accuracy of the suicide rate table as stated. The table should be revised as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychofasia (talk • contribs) 04:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Table Doesn't Rank Correctly

For example, if you try ordering the table by female suicide rate, biggest first, then the countries scoring 9.0 will be at the top, but the ones with 11.0 will be in the middle. Obviously the table is not handling double and single figures correctly. Does anyone know how to fix this? GM Pink Elephant (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

   This is a typical problem with computer sorting - there is nothing that can be done about it as it is the Wiki that does the ordering and not the editors.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.129.90 (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC) 

Wrong

The figures for Jordan and France seem to be wrong. Those for Mainland China are out of numerical order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

So fix it?--Mark v1.0 (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand - Higher than WHO data?

The article says that the suicide rate is 13.2 per 100,000 people. However, this news article says that the rate is more than 500 per 100,000 people: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10831455

How can there be such a large difference? This would make New Zealand the country with the highest suicide rate by a large margin. 130.123.104.22 (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

In my experience the article is full of mistakes, much of which result from long-term vandalism. Check the WHO data to see what the real number is, and if it's different, please update the article. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to read the nzherald article again. The New Zealand suicide rate is not expressed per 100,000 but as a total. The population is around 4.4 million so you need to divide total suicides by 44 to get the rate per 100,000.

What is the point of average?

Why is there an "average" rate ? As a measure it doesn't make sense, the Eurostat data correctly reports the _total_ number which is the sensible measure, where sources don't differentiate they report the total number of suicides divided by the population, computing the average for EU countries rather that the compound rate gives a false impression of the data I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffraff (talk • contribs) 22:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No data for Taiwan?

Any idea why there is no data for Taiwan? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

What happened with gender rates?

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.95.122 (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right, what happened? Wow, this table needs to be seriously cleaned up...Supersaiyen312 (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Rank?

What's rank in this case and how does it work? What's the point with column that doesn't seem to work? Sweden is for example rank 90 - what does this mean and does it in any way relate to the figures? And who made the ranking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.21.79 (talk) 07:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Suicide Bombers

Does this article count suicide bombers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.12.227 (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Vandal Travelbybus

Can something be done about the vandalism on this article please? Look at the user Travelbybus' Talk page and you'll know what I mean. He seems to be persistent. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, there's an edit war... :( Supersaiyen312 (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually Travelbybus is right about the numbers, but should have explained better. The 54.6 number is male suicide rate, and 31.6 is average. The year was misleading, too. Fixed as of source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.71.135.27 (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

How do you know that was a "male" suicide rate though? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersaiyen312 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I read the clear labels on the graph, and translated the words into english. To clear things up, I updated the table to reflect all three numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.71.135.27 (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

But that doesn't make sense. Since when did Lithuania's rate go down? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What doesn't make sense is to assume that the number 54.6 was EVER the correct average suicide rate. The 2013-01-05 edits removed a massive amount of numbers from the table. As no reasoning was given, that looks like the real vandalism. Next step was an erroneous 2013-02-10 20:11 edit by 158.129.68.173 replacing the correct number with 45.6; a typo and a misreading of the table. On 2013-02-18 07:42, 15.227.185.71 fixed the typo without realising that the number was bad. In the next edit, 78.56.149.67 fixed the erroneous reading, which you chose to revert on 2013-03-13, 02:06. That misguided action was quickly fixed by 84.55.13.49 (without explanation), and then you started the war by repeatedly insisting that the wrong number was to be trusted. QED.

I'd suggest for someone to repair the damage done on 2013-01-05. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.71.135.27 (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I saw the edit by 15.227.185.71 which said "Fixed typo on Lithuanian suicide rate, was 45.6, but reference has 54.6." and then 78.56.149.67 changed it without explanation, that's why. They're also contradicting previous edits. Oh well, I don't care anymore. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hong Kong's row removal

On 15'th of April, Hong Kong's entry was removed from the table by IP 46.7.236.155, stating that Hong Kong isn't a country, and row 25 blanked. Now either that row needs to be refilled again, or removed altogether and numbering continue afterwards from 25. Khaled Khalil (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Singapore Suicide Rate

Something weird is going on with the Singapore entry. It claims our suicide rate is 3.54, but we're placed at #61 between 7.6 and 7.4. I think our statistics are misleading: this article shows that it was at 9.35 in 2009. http://www.healthxchange.com.sg/News/Pages/Rise-in-suicides-among-the-young.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ng.yisheng (talk • contribs) 12:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Suicide Rate

Hi guys, I updated the info on the table for Sri Lanka based on http://www.sljol.info/index.php/SLJPSYC/article/download/5131/4100‎ - though i though the table would automatically adjust its rankings and readjust the positions. Sorry, but I don't know the wiki syntax enough to make that happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.247.51.90 (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

India has a much higher rate of female suicide rate relative to Sri Lankan census, since India is more conservative than Sri Lanka on social policy and less radicalisation, Indian government may tamper real census records. Sankumaraya 11:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankumaraya (talk • contribs)

References

China?

So, the source for China really has 13.0 for men, 14.8 for women, and only for 9.8 for all? Only if there were a third gender with no suicides. Or are they from different years? Only 2011 is given for the entry. All other entries seem to have an actual average of the figures. 85.217.51.125 (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Response to 85.217.51.125 China's suicide rate

It seems that the data of China have been garbled by guest user.

Data of China has been altered back to numbers from an academic paper by Zhang Jie in 2008.

http://www.usc.cuhk.edu.hk/PaperCollection/webmanager/wkfiles/8398_1_paper.pdf

Linked Japanese version of this page has a very different data/order

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9B%BD%E3%81%AE%E8%87%AA%E6%AE%BA%E7%8E%87%E9%A0%86%E3%83%AA%E3%82%B9%E3%83%88 How can these two pages that are simple lists supposedly reporting the same data from the same data sets have such wildly different order? Japan-man (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Update: New WHO 2012 Data (retrieved 2014-09-04)

Can someone update all the data? It's here. They made a cool map we could upload on the article too. Thank you. MarcosPassos (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Update needed: New report is available!

There is an updated table and image available at WHO web site: http://www.who.int/mental_health/suicide-prevention/world_report_2014/en/
Download english PDF (table = pag 80): http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/131056/1/9789241564779_eng.pdf?ua=1&ua=1
Faltur (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The list is a mess, Serbia and Sri Lanka totally on the wrong place

Hope someone noticed it and that it'll be updated in the next major overhaul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.222.98.152 (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Austria's rate and why is China listed 57

1. I found more recent data for Austria, 15.0 suicides in 2010. But I don't know how to edit it, can someone do that please? http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/austria.pdf

2. If you click on "average", China emerges as nr. 6, but it's listed 57. Shouldn't that be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.145.52 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources for data

It seems the data from most countries can be obtained from the WHO (link). But it's a little outdated (it's from 2012). I don't like the idea of synthesizing data from multiple sources because they different sources might have different data collection methods.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

List by the World Health Organization (2012)

I added the most recent WHO data to a new section. The previous list was unreliable because so many vandal edits have been made to the list. I think no edit to the new list is necessary until WHO updates the date.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

WHO numbers appear to be rubbish

The rates reported by WHO for the UK are half of the actual official (UK Office of National Statitics) figures.

WHO: total 6.2 per 100,000 population male 9.8 female 2.6

UK ONS: total 11.9 per 100,000 population male 19.0 female 5.1

UK ONS statistics are from http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health4/suicides-in-the-united-kingdom/2013-registrations/index.html

Are the WHO numbers any more accurate for other countries? I'm not willing to spend the rest of my weekend digging through suicide stats from every place on earth, but if the WHO numbers are off so significantly for such an easily checked example as the UK, I can't see them being any better for other nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.248.84 (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@108.28.248.84: It is because the difference of criteria. I can't explain the difference in the case of UK thoroughly, but one of the factor is the difference of age of people in the survey. WHO covers all age of people, while UK covers people aged 15 years and over. This shows, as FutureTrillionaire pointed out above, that we should not make up a list from multiple sources.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Update WHO data (2015)

Latest WHO data for 2015 now available. Sockerkorn (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2017

The Prosecutor General's Office has a body that forms statistics. According to these data, the level of suicide in Kazakhstan is actually 21.1, I ask you to change Rustam 0881 (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Discuss 13:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The list by the World Health Organization uses a single source to improve cross-country comparisons. The figures for all countries have to be based on that single source, and any deviation for any single country need to be made clear in the article (this would also set a precedent in which the figures for all other countries could be changed as well according to official national data, making the function of the first table pretty much indistinguishable from the second table (which actually does use statistics from official data)). For instance, according to the latest data from the CDC the age-adjusted suicide rate in the US is 13.3 (2015). But since the first table is supposed to only use data from the WHO (per the description, as well as the name of the table and the citation used), this is not applied. Sockerkorn (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The data for China in the map is wrong.

At lease it correspond to none of the figures listed in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mteechan (talk • contribs) 17:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The WHO Table data doesn't match the data on the WHO website

At least for the crude rate, the data displayed in this wikipedia table doesn't meet the 2015 data found on the WHO website (http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.MHSUICIDE?lang=en). Almost for all countries the data is mismatched (see the data for Russia, Sri Lanka for some egregious examples). I hope that it's a fetching bug whereas the person who fetched the table to wikipedia from the WHO's website put in wrong parameters and the data got mixed up, but it's also possible it's straight up vandalism.
I am too lazy to check the age-adjusted data since, but they may also be wrong. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

WHO updates the data and that's why it's mismatched. Data shown here at wikipedia is not yet updated (however, the mismatch is not appreciable except for a dozen countries only, I think). 2A00:23C4:710E:2700:186F:DEC8:822D:B2ED (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Added later: nevertheless, past data is often entirely erased. For example I just noticed WHO updated age-standardized rates 3 months after updating the crude rates, but the previous are erased. Even the wayback machine website "hides" the past data.. see here for example: every single snapshot before July 2018 going back to 2017, returns the page as it was updated in July 2018 (I'm sure it will be corrected sometime, as I already encountered such a nuance before and then it gone away). 2A00:23C4:710E:2700:186F:DEC8:822D:B2ED (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Remove 'note 2' ?

The WHO citations for the charts include this poorly written 'note:

To proportion and compare the prevalence of suicide for different countries, WHO adjusts for age (age-standardization) every country's crude mortality rate based on demographic parameters and general mortality data (life expectancy) including other relevant statistical data such as median population ages, sex ratios and age distribution (i.e. age-groups), enhancing cross-national comparability. Another way to think of it, is that since populations age structures are often very different, but the likelihood of dying by suicide is generally increased with age, in order to avoid masking the sensible differences given by each country's age distributions, countries' rates are reciprocally weighted into the overall trend to globally frame national suicide rates, and the epidemiological prevalence of suicide. Age-standardization works over time as a measure of the prevalence of suicide across diversely populated countries, by rounding down when populations are composed of a higher percentage of older people compared to the "standard" population, and viceversa.

There is no source for this 'explanation' of the age-standardized result. It is not at all clearly written, which rather nullifies it's purpose. I would propose removing it, as I for one couldn't begin to try to rewrite it more clearly without some sort of source as foundation. Thoughts? Anastrophe (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

So poorly, that you "couldn't begin to try to rewrite it more clearly". I wrote that note (I'm the same banned editor) under ban. Now is it more or less unwelcome? I get your indecision about my edits but they'd be accepted "normally", as my last months IP edits (the aqua editor) while under indefinite ban. 'Fix what's wrong' should be a wikipedia pillar.. but copyrighting got in the way in 2008-09 apparently. I tend to disagree with all this role playing. 31.51.93.193 (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Please take a look at the date of my comment, then reconsider your comment. And yes, it is practically incomprehensible. And unsourced. Anastrophe (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Banned user edits

An IP user, who admitted in one of his edits that he is banned 'and shouldn't be editing here' - has chosen to ignore their ban, and post numerous edits to the article. Normally, IP edits would be accepted or rejected on their merits. In my opinion, if a user is banned, they are banned for a reason; therefore, edits identified as being by that user, after the ban is in force, are implicitly and explicitly not welcome here. It only follows logically so. I have reverted the editor three times. That's it for me now. I would like to encourage other users to revert as needed. Circumventing a ban is unethical. Anastrophe (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: I don't think it's really an ethical issue so much as simply Wikipedia policy. But FYI, per WP:3RRNO, "3. Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users." is listed as an exception to 3RR, so I think there's no need to worry about it in this case. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I was expressing my opinion that it is unethical, nothing more. I was banned once, I believe it was either for 24 hours or 72 hours - it was years ago, don't remember exactly. What did I do while I was banned? Many things, but I definitely did not attempt to subvert the meaning and spirit of a ban by just logging out and posting as an anonymous IP. I, like most people would, didn't think I deserved a ban. But once made, the ethical stance is to not attempt to subvert it. In my humble opinion, only. I've no idea why anon was banned, or for how long, so I can't speak to his intentions, only to mine. Anastrophe (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2018

As I'm banned I shouldn't be editing, yet as established users I wonder if you reviewed my last contribution at all..? Discussing on talk page seemed impossible as well (see yesterday's deletion by admin). In case it's about my removal of the red main map (of which I'm the author by the way), I don't really mind keeping it, I rather mind about the rest I edited yesterday. Also, excuse my self-admission I shall say, which I meant to imply the principle of charity's tone. 81.151.193.181 (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Requests are described down below.

– Tables

• To change rounding of the WHO regions age-standardized rates from 2 to 1 decimal place and more importantly set them bold as the list by country below (if you will) so they'll look the same.
• To add the two columns about crude data and bold all the age-standardized rates. When doing this, also add source for crude rates. To do this, copy-paste the code from my last contribution.

– Prose

• To add "globally recognized" to that bit about reliability of data.
• To remove first tag/note about April 2018 revision (since it was about 2015's rates).. or just change it to "Data updated/revised in April 2018." maybe? Whatever this one..
• To change the wording of the introduction to the list by country, into the following (I did only change the present version a little bit, so it's mostly the same):

Male and female suicide rates are out of total male population and total female population, respectively (i.e. total number of male suicides divided by total male population). Age-standardized rates account for the influence that different population age distributions might have on the analysis of crude death rates, statistically addressing the prevailing trends by age-groups and populations' structures, to enhance cross-national comparability: based on age-groups' deviation from standardized population structures, rates are rounded up or down (age-adjustment). If rounded down means the median age and life expectancy might be higher than average, and viceversa when rounded up.

Most countries listed below report a higher male suicide rate, as in most countries there are about 3 male suicides out of 4, or a factor of 3:1 (for example, in the United States was 3.24 in 2015, and 3.28 in 2016). This Male:Female ratio is based on the country's crude rates, not on its age-standardized rates: when these are rounded up means that as compared to WHO world standard population, women's median age and life expectancy might be higher than those of men's for that country, and viceversa when lower.

Though age-standardization is common statistical process to categorize mortality data for comparing purposes, this approach often results in rates differing from the official national statistics prepared and endorsed by individual countries, and crude rates are usually available as well. Age-adjusted rates are mortality rates that would have existed if all populations under study had the same age distribution as a "standard" population.

31.51.93.193 (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

References

 Note: Partly done myself after expired protection. I left only the tables edits undone as I'm obviously still banned and those'd be greater changes. 31.51.93.193 (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Chart of OECD rates

As was also a problem on the List of countries by intentional homicide rate, ths article is intended to be a pretty simply list of countries, not divided up by income or political bonds. A chart of OECD rates doesn't fit. I recommend it's removal. Anastrophe (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Acquiesce. I added the chart as a way of letting the reader quickly visualize comparisons among major nations, but I can understand how such a chart might be incompatible with a "List of ___" article. Consensus will determine. Thanks for the courtesy. Regards, RCraig09 (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks RCraig09. I appreciate your patience (and the high quality of your graphs). Anastrophe (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh well.. quality? I think that chart was biased against the political situation until someone (me) updated it.

1. It omitted Greece..
2. ..instead it began with the lowest rates on top (which is quite unusual) portraying Italy, UK and Spain as on a platform

86.180.213.19 (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I've removed the graph. Anastrophe (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

My edit warring on the 11th

Apologies for my bad editing last week, as I clearly was far from my best senses (the night before, a Saturday, was not so well too much drinking oh well). The small changes in suicide rates I wanted to add are not appreciable overall, indeed I couldn't find [this week] not even one source that gives mention of increased rates in OECD countries at all.. actually I was only able to google a very few dated ones mentioning last decades' decreasing rates. I thought them worthy of mention because it seemed weird when rates are globally decreasing to have some slightly increasing.

The rest I was trying to tweak were nothing but casual fixes and won't make a difference to an already well written introduction. Thanks for your reverts then.... and keep up the good work! 213.205.195.40 (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Russia suicide rate

Entry "Russia" comes with a link "see more info", which transfer you to the article "Suicide Rates in Russia". The information in that article contradicts the one given in the Table: "List of countries by suicide rate". As readers view this articles as a single source of information which is "Wikipedia", it creates an impression that Wikipedia contradicts itself, thus damaging the image of reliability and trustworthiness of its information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baiyu83 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Reason for this difference is that at the "more info" page the sources used are projections (worked out by the Russian Gov itslef nevertheless thus maybe why so conservative) made public before the actual yearly data was available. Maybe someone should correct that you're right. 149.254.57.115 (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

This article switched to age-standardised suicide rates at some point. It explicitly states so. I.e., instead of taking the number of suicides and dividing them by the population, it instead makes some complicated adjustments for age. The Russia article uses the traditional definition rather than this formula. --Humanophage (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Template for use on main table

I have written a template and implemented for use on the main table. There are several reasons for this:

• The "Both sexes" average is auto calculated accurately from given figures
• The ratio is similarly auto calculated accurately from given figures
• The "more info" link is auto generated/displayed if an associated article exists (so new articles created will immediately be visible)
• The article size is smaller and table easier to manage

When I initially previewed the table, I noticed that the averages previously specified didn't always seem accurate. Indeed, the calculated averages would change some of the positions that the countries have been put in. I have taken the "country rank" out, seeing as this was wrong anyway and it's easy to determine by sorting the averages column. Perhaps the order would therefore need reassessing too.

I trust it's beneficial and not controversial. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Phoenix7777: I see you reverted my edit. I explain my reasons here. The rank is incorrect and can be determined by table sorting. Perhaps you can offer a comment? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Please address my concern.

1. Both Sexes Rank removed
2. Both sexes data is not an average of Male and Female. It is calculated by all population or (Male data x Male population + Female data x Female population) / (Male population + Female population). Source data should be used.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Many of the figures sampled, especially the ones further down, seem to equal exactly the output from (male+female)/2 (unless we're looking at a near 50/50 split). I also am not seeing a reference to the population figures that you suggest are used to determine this to clarify validity? The table quotes figures from 2016, so population figures used would also need to be from this era, but this isn't determined. If this were true, it's not impossible to add 2 additional columns into the template to manually specify the given rank and male-female figure as you state, with a comparison to mean average; you still get the ratio calculated, the links auto generated and a cleaner table to work with. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It is simple. Please use Both sexes data described in the source. Your Original research is not allowed.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, a mean average calculated from verified figures is certainly not OR and I contest the claim that it would be, but fair enough if the both sexes figure is given too and weighted to gender population differences (which I did not observe upon initial check). I assume, should I opt to add this, you would not raise any template-usage objection, taking a view on my other points? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)