Talk:Robin Williams/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

"Committed suicide" vs. "Died by suicide"

I noticed some back-and-forth changes in the lead paragraph - "committed suicide" --> "died by suicide" --> "committed suicide" (diff and diff), and a recent change ("committed suicide" --> "died by suicide") in the Death section (diff).

Three points:

• Which term is most appropriate has been debated several times on the English Wikipedia, specifically regarding the present article in August 2014 and November 2014; and more recently on Village Pump in October-November 2017; and a related discussion on the Manual of Style (MOS) Talk page.

• The consensus from all of these discussions is that "committed suicide" is acceptable.

• Until we reach a consensus for the present article (Robin Williams), please do not make any further changes (edits).

Proposal: I suggest that we keep the current version with regard to these terms (05:15 UTC, 12 December 2017‎) because it represents a compromise in that "committed suicide" is used in the lead paragraph; "died by suicide" is used in the first sentence of the Death section; and a subsequent sentence in the same section uses "committed suicide".   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 04:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I would add that for an American "committed suicide" does not imply a crime as it can for other countries. That's why it is acceptable here. --Masem (t) 06:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Concur with Masem. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I also agree. Are you okay with occasional use of "died by suicide" as long as the standard phrase ("committed suicide") is in the lede and predominant in the article? I am mainly wanting to a) Perhaps arrive at a compromise since this issue comes up regularly; and 2) Avoid repetition of one phrase, although that is a minor concern.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The word 'commit' as a verb is used exclusively for crimes or immoral actions. I'd consider revising this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.98.162 (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

One commits to a relationship, a marriage, a goal. Without the 'to', one can commit funds, energy or time to a project. It's not always criminal or immoral.

My problem with "died by suicide" is that it's a parallel to "died by gunshot", "died by drowning", "died by asphyxiation", etc. Those are all specific causes of death, but suicide is a general term that can cover many specific causes. Just knowing that someone died by their own hand does not tell you how they did it, and not knowing the exact method is like knowing that someone died "of natural causes", i.e. it's almost no information at all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't like "died by suicide" at all. The objection to "commit" because it implies a crime is odd to me; that's just the terminology that's used. Prinsgezinde (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

We are an encyclopaedia. We live by facts, not by obfuscation. Anything but "committed suicide" is misleading. HiLo48 (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I also feel "committed suicide" is best, as "died by suicide" reads awkwardly and is needlessly redundant when suicide already means somebody deliberately killing themself. "Commit" doesn't necessarily imply crime when (as noted above) one can also commit to something (i.e. committed to a goal, committed to a relationship). Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

+1 - Agree with Hilo & Snuggums - "Committed suicide" is by far the most known and probably well used, Like Snuggums says "died by suicide" just reads awkwardly. –Davey2010^Talk 14:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Changed to "died by suicide" in accordance with the AP style book. Also, too bad if you think it "sounds awkward" to say died by suicide rather than committed suicide. Using such terminology is harmful and irresponsible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.211.110.166 (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Harmful and irresponsible? Please explain. HiLo48 (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

In my experience (primarily in the U.S.), "died by suicide" is not how people commonly write/speak about it, regardless of what the AP style book might say (recently?). Also, at the top of the Death section, why mention the preliminary report in the first 'graph and then the final report in the second? Surely, these can be combined with something like:

"Died by suicide" is generally preferred by those who have survived the death of someone by suicide. The verb commit does imply *fault* and discredits and dismisses mental illness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.28.125.19 (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

For whom are you speaking when you say "generally preferred by..."? Remember that this is a global encyclopaedia, and none of is in a position to speak for all of our readers. Sources supporting your claim would be useful here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

On August 11, 2014, Williams committed suicide at his home in Paradise Cay, California. The final autopsy report, released in November 2014, concluded that Williams' death was from "suicide due to asphyxia" (as suspected by the Marin County sheriff’s office on August 12), neither alcohol nor illegal drugs were involved, and prescription drugs present in his body were at "therapeutic" levels.
—[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

That's excellent. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to add to the debate - here are the reporting guidelines from The Samaritans, who are a UK-based mental health helpline and charity (https://www.samaritans.org/media-centre/media-guidelines-reporting-suicide/best-practice-suicide-reporting-tips) - they explicitly mention that "committed" is an inappropriate term, so here in the UK at the very least this language is potentially harmful. I would suggest that "took his own life" might be a good compromise? (Kimari91 (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC))

Do they say what it is about "committed" that makes it an inappropriate term, and potentially harmful? HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Per our own dear Wikipedia from the Suicide article: “The normal verb in scholarly research and journalism for the act of suicide is commit.[28][29] Some advocacy groups recommend saying completed suicide, took his/her own life, died by suicide, or killed him/herself instead of committed suicide.[30][31][32][33] Opponents of commit argue that it implies that suicide is criminal, sinful, or morally wrong.[34]”

Using anything other than “died by suicide” is irresponsible and frankly, needlessly cruel. An alternat Vevto “committed suicide” exists, is preferred by those most affected by suicide, and is grammatically correct according to the AP style book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.83.158 (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes as you pointed out ..The normal verb in scholarly research and journalism for the act of suicide is "commit"....Wikipedia is not a means for WP:Advocacy. --Moxy (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

As someone who has suffered from suicidal ideation saying “committed” suicide makes it sounds like a crime. I’m from the US and the word commit is usually for a crime. Like I deserve to be punished because of it. My brain is sick and it tricks me into thinking suicide is a good thing. He was sick not a criminal. Why do you need to know how he died by suicide? That’s not necessary information. Sammind (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

As someone who has also been deeply affected by suicide, committed is a horrible term to use in this situation. Suicidal Ideation in not a choice, it is an illness and dying by suicide is the result of that illness. The term committed implies a choice in this situation. No person "Commits brest cancer" or "Commits a heart attack" and in the eyes of someone who has dealt with suicide I see absolute no difference between suicide and these two examples. No, committed does not always refer to a crime, but it does refer to a choice, and suicide is NOT a choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.242.231 (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

We mimic scholarly usage and use academic definition .....see bold text in the link Dr. Milorad Zastranovic -Psychiatry (2016). Tentament Suicide - Committed Suicide. Facharbeit. p. 11. ISBN 978-3-9804842-5-1.

Comment: You have a good point, but he did commit suicide, yes? And did he not die by commiting suicide? When he commited suicide, he died. So he did die from commiting suicide. He died by suicide, and he commited suicide. They are both valid statements.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:1200:6c47:d93c:9748:9261:afac (talk • contribs) 17:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The current term used by mental health professionals is "completed suicide." We need to do away with the stigma associated with "commit." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:8A01:42A0:7DB3:99D3:C685:462F (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry that I made a correction before reading this page, this was my first ever edit and I didn't see the message at first, and also don't know how to delete my edit. Feel free to delete, but I still agree that it should be changed. Testa412 (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm reading on here that because it "reads better" or "has been written" to read "committed suicide" rather than "died by suicide." That does not constitute a valid reason to ignore best practice and not allow it to be changed to "died by suicide." The language used when discussing death by suicide is actually pretty important for mental health and suicide prevention awareness and advocacy. We should be going with what is considered best practice. MDoodleBop (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm reading on here that because it "reads better" or "has been written" to read "committed suicide" rather than "died by suicide." That does not constitute a valid reason to ignore best practice and not allow it to be changed to "died by suicide." The language used when discussing death by suicide is actually pretty important for mental health and suicide prevention awareness and advocacy. We should be going with what is considered best practice. MDoodleBop (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. For professionals and ordinary people knowledgeable about the complexities of suicide, in 2019 "committed suicide" is regressive, and, in my opinion, an embarrassing expression of ignorance. Mrs. Peel (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not particularly invested in the debate, but I would note that "committed" is used frequently in the news and in academic publications. See the recent discussion on WP here around the same thing for categories. the result was to keep the category "committed suicide". ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The last few times I've read about the suicide of a publicly known person (e.g., celebrities, musicians and even religious leaders), I have exclusively seen the phrase "died by suicide" used. My primary print/online news source is NBC, for reference. Also, on the linguistic front, I would argue that "commit" and "commit to" are two wholely different entities in terms of their meaning. Yes, one can "commit TO" any number of positive things (e.g., a marriage, a greater cause), but in the absence of the preposition "commit" appears exclusively tied to negative actions/events. Finally, as someone who has struggled with suicidal thoughts in the past, I think it's high time we commit the phrase "commit suicide" to the pages of history (a positive thing) and be forward thinking about using "died by suicide," as others are already doing. If we can move beyond other terms that are interpreted as pejorative to specific groups of people (whether in terms of gender, ethnicity, interest or whatever else), certainly this case should be no different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B12A:D277:2388:9538:7195:4788 (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Your writing of committed suicide is completely inappropriate. A quick Google search will explain why this is so. You would not say "committed cancer" or "committed heart attack". This is a mental illness that is no different. Twrogers13 (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that "committed suicide" is quickly becoming obsolete language in the mental health field and elsewhere. As this is a mental health topic, it would be most appropriate to adhere to the conventions of that field, which would be to use non-stigmatizing language, such as "died by suicide" or "died by hanging himself". Additionally, I second the point that conventions of language are constantly changing because of social norms. This is why we no longer tolerate language that was once acceptable, because we have learned the history of the language and we know that language has a powerful, if often implicit, effect on people. Surely it is worth feeling a little weird when reading an unfamiliar phrase to lessen the stigma associated with a common mental health problem.--Erzmensch (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

We go by what the sources say, and that is mainstream sources, not those of specialist medical areas. I personally see no stigma at all in "committed suicide". Telling me to do a Google search to find out why it's completely inappropriate is pointless. What would I search for? HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The AP Stylebook indicates why "Committed suicide" should no longer be used. The AP Stylebook is what all mainstream journalism follows which would provide the guidance for what mainstream sources should be using. When this article was originally written I understand why this was used as this was the norm and the majority of media outlets were still using the term "committed suicide". Due to recent advancements in journalism, it would appear proper that this be updated. While articles from 2014 may still have the term, this is an article in 2020, which would require it to be updated to follow the current best practices. I would also guess that most people defending it's usage have not been impacted by suicide and therefore do not understand this difference. This is completely acceptable and understood, which is why we are trying to engage in conversation to educate others who do not have first hand experience with this. We are telling you, as individuals first hand experience, the term committed suicide is offensive and can be triggering to others. Just because someone does not understand something does not mean that it is not true. This would indicate that out of an abundance of caution, I would rather protect the person who could be triggered into a mental health crisis vs the person who doesn't like how the words sound together. Lastly, one of the last mainstream articles on this topic is on the recent death of Jas Waters, which from the two articles I have linked do not have the word committed anywhere in the article, so I believe your statement on what mainstream sources use is incorrect, unless we don't consider USA Today or LA Times as mainstream media. Hwmithr (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Hwmithr

This is, for all purposes, a 2014 article. Further, while the AP does inform our MOS and other writing practices, it is not the definitive guide. You would need to get consensus to have that applied across all articles. Last I recall, our MOS still let this go by the majority of reporting in the country (giving that suicide in some places is seen as a crime), with the US being okay for 2014 as "committed suicide". You need to get the rest of WP to agree to change wording across multitudes of articles for this to be changed. --Masem (t) 19:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a 2020 encyclopedia page not a 2014 article. In any case, numerous other articles, some written prior to 2014 and some after, Hemingway, Cobain, Seau, Bourdain, Spade, Jas Waters to name a few, none of them state, "committed suicide". It would appear that there is not a prior precedent for its usage. In this case the neutral perspective would be to change it. Hwmithr13 (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)hwsmithr

I find it odd that people find the word "committed" to be the stigmatizing part of "committed suicide". Words that end in "-icide" are usually negative in meaning or, at the very least, are about killing something that is seen as a negative. If anything, we don't see "suicide" as a negative because we use "committed" as the verb, we use "committed" as the verb because we see it as negative. --Khajidha (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

For the information of editors here, this discussion has broadened and spread to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#What does it take for a Talk page to progress past "Talking" to an action taken? Robin Williams commit suicide/died by suicide. HiLo48 (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It appears to have gone to the archives at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2020 July 21#suicide terminology, Robin Williams, closed as not appropriate for the reference desk. --Closeapple (talk) 06:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Just rearrange the sentences to avoid the problems. People are making this way harder that it needs to be:
  1. First easy one: The suicide method doesn't meet WP:MOSLEAD for Robin Williams; presuming that his suicide is even one of "the most important points" eligible for the lead (which is questionable and will probably have to wait for history to decide 10 or 20 years from now), the specific method certainly isn't "most important" in Williams' case. Contrast this with some rock stars and celebrities, such as John Belushi, Amy Winehouse, and maybe Marilyn Monroe whose drug overdoses (fatal but possibly unintentional) are identifying characteristics of their biographies: That's not so for Williams. So it's moot whether it would encourage danger, because it's just not important enough for the intro in the first place.
  2. Second easy one: There is no need to use a specific verb with "suicide", particularly when the method is no longer involved. Change "committed suicide by hanging" to "died" in the lead section, leave "suicide" in the second part (if at all), and it's solved: "In August 2014, Williams died at age 63 at his home in Paradise Cay, California. His widow, Susan Schneider Williams—as well as medical experts and the autopsy—attributed his suicide to his struggle with Lewy body disease." I've moved the "at age 63" because having two prepositional phrases at the beginning of the sentence, without necessity, also sounds like it's building up to some dramatic climax; that's not appropriate for Wikipedia.
  3. Third, almost as easy: Even in the Robin Williams#Death section, anyone with decent English skills can construct a sentence that avoids vocabulary controversy. For example, "Williams died on August 11, 2014, at his home in Paradise Cay, California, as a result of suicide by hanging."

--Closeapple (talk) 06:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

There's certainly ways to write past the "hanging" part - I agree that's not necessary in the lede - but Williams's death via suicide is absolutely a lede-critical element as only but a few of his closest knew he was suffering emotional problems and thus his death came as a shock. This was clearly established on the days after his death, the amount of reaction to it. So just simply saying as saying your third point , making the suicide a passive point, is probably too weak. --Masem (t) 13:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

We should take care with the “emotional problems” suggestion wrt Lewy body disease. The press tried to attribute his suicide to all sort of things that the autopsy, and a little bit of knowledge about dementia with Lewy bodies, show it wasn’t. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

---

References

"Committed suicide" and WP:NPOV

I came here from the RfC about the "committed suicide" language at the Village pump. The RS say that "committed" suicide is a non-neutral expression. The WP:NPOV policy cannot be overridden by editor consensus, so we cannot use this term here. There is some misunderstanding in the discussion above over which definition of "commit" applies. An example of a correct definition: "6) To do or perform (especially something reprehensible, wrong, inapt, etc.); perpetrate: as, to commit murder, treason, felony, or trespass; to commit a blunder or a solecism.[1] Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like the RFC so far agrees with your position on this, but it is still underway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

But my position is that an RfC cannot override NPOV. The arguments which say that "commit" is neutral are either WP:OR or citing the wrong definition. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think one person’s opinion about an unclear issue regarding a POV claim gets to override a community-wide RFC ;) Wikipedia makes its own (internal) decisions about house style. At any rate, it is so easy to reword, I am not sure why worry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not what's happening...but in theory, yes? RfCs aren't decided by WP:!VOTEs; they're decided by arguments. If one person cites reliable sources showing that commit is non-neutral, and everyone else gives their own original opinion (or mis-cited definitions), then the RfC finds in favor of the policy-based argument. I mean, the dictionaries say that commit means to do something wrong...this doesn't seem unclear. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I will point out that you're arguing that "external sources say its NPOV, therefore we must treat it as NPOV" but that's not anywhere in our own policy. We make the decisions of what is NPOV just as we make our own decisions on house style. --Masem (t) 02:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand. We don't base what is NPOV on RS? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm with the obvious leanings of the RfC, which is to allow "committed suicide". I do not think less of Robin Williams because we use that language. HiLo48 (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Study: "Media coverage of Robin Williams' suicide in the United States: A contributor to contagion?"

PLOS One study [2]

• "A recent study reported a 10% increase in U.S. suicides in the months following the suicide of comedian Robin Williams".
• "Although produced in Canada, the Mindset recommendations overlap with other prominent suicide reporting guidelines, such as those produced by the World Health Organization (WHO) [15] and the U.S. based ‘Recommendations for Suicide Reporting’ [16]–a set of recommendations co-created by numerous stakeholders including U.S. government agencies, universities and non-governmental organizations that are publicly available on a dedicated website. Common recommendations across these guidelines include ‘avoid language that sensationalizes or romanticizes the suicide’, ‘provide information about seeking help’ and ‘avoid using terms such as ‘commit suicide’ or ‘successful suicide”."

From the Robin Williams study I was led to another study which expands on this: "In 2001 several U.S. government agencies and health organizations, including the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the American Association of Suicidology and the Annenberg Public Policy Center, published consensus recommendations for the media reporting of suicide." The up-to-date recommendations are here. The consensus recommendation is to avoid "commit suicide". Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Have you ever looked for any studies that say the opposite? HiLo48 (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Could we keep this discussion at the RFC? That is, after all, what it is for and why we are having it (to stop unproductive discussion at various articles). Not only are these primary studies; they demonstrate that mainstream media doesn’t even follow those recommendations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This study says that 71% of the 63 articles (in the mainstream media) surveyed about Williams' suicide did not say "commit" suicide. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not an answer to the question I asked. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

A study of 10 US newspapers (mostly misreporting, by the way, as the autopsy details of Lewy bodies were not available yet) is unimpressive, and one of the reasons we discourage primary studies for health purposes. And I misstated that his widow does not use the term “commit suicide”; in fact, she does. [3]. A lot. As do major news outlets like The Washington Post. What the studies cited above show is that most news outlets do not use these “consensus” guidelines at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

A survey of 10 US newspapers is not impressive? There are only so many major newspapers in the US. And regardless of what newspapers say, the recommendations of the CDC, NIMH, WHO, etc., cited in the Robin Williams study say to avoid "committed suicide". I don't understand the opposition to banning this term. Allowing an inappropriate term is just going to lead to more edit warring and endless discussions over which language is used more often in the sources. We are free to quote Williams' widow when she says "commit suicide", but we should not be saying that in wikivoice. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that anyone who continues edit warring after a conclusive RFC would not fare well. The reason for the RFC was to get a broad consensus from the community so we could have fewer unproductive discussions. So far, the conclusion is that we can use plain English, in Wikivoice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not a policy-based argument. Here as at the RfC, my arguments have not been addressed. Are you going to address these at the RfC if not here? Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, WP:CONSENSUS is a policy page. And a broad community RFC establishes broad consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

As I said, consensus cannot override NPOV. The NPOV argument is where we should begin. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You have put forward an argument stating that one house language style over another is POV; community consensus so far does not endorse your interpretation of NPOV. It could be that you misunderstand the context of NPOV in this example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

No, the argument is that the word commit violates NPOV because the definition is to do something wrong, and every RS which discusses the phrase "commit suicide" says it has negative connotations. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I am completely happy with committed suicide, and I don't believe Robin Williams did anything wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

We go by the WP:Reliable sources for what words mean. Editor opinion is WP: Original research. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

OK. This is a global encyclopaedia. I am Australian. Williams' death was very widely reported here. Find me an Australian source that said anything but "committed suicide". HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

We need to start with the dictionary definition of commit.[4] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple definitions of "commit" and most of the first meanings do not imply a negative form, simply that it is a dedicated action. --Masem (t) 05:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The definition which applies to "commit" in sense of "commit suicide" is: "Perpetrate or carry out (a mistake, crime, or immoral act)".[5] Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thats one dictionary with that as the first. Several others use a more neutral definition as the first like Merriam Webster. --Masem (t) 05:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If every dictionary except Merriam Webster says "commit" in this sense is negative then should we ignore Merriam Webster? (Note Merriam Webster's definition: "to carry into action deliberately:PERPETRATE [e.g.] commit a crime, commit a sin"[6] is not clearly neutral. Every lexicographer I've read says that "The moralistic verb commit is associated with crime (in the justice system) and sin (in religion)".[7] Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The American Dialect Society chose "die by suicide" as the 2017 "most useful" word of the year, writing that "to commit suicide" suggets a criminal act.[8] Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Once again. Local consensus does not overrule broad community consensus, and this discussion belongs at the RFC. The point of an RFC is to avoid disruption across multiple articles. Alternately, if one wants to argue certain words to avoid, or dictionary items, that would be at WP:WTA (where one can guess the RFC would be referenced). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Having a discussion at Words to watch sounds like a good idea. The RfC is too general for the discussion over the definition of the word commit. As I've said, consensus cannot override what is NPOV, and what I'm finding disruptive is that folks seem resistant to objectively evaluating the RS on the word. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The RFC does take into account if "commit" in the use of "commit suicide" is NPOV or not, as as pointed out, there are multiple definitions of "commit" and not all have negative intonations. Most appear to not think it does at the RFC, which is a reasonable consensus and that is not ignoring NPOV as you are claiming. If you want to challenge that RFC at Words to avoid after it closes, you're going to have a strong uphill battle (and one that might seem to be seen as actionable under WP:TE, given the apparent weight of consensus.). --Masem (t) 17:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Masem, I am unwatching as this discussion is precisely the unproductive timesink the RFC sought to resolve. Please do ping me if any input, particularly with respect to Lewy bodies, is needed. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Masem, the discussion at the RfC is mostly original research. I have not heard you evaluating the definitions of commit besides referencing only one dictionary definition, Merriam-Webster,[9] which is not clearly neutral, especially when considering every other dictionary. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The editors at the RFC have been given the sources that express the concern on the wording around "commit" and have been able to make their own opinion if that is an issue against any other policy. You're the only one arguing their !votes are policy violations, which you have tried to argue there and here and no one seems to accept that argument. This is the very definition of WP:TE and I would encourage you to either stay at the RFC to argue these points (This discussion cannot override the RFC's end results), and/or recognize that you're clearly in the minority at this point and WP:DROPTHESTICK. This discussion is not helpful here because the RFC will override anything concluded here. --Masem (t) 17:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I may be in the minority, but I am not the only one arguing it is an NPOV violation. I think I've provided enough evidence for now. I will note that you have still not discussed the definition besides citing the one source which best supports your argument. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You are not the only one, but those arguing against the use of "commit suicide" are clearly in the minority, to the point that it is possible this could be SNOW closed (obviously I started it, I can't do that myself). Again, here is not the place to be arguing these things, that's at the RFC to get more voices involved. --Masem (t) 18:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you going to discuss the definition at the RfC? I feel that mostly what I am hearing in response to this question is evasiveness. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The dictionary defitions are discussed already at the RFC and as pointed out by others there, you're focusing on the "example" parts given, not on the definition. Only one of the dictionaries sourced actually put a negative version of "commit" in the first definition; the others only put the negative aspect as part the applicable examples. So focusing on the definitions is a non-starter as well. --Masem (t) 18:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

That is not accurate. The definitions show which types of actions commit applies to, which is separate from the examples given. Lexico for example: [10]

• Perpetrate or carry out (a mistake, crime, or immoral act)

'he committed an uncharacteristic error'

If there is any doubt on its meaning, we must consult the reliable sources, not personal opinion. Are you willing to discuss at the RfC what the RS say about the word beyond the definitions themselves? I feel that what's been happening is the form of tendentious editing where others ignore good faith questions and are unwilling to cooperate. That being said, there is a time to accept that people are unwilling to have this discussion. The least disruptive thing may be to accept an NPOV-violating consensus and challenge it a couple years from now when "commit suicide" inevitably disappears from all major sources. But, by not basing our MOS on professional recommendations, we will have to spend unnecessary time discussing things like whether it is appropriate to include "suicide by hanging" in Robin Williams' infobox. I won't be the one initiating such a challenge, but you can see how much less disruptive it would be to simply adopt consensus best practices for suicide-related content. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

An argument which has received less focus is that the definition of commit alone may be less relevant because "commit suicide" is an idiom...(to continue at the RfC)

In that case we must examine the RS and WP:PAG for the idiom. I've found two definitions, Cambridge which states "a phrase used to mean 'to kill yourself,' which is now considered offensive because it suggests that doing this is a crime", and Merriam-Webster which gives a neutral definition.[11] The words "now considered" lead me to think that Cambridge's definition is more up-to-date. However, WP:IDIOMs should be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Suicide language in post 2018 sources

From the recent RfC it sounds like we should use the language of the sources, or simply leave it up to consensus. I am posting these sources for other editors to consider.

• "Anthony Bourdain, Kate Spade, and the Preventable Tragedies of Suicide" New Yorker

"High-profile suicides such as these cause copycat suicides; there was a nearly ten-per-cent spike in suicides following Robin Williams’s death. There is always an upswing following such high-profile events. You who are reading this are at statistically increased risk of suicide right now."

• "Robin Williams' death linked to rise in copycat suicides" Reuters

"Williams...died in August 2014 at age 63 in a suicide...Authorities said he died of asphyxia after hanging himself".

• "Kate Spade is the latest star to be found hanged, highlighting what may be a disturbing trend", Fox News

"...designer L’Wren Scott committed suicide by hanging...Scott's death came a few months after comedy icon Robin Williams hanged himself with a belt in his home in August 2014...Spade's sister told the Kansas City Star the designer took interest in the details of Williams' suicide."

• "Crisis and suicide prevention services struggle with demand after celebrity suicides", NIMH

"Approximately two-thirds of the people who died by suicide immediately after the actor’s death used the same method of suicide as Williams."

• "Increase in suicides the months after the death of Robin Williams in the US", PLOS One

"Popular news media headlines suggest that media guidelines for suicide reporting were not followed in the case of Mr. Williams. For example, media guidelines suggest that explicit description of the suicide method be avoided, as well as speculation on causes or details of site of suicide, especially in headlines [14]; however, on August 12th, 2014, the Washington Post reported “Robin Williams’s death shows the power of depression and the impulsiveness of suicide” [27] and the New York Times reported with the headline “Robin Williams Died by Hanging, Official Says” [28]. Similar headlines can be found across many other population news media sources. A public news conference by the Sheriff assigned to the case detailed the belt that was used in Williams’ death, his body position, and wrist marks, among other details. Thus, substantial evidence suggests that the major US news media outlets tended to deviate from the established suicide reporting guidelines following Williams’ death."

Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose keep normal wording/language that our readers are familiar with ... especially for those were English is a second language. Easy to cherrypick sources ... from academic case studies to IMDb bios with a topic so widely covered. .....Robin Williams' suicide: a case study , After Robin Williams committed suicide, hundreds likely copied him, study suggests WORLD 2019, Robin Williams Committed Suicide by Hanging Himself, Police Say NBC 2019, vulnerable to following the actor by committing a copycat suicide CNN 2018, Williams himself would also commit suicide fifteen years later. IMDB, The documentary is critical, and rightfully so, of the media that speculated Williams committed suicide due to drug abuse or financial problems. Chicago Sun-Times 2020.--Moxy 🍁 18:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose We should be sticking to the language of the sources used around the time of his death , per the RFC closure, which were predominated "committed suicide". --Masem (t) 18:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

 Disagree The summary by the closing admin said: Perhaps the best idea is to see what the cited source says and follow their formulation. This will naturally cause us to track whatever trend exists in society. This is a great suggestion, and by it, he's referring to the sources used in the article. As Moxy said above, it's easy to cherry pick. And really, this is taking a tremendous amount of time. Why? What's the benefit here? Wikipedia really isn't a good place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 19:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment Maybe I should have said that I was posting this subsection for editors to consider "in the future", like in a year or other arbitrary time per the RfC. I don't expect we'll establish a new consensus, but I must comment on the sources provided in opposition. Firstly, I think we should focus on sources after the 2018 studies on the media reporting of Williams' death and the copycat suicides.

• The cited case study about Williams' suicide is from 2016
• The South China Morning Post story is from Reuters which uses a different headline and no mention of "committing" suicide.[12]
• The NBC story is from 2014.
• CNN stopped writing "commit suicide" within six months of the cited Williams article.[13]
• IMDb is not an RS.
• Chicago Sun-Times used "commit" suicide in 2020. We should consider this, but I would suggest using the best RS for BLPs instead.

Jehochman said that "the best idea is to see what the cited source says and follow their formulation. This will naturally cause us to track whatever trend exists in society." I interpret that to refer to whichever sources we decide to cite. Let's revisit this a year from now to avoid discussion fatigue. I will state that I think this article is irresponsible for including "suicide by hanging" in the infobox. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't see your POV going far after the long RFC and the fact that sources are still mixed in there usage. ...best default to language most will understand in context.--Moxy 🍁 21:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Which top-level sources are still using "commit" so that we know which to monitor for potential changes? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

What we are looking for is studies....no way we should be doing our own analysis. Best use sources that analyze other analysis like....2020 Media guidelines and suicide: A critical review Social Science & Medicine,Volume 262. ISSN 0277-9536.--Moxy 🍁 05:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That paper is consistent with the rest of the post-2018 sources I cited; it does not use the word "commit" to describe Williams' death. It just says "the suicide of actor Robin Williams" and "Williams' suicide". This discussion is about using the same language of the sources we choose to cite about Williams' death. Of course I think we should use the consensus recommended sensitive language on suicide reporting regardless of whether it has been shown to prevent suicides, but that's for another discussion. We should be using language based on what the dictionary says the words mean. When a dictionary actually comments on the term "commit suicide", it says it is "moralistic", i.e., non-neutral: "the most common way to express the idea of taking one’s own life uses the noun suicide in the expressions to commit suicide.... However, the phrase commit suicide is discouraged by major editorial style guides, mental health professionals, and specialists in suicide prevention.... Using such moralistic language...."[14] But we're not here to rehash the RfC. The question is, what words do the best and most recent sources use to describe Williams' death? So far the answer is that they do not use "commit". If you find top-level recent sources which do say "commit", then we can monitor those publications for future reference. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I take it by the comment above you don't have access to the full text.....will try to find you a copy. can you see any of these versions? The study is about the usage of the terms.....and it's not that good.....well Canada did well ☺--Moxy 🍁 05:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes I have access to the full text. The word "commit" occurs exactly twice, and in neither instance specifically tells us whether sources use the term. However, we already know that 2014 sources used the word "commit". This conversation is about whether recent top-level sources use the term for Robin Williams. If you cannot show that they do, you may argue that we should cite the 2014 sources instead, but I would argue that we should use the language of the recent sources. We don't say in Jackie Robinson that he was the "First Negro in Modern Major League Baseball"[15] except in direct quotes. Wikivoice uses the language of modern sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Suicide as verb

Currently, it states: "... Williams committed suicide by hanging.", I suggest applying the term as a verb: "... Williams suicided by hanging." It removes connotations and frankly is less wordy. I understand that using committing suicide does not have a positive or neutral weight Thanks Tortillovsky (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That idea is so ludicrous it looks like you are deliberately trolling to provoke a reaction rather than to engage in any serious discussion. Keep that up and see what happens to your editing privileges.

Most native English speakers figure out between ages 8 and 12 that "murder" can be used as both verb and noun in English but "homicide" and "suicide" are both nouns. (I figured it out around age 10.) I'm guessing you're either not native or not that old.

Please review Wikipedia core policies like Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, especially the part about how Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Also see WP:NOR: Wikipedia is not a first publisher of original research. If you think your idea is a good idea, it's your problem to go get a Ph.D. in English or linguistics at a research university so people will take you seriously on language issues and then go argue for that usage in linguistics journals, popular magazines, and public speeches. Then if you have any success, you can come back and cite to press coverage of your grass-roots efforts as a basis for urging that usage on Wikipedia.--Coolcaesar (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Coolcaesar, I think most Wikipedians figure out before they've been here for less than 8 or 12 years that whenever you're tempted to declare that a common word is never used in some way, that it's usually worth checking a dictionary first just to make sure that you're right.[16][17] Maybe you should strike all of that? And apologize to that long-time editor for your response, which was both incorrect and rude?

SandyGeorgia, if you're worried about this article attracting attention in the coming months, then I think it would be a good idea to look again at the suggestions that @Closeapple posted a while ago. For example, I don't seen any need for the word suicide needs to appear twice in the lead, and removing the first instance of it would make the article less of a target. (I'm not watching this page; ping me if you need my attention). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Fine. I apologize to the extent that I stated that "suicide" is only a noun. I was unaware that suicide has historically been used as a verb and I stand corrected on that point. However, the larger point that I was trying to make about why it's a bad idea to use suicide as a verb in this article is still valid: suicide as a verb is extremely rare in modern English. That explains why I have never previously encountered it, even though I read extremely broadly, frequently, and voraciously (and have done so since age two). Google Ngram Viewer reveals that for the last 50 years, "suicided" has always been rare in comparison to the far more common usage, "committed suicide." --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"By hanging" in the lead and infobox

Per Closeapple, I have removed "by hanging" from the lead.[18] Removed cause of death from the infobox.[19] Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the method from the lead, as that is not an important detail.

About the hidden HTML note, I think that we (Wikipedia editors in general, not specifically on this page) seem to forget that there are more than two ways to report a suicide. It's not a binary choice between "committed" or "died by". We could equally well say something like "Williams died in August 2014 at his home in Paradise Cay, California at the age of 63. The cause of death was suicide" – an approach that uses neither of the two contested phrases. This is why I recommended another look at Closeapple's comments. You don't have to plant a flag on the side of either traditional English or recent recommendations; you can just avoid the whole thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I support that approach, but I don't think suicide would be called a cause of death. We could say: "his death was a suicide". Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

What exactly constitutes the "cause of death" depends upon your POV. A medical examiner would probably write something like "asphyxiation due to strangulation secondary to dementia" (and maybe with several other steps in between). But if you'd say of another person that the cause of death was homicide (a phrase that appears in several Wikipedia articles, then you could equally say that the cause of death was suicide. I get 367,000 Ghits on the quoted phrase, so it's not unheard of (fewer than "died by suicide" but more than "died from suicide"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"Cause of death was a suicide" gets 651,000 hits. "The death was a suicide" gets 1,740,000. "Died by suicide" gets 7,170,000. "Died through suicide" gets 3,510,000. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe it is a BLP violation to use language which up-to-date dictionaries say is moralistic, regardless of whether it is traditional or recently recommended by style guides, agencies, and advocates. But I'm not sure what justification we would have to remove "committed" from this article which would not also apply to all other articles which use "committed suicide" in wikivoice. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021

In the death section, can you change, “committed suicide” to “died by suicide”. The term “committed suicide” is outdated and insensitive. The only two things a person commits is a sin or a crime. We don’t say someone committed to cancer when a loved one dies from cancer. So we shouldn’t say someone committed suicide when a loved one dies by suicide. 24.44.242.154 (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed exhaustively, as you would have noticed had you read the rest of this page, even just the table of Contents. No, it won't be changed. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I disagree with it myself, but there is a clear consensus on this subject on this talk page. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

non-rs

I would suggest that the Showbiz411 ref be deleted, as Showbiz411 is not an RS, per Wikipedia:USERGENERATED and WP:SELFPUB. --2603:7000:2143:8500:9908:4467:7D2D:5F71 (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2021

Cause of death for Robin Williams was NOT suicide. Coroner changed ruling after the fact to "Lewy Body Dementia." 2601:2C7:8B00:3EC0:AC03:F3BC:4B05:F35C (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: He hanged himself, with lewy body disease being a contributing factor to that decision, which this article adequately explains. Volteer1 (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Support for Reeve family

I've removed the following sentence as I believe it's more likely to be false than true:

"Williams paid many of Reeve's medical bills and gave financial support to his family."

The first reference is to Reeve's autobiography, which I have in front of me. The cited pages do not support this claim, and I don't recall anything that would support this claim anywhere else in the book. I've read Reeve's second book too and it also doesn't support this claim. The book Somewhere in Heaven, an independent biography on Christopher and Dana Reeve, published after both had died, goes into their financial struggles at length but having recently read the whole thing I don't recall it saying anything about major gifts from Williams. A Biography.com article says, "Williams always denied reports that he'd stepped in to handle Reeve's many bills. However, he did admit to one act of generosity. "We bought Chris a van and a generator," he said in 1999. "One night the generator they had for Chris crapped out, so there was Chris' wife Dana outside in the middle of the night trying to hand-crank the thing."" Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021

Hello, I'd like to add an entry to the tributes section for a song I wrote in memory of Robin.

TrevorOsborne (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The song would need to be covered in secondary sources as a notable tribute. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2021: "Committed suicide"

Could you please change the terminology. The article uses the phrase committed suicide. This is offensive as it is an outdated reference back to the days when suicide was a criminal act (such as committed murder, committed theft etc). A better phrase would be died by suicide or took his own life. 2A02:C7F:9689:6000:9972:F902:6A33:26F7 (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

There was a recent RFC here and the consensus was the committed suicide wording is acceptable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The consensus is that "committed suicide" would still be "allowed", and it was suggested that we use the language of the sources. Modern reliable sources rarely use "committed suicide", but the close says to not go around changing all the occurrences of "committed suicide", so I'm not sure what we should do. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

We use the sources in relation to the topic to decide. At the time of Williams' death, it was "committed suicide" by a very wide margin. --Masem (t) 23:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and modern sources about Robin Williams do not use "committed suicide". Things have changed very fast the past couple of years, with #MeToo, etc. We don't use the language of dated sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

As pointed out in Archive 9, there are many sources that still use "committed suicide" today in reference to Williams' death, more than those that use alternate language, so there's no push to change the language. Both the RFC and the discussion afterward cemented that. --Masem (t) 00:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Archive 9 contains...one recent, decent source, the Chicago Sun-Times. Shall we list the top ten news sources for post-2018 articles about Williams? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

There are at least 4-5 source from the last 4-5 years (recent) that use that language. --Masem (t) 03:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

As we discussed in Archive 9, the post-2018 studies, particularly the 2019 study, "Media coverage of Robin Williams’ suicide in the United States: A contributor to contagion?"[20] marked a turning point for how sources covered his suicide, as did the 2018 suicides of Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain.[21] Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Masem, let's analyze the sources and decide this. You mentioned 4-5 sources using "committed suicide". Here're stories from 6 sources which don't: [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]

I have included NBC, CNN, and the Chicago Sun-Times, which were used in Archive 9, along with The Guardian, WaPo, and the LA Times. We should analyze each source individually over time, but of course not just focus on newspapers. What are your standards for deciding this? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Jehochman, since this keeps coming up, can you clarify your close? You stated, "Perhaps the best idea is to see what the cited sources in each article say and follow their formulation." I assume we should use modern sources, not sources at the time of the suicide which may be dated, does that make sense? I have started looking for modern sources to cite. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It makes sense to follow the usage in the most recent high-quality articles. The challenge may be finding them for each biography where there might not be as much modern coverage as historic coverage. This is at best a guideline and not a firm requirement of the close. Jehochman ^Talk 23:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to help. For this discussion here, the long list of sources Kolya presents show that "took his own life" is well supported. This being a major article, changing it does not violate the suggestions not to run around changing every article all at once. I think it is fair to change a few high profile articles based on modern sources. Given time, usage and consensus may continue to shift, so there is no harm in proceeding at a deliberate pace, rather than a rushed pace. Jehochman ^Talk 23:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I changed it to "died by suicide" per Britannica,[34] but I am open to "took his own life". Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus to change per past discussion on this page as well as the RFC. --Masem (t) 02:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I will stress an issue that came up in the RFC: that WP should not be "trend setting" here was repeated by many respondants in that. Yes, there is a trend away from it, but most identified that it is not sufficient to force WP to make that change. Just because a number of recent sources use language other than "commit suicide" doesn't mean that language is being avoided, particularly as there are also recent sources that do use it. This was a key point raised as a point for the RFC statement - that there is some pressure to shift in language against "committed suicide" - but many participants rejected that WP should be forced to follow that, which is exactly what this arguement here is forcing. You need a stronger consensus to change the language given that the RFC allows for "committed suicide" to be used. --Masem (t) 03:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I will also add that those sources that you list above are not good sources to work from because they are not talking directly of the cause of Williams' death, but how the media reported for several of them and the rates of suicide that followed. In other words, there's no place in how they wrote those articles for using "committed suicide" nor any of the reasonable replacements like "died by suicided", so they are not good articles to work from. Just because a recent news article talks about Williams and his death and omits "committed suicide" doesn't mean that there's alternate language to use from them. --Masem (t) 03:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Best not use convoluted language....keep it simple by using terms anyone old or young can understand in a glance.--Moxy- 03:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Masem, 8 of the 12 sources I provided directly state that Williams "died by suicide", and 1 directly states that he took his own life. One story is a duplicate.

You stated that "there are many sources that still use 'committed suicide' today in reference to Williams' death, more than those that use alternate language", but the evidence does not support that. Do you have another reason to support "committed suicide", or are you basing your decision off of recent sources? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I see now that you said that "key is that what form is free to editors to select, ideally bases on what the RSes say."[35] If the vast majority of sources from 2019 to the present which state how he died do not use "commit suicide", then we should not. We have barely begun to analyze the sources, which we must do to form a proper consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Go back to the RFC. There is strong concern about WP forcing a language change when "committed suicide" is readily accepted terminology today. Just because handful of sources today in discussing the event of the past use alternative language, we have to consider what was also used at the time of his death as well, as well as that there are several sources that still also use "committed suicide". There is some, but not sufficient, reason to change at this point. --Masem (t) 04:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Jehochman, am I still misunderstanding your close? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I fully concur with User:Masem's cogent analysis on this issue. And User:Kolya Butternut needs to spend more time reviewing WP:NOT, especially the part about "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion." --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Can we please focus on the content of the article rather than speculating on the motives of editors? If you are concerned that readers might perceive the content as biased depending on how we phrase these two or three words, you could assess whether the sources support that concern. Personally I consider either phrase to be acceptable so count me as "no opinion". Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It's difficult not to draw the obvious inference when a user engages in uncivil conduct by repeatedly refusing to respect community consensus and repeatedly relitigating an issue on which they already lost, in a transparent "war of attrition" that wastes the precious time of other editors. As dozens of third-party media commentators have pointed out in articles attacking Wikipedia over the past decade, it is exactly that kind of misconduct which has driven away many thousands of would-be editors, and that if WP is to increase its slowly shrinking base of active editors, WP admins must be more proactive in imposing appropriate sanctions.

In this situation, the proper good faith approach for a WP editor is to back off, cool down, wait a year or two, and then open another RFC supported by overwhelming evidence. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Certainly we are approaching let-it-go time, but I reject this assessment (although I sympathize). While it's true that I strongly disagree with the RfC because I believe the RS make clear that "committed suicide" violates NPOV,[36] I accept it and am working with it in good faith. We have been directed to go with the language of the "most recent high quality sources", and I believe we will find that those sources overwhelmingly do not use this language, just as they do not use this language for recent high-profile suicides such as Jeffrey Epstein's. I appreciate that this is a highly charged issue, but when Masem misrepresents how many of the sources I presented actually say "died by suicide", I think we should reconsider where the disruption is coming from. I want to de-escalate this by saying that while in my opinion the arguments presented in favor of "committed suicide" are not solid, there is a strong preference for it, so perhaps WP:IAR is all you need to say (because the RfC ruled against my NPOV argument). So unless anyone is up for further analyzing recent sources, which I am fully willing to do, there's nothing more to say. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Why exactly are we revisiting the results of a very recent community-wide RfC based on this edit request? I understand that a few established editors, IP editor aside, disagree with the outcome, but this isn't a matter to be revisited locally on this page. I'm of the opinion we should probably draft an edit notice to address this perennial issue. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

_{I ran into an (edit conflict) while posting this; I tried to reload the page but for some reason it posted instead. My apologies. It seemed to be to the headers of the talk page. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)}

Just to clarify, we are not revisiting the results of the RfC. The result of the RfC was that the term "committed suicide" is permitted but that the "best idea" may be to use language from the best sources. Please see comments beginning ant 21:32, 13 March 2021, above. I understand that at this point it is ultimately an editorial decision. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2021

Please change the wording in the description of the cause of his death. He “died by suicide” - he did not “commit” anything. His illness was not a choice and “commit suicide” implies a crime and is no longer the accepted term by mental health professionals. Please change “committed suicide” to “died by suicide.” Source: I am a psychiatrist (MD). Thank you 66.61.22.237 (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done A recent RFC confirmed that it is longstanding policy to allow "commit suicide" where there is consensus on the talk page to use it (see [37]). See above sections for recent discussions specific to Williams' case. --Masem (t) 00:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus to use "commit suicide" for Robin Williams' article; it merely remains as the status quo. We could initiate an WP:RFC for the language at this article. See Talk:Robin Williams#Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2021: "Committed suicide" above or the previous discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2021

the Survivors was a movie in 1983 Robin was in. 2001:569:7668:1300:A96C:E476:FCD2:3424 (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

It's already mentioned on his filmography. Anything else?Crboyer (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2021

Change committed suicide to died by suicide. This is a more acceptable term that is used in media as well as professional settings. 2603:9001:8D07:5EBE:959C:578A:93C9:3A01 (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Suicide terminology is a relevant article. However. I expect that this wording has been discussed previously, so we should build on previous discussion. Check the archives. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this has been discussed here locally before. Both are acceptable, but we generally try and follow the sources and leave up the existing status quo unless consensus changes. See [38] also. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The most recent sources do not say that Williams "committed suicide", as I explained at your link and [39], but there was no consensus for the change. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Enthusiasm for tabletop wargaming, in particular Warhammer 40k

A twitter post by his daughter Zelda:

https://twitter.com/zeldawilliams/status/997193457834770432

and some other articles on the internet:

https://spikeybits.com/2015/12/the-top-5-celebrities-that-play-warhammer.html

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/05/zelda-williams-shares-her-dads-40k-collection.html

Confirm Williams was not only a fan of RPG's etc, but of tabletop wargaming. there several stories about him getting other celebrities into Warhammer 40k, such as Kirsten Dunst and Billy Crystal, and apparently there's anecdotal evidence of him and Billy Crystal playing games of 40k and doing hilarious voices for their characters etc while playing.

Think it would be a nice mention for all Warhammer fans, and other tabletop wargamers, that the utter legend Robin Williams was also a big fan of the universe and wargames in general, not just RPG's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kier10101 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2021

SECTION: RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL VIEWS. Add citation to Williams's support of the democratic party. PROOF:https://hollowverse.com/robin-williams/ FellowHistorian (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Unfortunately, https://hollowverse.com, a personal blog, is not known to be a reliable source. Please see also WP:BLOGS. General Ization ^Talk 23:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2021

Changed committed suicide to died by suicide. 69.113.66.194 (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It was already declined literally above. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

"On August 11, 2014, at age 63, Williams committed suicide at his home in Paradise Cay, California"

Please change to indicate that Williams died by suicide 73.17.22.167 (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Thank you, but this has been discussed many times before, and the current consensus is for "committed". Please see here and previous and subsequent discussions. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Will we then next have to worry about me “committing” to marry? Which some might argue is often much the same thing.--2603:7000:2143:8500:A5D0:5831:DB3C:EC69 (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2021

Please change the wording to the Robin Williams page to died by suicide rather than committed. It is less hurtful and more of what is generally accepted by journalists now. Committed general is related to a crime and this has not been illegal for some time. 2601:648:8500:8DF0:9C43:133E:FFB2:B6B (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. The reasons why have been discussed endlessly on the talk page. Like the above conversation.Crboyer (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2021

Can we change “committed suicide” to “died by suicide”? This is more politically correct. 2607:FEA8:2A9E:3600:413B:5473:45C9:B7 (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See the responses for the three edit requests above yours. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

We've had nine or so requests to change this. Is it time for an RfC? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

There was a very decisive RfC in January. Have you read it? Are we now going to have never-ending RfCs on every controversy, or will we accept consensus instead? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Jehochman stated in their close: "Perhaps the best idea is to see what the cited sources in each article say and follow their formulation." The recent sources which discuss Williams' suicide do not use "committed suicide". We could have an RfC just for this article since it keeps coming up. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Really? Cause I'm seeing lots of uses of just that phrasing from 2018 to now: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22robin+williams%22+%22committed+suicide%22&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=ALeKk03KFSlUQBgdimDrtlSwGhAJv4O8RA%3A1626628619883&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2018%2Ccd_max%3A7%2F18%2F2021&tbm= --Khajidha (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2021

Please change the verbiage in the death section from “committed suicide” to “took his life”. This term is politically incorrect seeing as he did not commit a crime. 2600:1004:B1E2:2BB6:15DD:4B2F:6BB9:3D1B (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per [40] and the many discussions and declined requests immediately above this one. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

He didn't "take" anything either. "Took his life" is non-sensical. He already HAD his life. He couldn't "take it". The simple fact is "committed suicide" is the perfectly normal phrasing. --Khajidha (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)