Talk:Suicide/archive04

Statistics

Somone has claimed that men are "3 to 4 times as likely to be sucesful at commiting suicide then men, and not unusually 5 times". This is either a very poorly worded phrase, or the worst use of statistics I have ever seen. Reference is lacking for me to clarify. Either there is a ratio with error bounds, or there are multiple ratios with error bounds. Statistics should not be listed in the form above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.132.69 (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Familicide

I just created a new page on Familicide but it quickly became a candidate for speedy deletion due to its limited, dictionary-definition content. It is my wish that the psychology and crime scholars among you help me expand the article's content so that it will no longer be considered beneath Wikipedia standards. Thank you. J.A.McCoy 00:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Japan?

I know that Japan's suicide rate is high, but why is this? It sounds morbidly interesting. The Wiggle Fish 11:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Once you get a job (the standard "9-5" deal) in Japan without an extremely good degree, chances are that if you quit or are fired you will not get hired again. Even if you do keep your job, they are often unsatisfying and leave very much to be desired, causing a spiral of depression. When I was in Japan for two weeks, my subway train was delayed on two different occasions due to men that had jumped off of bridges over the tracks.71.178.227.4 02:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

suicide as a social fact?

as a sociology student i can't help to notice the lack of a sociological point of view in this article. bieng "suicide" by Durkheim one of the most important pieces on this topic, where he statistacally shows that the main causes of the sucide rate are social, rather than psycological or otherwise. i'm planning on working a little bit on this direction, but i want to registrate as a user and hear some opinions before donig so.

gabriel

ps. i may have several ortography mistakes, forgive me for i am not a native speaker.

National suicide rates - contradictory and unclear

Contradiction: "National suicide rates sometimes tend to be stable"; "National suicide rates, apparently universally, show an upward long-term trend."

Citations with insufficient detail: "Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1983; Lester, Patterns, 1996, p. 21"

Unclear: The sentence beginning "For example, the 1975 rates ...". Nurg 21:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Suicide notes contradiction

While this article affirms that "the practice is fairly common, occurring in approximately one out of three suicides...", the Suicide note article says "but statistics show that the majority of suicide victims do not leave notes; in some countries, fewer than 10% of suicides are accompanied by suicide notes". Just warning whoever looks after these articles. Simoes - http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio:Simoes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.47.34.200 (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

The first two statements don't contradict each other at all, even though the wording is clumsy since it was clearly written by two people coming at the numbers from different perspectives.

If 1/3 leave notes then clearly the majority (or 2/3) do NOT leave notes, right? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.85.130 (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

suicides at universities

I've started working on a subpage called User:Wl219/List of university student suicides in my userspace. I intend to link it eventually to List of suicides when it's more fleshed out, but comments are welcome. Wl219 01:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

--Causes of Suicide-- Substance abuse stated so blatently has no place in this list. A person may be under the influence when they kill themself, but its almost always because of a deeper underlying problem.

Suicide Rates

The article makes interesting points about the differing rates of suicide by country around the world, and states that the rate of suicide to homicide is 3:2 in the USA. I want to know more. There should be a map or a table of suicide rates by country and by age and sex if possible. I strongly believe that the suicide rate in the United States is higher than Americans realize and that this is a fact the the country does not own up to or care to look at and admit. Or, a link to a separate article on 'suicide rates' should be supplied. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.178.36.234 (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, here's a [1] by WHO. As you can see, there are too many countries to fit on the table without disrupting the article structure. Mahanga^{Talk to me} 04:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, looks like we have a table after all in a separate page. List of countries by suicide rate. Hmmm... I'm thinking of putting a table of the top 10(5?) countries with the highest suicide rate on the main page. Mahanga^{Talk to me} 04:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the table now. I was thinking of adding the rates for the most populous countries, but decided against it. Mahanga^{Talk to me} 15:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Passive Suicide

While this doesn't fit the classical definition, I know people who have committed suicide in this way. Bo-Lingua 03:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Military suicide

I think this small section deserves its own main article - I've created a redirect, but the subject certainly has such scope to qualify for its own article. While I'm here, could I request someone actively contributing here please expand the lead section a little - even one paragraph would be enough. I'm looking to summarize the topic in death but the lead section is only a definition. Richard001 01:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I expanded the lead. Revise as needed. :) Mahanga^Talk 03:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mahanga, I'll add the section now. I've realized there is already an article on military suicide (i.e. suicide attack), I've added the main template to make that clear. Richard001 11:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Islam

It says that Islam has consistently condemned suicide. This is very dubious. There are deliberate suicide attacks, and this is drawn from Islamic rhetoric about martyrdom and accepted as OK by significant numbers of Muslims. In fact the euphemism they are found under in Islamic media is 'martyrdom operation' or variants. I'm going to tag it dubious for now, as there is a problem here. The Behnam 15:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I revised it a little. Change it as you please. Btw, Religious_views_of_suicide#Islam could use expanding, if you have knowledge on the subject. Mahanga^Talk 20:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Suicide methods

...is a long list and doesn't belong on an overview of the subject. The summary, as is, is more than sufficient. SonoftheMorning 10:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Although the proposed merge has been somewhat overtaken by the AfD proposal for the methods article. The methods content is far too long to merge into here, and deserves a page of its own anyway. Eve 17:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Firearms as a suicide means

Other sources state firmly that Canada has a much lower homocide/suicide rate relating to the dramatically lower number of firearms. Here, Canada has a much higher suicide rate than the USA. How reliable are ANY of the numbers? 207.178.98.79 (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Causes of Suicide Organization

The list of "causes of suicide" is too circumstantial with the specific examples. The article should thematically discuss that section and use the current list as examples. I would suggest Emile Durkheim's classic sociological model of suicide with the primary motives of suicide being Anomic (stress, grief, unemployment), Altruistic (ie sacrifice, cults, terrorism, etc.), and Egosistic (loneliness, absurdism). Overall it would present intentional causes in a more constructed, but not limiting, manner that the current list of examples lack in. Reesebw 05:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest a more current model based on contemporary studies and widely accepted in the psychological community. SonoftheMorning 21:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The entire list of "causes of suicide" strikes me as an uncited brainstorm. PsYoP78 03:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

removed the following section from article, and posted it here for discussion

The following section isn't suicide, nor is it a type of suicide, and no relation to suicide is described (just a non-relation). This has left me wondering why it was included in the article in the first place. I've placed it here for discussion, in case there are important issues I've missed. The Transhumanist    23:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Self-harm

Main article: Self-harm

Self-harm is not a suicide attempt. There is a non-causal correlation between self-harm and suicide; both are most commonly a joint effect of depression. Social issues are key as SI is most common among those living in overcrowded conditions, loss of loved one(s), in conflict with their families, with disrupted childhoods and history of drinking and violence. Borderline personality disorder is another frequent psychological factor. Individuals under these stresses become anxious and depressed and then, usually in reaction to a single particular crisis, they attempt to harm themselves. The motivation may be a desire for relief from emotional pain or a desire for attention, although the motivation will often be complex and confused. Self-injury is the paradoxical practice that relies on inflicting pain and injury to relieve or communicate another pain.

Self-Harm/Self-Injury was not really studied as its own practice until the 1960's. This is because many with self-injuries were recorded as suicide attempts. Although the actions are very different, some still perceive self-injury as a suicide attempt. I'm not sure if self-injury and self-harm carry two meanings. I believe the former refers to the specific practice of self-injury, whereas self-harm may be any intentional act that results in the harming of the self even though harm and pain might not be the primary intent. I think self-injury should still be somehow linked to the suicide page because of the misconception that self-injury is a suicide attempt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reesebw (talk • contribs) 23:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes I agree with Reesebw, there is still a significant confusion between self-harm and suicide attempts in the minds of Joe Public (and also a few out-of-date health professionals, worryingly). So I think it's probably a good idea to keep something in there making the difference clear and linking to the SH page. We could maybe lose some of the detail about motivations for SH though. Eve 09:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The American Torpedo Plane Attack on IJN Carriers at Midway Likened to Kamikaze Style Attacks?!

This part of the article is ridiculous, but that is POV on my part. Though I do feel this is a stretch. I wanted to remove it outright but...

John 07:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Anna Halman merge

Umm... no. This is a general article about suicide, not really the right place for info on specific cases, unless they're extremely notable. To be honest, the Anna Halman article has had contested notability anyway, which together with its stub status seems to be motivating the merge suggestion. I suggest if notability is contested then send it to AfD; otherwise leave it as a stub, add more info to make notability clearer, or try and find another page to merge it into (something like List_of_suicides maybe?) Eve 12:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is nosense, of course. No reason for merge. --Cinik 15:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Suicide article does not seem to list individual people who committed suicide, so merging Anna Halman here would not make sense. If she is added to List of suicides then her article would normally be kept as well, so that's not exactly a merge. Although Anna Halman survived a contested AfD recently, the passions seem to live on. Her case received attention on the BBC, and led to a statement (and maybe a policy change) by the Polish Minister of Education. This seems to establish notability, though the sources could be better. Any further discussion on this matter should (in my opinion) take place at Talk:Anna Halman, where no one has yet said anything about a merge. EdJohnston 13:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible merges

I think that ritual suicide could be merged into this article, seeing as it's currently just a paragraph long. Yay or nay? BigglesTh9 05:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd put it as a new sub-subsection under Reasons for suicide > Other reasons. Aleta 08:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks ok to me, yes. Eve 11:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge is done. Also on the chopping block was Dutiful suicide, which hadn't been edited since 2006. BigglesTh9 08:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Slight review of intro

The article strikes me as presenting (or implying) one viewpoint as "the correct view", which it later amends. It also doesn't show the topic in overview very well at present. As an overview article of the subject, I think this can be done better.

The description of suicide starts with the statement "Considered by modern medicine to be a mental health issue, suicide may also be caused by psychological factors..." Only quite a bit later does it then add (as a somewhat minor note) that in some cultures it is seen as honorable or a means of protest, and it never mentions that the view of suicide as mental issue is far from universal culturally or historically. So it's never presented as the rich subject it is, or placed really in any other than a primarily clinical context. (Even then the medical view is very limited - a note on "cry for help" or repetition as a major feature of suicide attempts is crucial to note even in the intro.)

The overall view of suicide as a disapproved act and mental health issue is the appropriate majority view, but I think the topic as a whole needs the way it's presented (ie its "contexting" of this delicate subject) to be slightly improved. I've had a go, because the current view seems rather "pushing one specific viewpoint" (albeit the predominant western one). I've tried to ensure it doesnt get biased the other way by mistake. My approach has been to look at the intro and restructure it as follows, keeping the length sensible:

• Definition of suicide.
• Views have largely been shaped by cultural views (eg religion, honor, meaning of life), and therefore suicide has a diverse significance in different cultures and religions. So present suicide and the range of its meanings and places in different cultures.
• Then, the predominant view of modern society and of most professionals that suicide is categorized under mental health, and as a response to pain or fear in which the value of life is outweighed by pain, fear or other psychological pressures, etc. (And add in omitted note about suicide as a cry for help.)
• Finally, the statistics.

Before after

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

or the so-called "right to die" The "so-called" can also be rephrased to "also known as". Right now it's POV by taking a stance against right to die. Even if the majority is against this, there is an article to cover it.

Adding something on Emile Durkheim's studies about suicide would be helpful. I also have plenty of support that identity issues such as homosexuality, being adopted (to some extent), etc are one issue rather than two issues which lead to the disconnection from society. Any objections on the above should be addressed before Sunday, upon which time I'll start the revising process. I just need an editor. --Hitsuji Kinno 21:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WAY too many internal links

The first part before the table of contents, well, just read the headline. Mattbash 00:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Table placement

As I was looking at the page, I noticed that the table titled "Suicides per 100,000 people per year" should be on the right edge of the screen. It looks like it gets caught up by the graph above it. I would move it, but I'm new to this wiki thing and I don't know how.

~Doc Honcho~ 02:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Title of article is loaded and prejudiced.

There are many ways to refer to the act of intentionally terminating one's life. The one employed here is slanted, or as we put it here, "POV." It criminalizes the act. After all, one "commits" suicide the same way one "commits" a crime, and the term is also semantically connected to "homicide" and "infanticide" (please do not mention "insecticide"). The etymological implication of course is that it is a killing, and a culpable one at that.

May I suggest a more neutral term, often used in antiquity: "voluntary death"? We could have a redirect page, or perhaps a separate article specifically about the crime of "suicide." Haiduc 02:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"Suicide" is the term found in all literature and all colloquial use. Any grave connotations the word carries are mostly tied to the fact that it denotes the act of killing oneself, and not that it is "committed" in much the way one "commits" a foul in a ball game. I suspect you are joking, but in any event, I don't think voluntary death (which is itself entirely ambiguous-- whose death, exactly?) will be replacing suicide here or in popular usage anytime soon. SonoftheMorning 14:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Haiduc isn't alone in this; the term "commit suicide" has fallen out of favor among psychiatric and psychological associations and organizations. "Died by suicide" is one recommended alternative.Carlaclaws 03:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV re: external links

The external links section seems to link to quite a few websites for suicide prevention and support groups, but I don't see a single link to a site for suicide promotion or assistance. Obviously, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a how-to manual, but if there are external links on how to avoid suicide, I think that it's only the fair and balanced thing to do to post external links on how to go through with suicide (like, say, http://www.satanservice.org/tokus/suicide/guide/). The only way you can justify not doing so is to say that it's a worthier goal to prevent suicides than to promote them, which of course is the definition of a non-NPOV. ElHalo

Links to pages detailing ways of killing yourself are more appropriate at suicide methods. But if there's a non-facetious pro-suicide page out there feel free to add it. SonoftheMorning 14:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Justinian

What did Justiian's law code really say on this yopic? The linked 'reference" is not at all authoritattive, and does not mention Justinian anyway. I ask because the Wiki article on religious attitudes to suicide very nearly contradicts this one, stating that suicide to avoid trial was a crime and sin in 533 (ie presumably under Justinian's code of that year), and this was extended generally in 590.

World map of suice rates

This figure is essentially useless, since the key doesn't offer much. <13 what? Suicides per capita? Suicides a year? It should probably be removed, or replaced with something useful.

If you had bothered to read the description for the image or clicked on the suicide rates link in the caption, you'd quickly see that it's the number of suicides per 100,000 people per year. Mahanga^Talk 20:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Copycat suicides

Not having seen this article for a while, my immediate reaction to the pictures in it was that they had the potential to glorify suicide. One potential outcome of this is copycat suicides. While there is a need to be NPOV about the subject, there is also a social responsibility to not contribute to further suicides. It is significant that neither the article on murder or homicide have pictures of victims despite the ready availability of such material. This brief entry is to encourage a debate about this. --CloudSurfer 22:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If someone can show me a link to a policy or relevant talk discussion suggesting that the pictures were removed from the murder and homicide articles for that reason, I will do the same for all the photographs on this page that depict suicides that could reasonably be imitated (I do not view the likelihood for copycat suicides involving self-immolation or kamikaze attacks significant enough to be worrisome). The artwork, I would think, is intended to romanticize suicide and is therefore NPOV-protected. SonoftheMorning 03:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware if there were pictures in the past in those two. Due to the lack of replies on this page I have copied this to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Copycat_suicide_risk where there are two replies to date and further comments of mine. It might be best to continue this there. --CloudSurfer 03:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of this has continued on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Copycat_suicide_risk where at present the vote runs 3:1 in favour of removing the pictures of the German mayor and his wife, and the Japanese soldiers. There is a lengthy discussion of reasoning for this on that page. Any further comments? --CloudSurfer 02:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I oppose removing images based on censorship, even if some believe it helps prevents suicides (?) although I would dispute that desired outcome as well, maybe showing the end results of a suicide may help prevent sucicide Bleh999 12:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Bleh999, have you read the much longer discussion here?--CloudSurfer 02:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Suicide's verb

I have Been Bold and changed "commit" to "complete". I see this was discussed and changed long ago before, but somehow got changed back to "commit." It might be even better to substitute most of these instances with "kill oneself" -- it would be the most neutral -- but maybe someone else.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friarslantern (talk • contribs) 23:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not see that "commit" carries a negative connotation, but perhaps your views differ. Regardless, it is the term used in virtually all academic literature and colloquial usage, and wikipedia is not the forum for changing universally accepted idioms by fiat. SonoftheMorning 04:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Commit" ~clearly~ carries a negative connotation -- one only "commits" something that they are not supposed to, that is bad to, in current usage (we're talking about the word as a synonym of "perpetrate" -- again, these are only used (unless one's being ironic) with a connotation of doing something that is bad, or that one shouldn't -- it is judgemental. I can't think of any phrases using "commit" or "perpetrate" that don't imply bad, crime, sin, or shame, except when used comically). While it is an idiom in current usage, it's negative connotation is conscious and clear, and therefore not representative of a NPOV.

And no, it is not universally used among experts on suicide -- many of them, perhaps even approaching most -- would prefer to say "kill oneself", "complete suicide", or the neologism, "to suicide". I think you'll find that to be the case if you review sites by professional organizations -- they are tending -- on purpose -- to use the neutral terminology more and more (there are occasional uses of "committed suicide" there, but more often, they say "kill oneself"). The American Association for Suicide Prevention's webpage of recommendations for journalists goes as far as requesting of the press: "In the body of the story, it is preferable to describe the deceased as "having died by suicide," rather than as "a suicide," or having "committed suicide." The latter two expressions reduce the person to the mode of death, or connote criminal or sinful behavior." ([2]).

While I'd agree that "she suicided" or even "they completed suicide" is noticeably awkward, and would tend to sound soapbox in themselves, to use "kill oneself" in this article will ~not~ stand out in this way. People will NOT read this saying "What axe is WP trying to grind here -- they say "kill oneself" in this article instead of "commit suicide!". I feel "kill oneself" is arguably more NPOV than "commit suicide", and am planning to revert back to the "kill oneself" version barring convincing argument to the contrary. Friarslantern 18:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the negative connotation in "commit forces to the region" or "commit to a relationship", pray tell? As for expertise, you can see that the apa [3] itself uses "commit" in formal literature. And no, no matter meticulously I review professional sites, I won't find them tend to use a bizarre neologism in lieu of the universally accepted phraseology; there are some 37,500 google hits for "complete suicide", as opposed to ~2,000,000 for "commit suicide". Regardless, any change at all is unnecessary unless you can demonstrate that a majority of scholars feel that the term is too loaded and an alterantive has gained substantial acceptance. Otherwise, I direct you to [4], which trumps marginal and questionable POV quibbles. SonoftheMorning 07:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Committing forces is a different use of the word, meaning, guaranteeing or giving a mission to -- it's not the same usage -- different section in a dictionary. Same with "commit to a relationship". The usage we're talking about is "to commit [an act]". It is a usage commonly understood by any native speaker of English, and, if asked to think about it, any user would recognize that it adds a negative connotation. We don't use it otherwise: we commit an error, we commit a sin, we commit a crime. We DON'T commit a good deed, we DON'T commit a favor, we DON'T commit a success. It has come to implicitly indicate that the act in question is bad, or even shameful. I can't think of any exceptions to this.

Note that in my edits, I left two uses of "committed" because they had nothing to do with the usage "to commit [an act]", which, again, is the only construction that implies a bad act: "Sometimes, a person will make actions resembling suicide attempts while not being fully committed," and "Suicide-like acts should generally be treated as seriously as possible, because if there is an insufficiently strong reaction from loved ones from a suicidal gesture, this may motivate future and ultimately more committed attempts." In these two examples, "committed" is used as an -adjective- to mean "dedicated", or "in earnest".

Expertise: if you look at the sites of professional organizations of psychologists and social workers that focus on suicide, such as the one I cited, or the AAS, I feel you will notice a tendency away from saying "commit" suicide; they are tending towards saying "completed" suicide, or "to suicide", or, most commonly, simply, "to kill oneself" in their writings where the average person would more often say "commit suicide". They are not, nor are psychological professional organizations, thorough about it -- the colloquial usage is a strong habit. I bring up the examples to point out that this is not something I invented, but something others have thought of, and pointed out to be not neutral.

You brought up the argument that I am proposing the use of a neologism. Not the case. I have made it clear that I am switching to arguing for "to kill oneself" rather than my previous use of "complete suicide". "Commit suicide, " being of Latin origin, is more of a neologism than the (Germanic) "kill oneself". For me to replace "commit suicide" with "kill oneself" would not stand out to a reader as a neologism would; nor would it appear to the average reader to be soapbox in any way; "commit suicide" is common parlance, but "kill herself" is not uncommon at all, though it is more straightforwardly factual. I cannot imagine that anyone who wasn't already aware of this controversy or sensitive to this usage would even notice if this WP article used "kill oneself" rather than "commit suicide". This is an issue of style that affects tone in a way that makes it slightly, but clearly, less NPOV. There is no neologism issue here, and so I no trump of my NPOV complaint. Aside from my personal aversion to the phrase "commit suicide", on the face of it, "kill himself/herself" is more straightforward, more factual -- more encyclopedic.

I'm also thinking, now that I'm on this, of changing the opening statement: "Suicide (Latin sui caedere, to kill oneself) is the act of intentionally terminating one's own life" to "Suicide (Latin sui caedere, to kill oneself) is the act of killing oneself." Why beat around the bush? We don't describe murder or homicide with such indirect language. ..... Diving right into another can of worms, worst possibility ;-) Friarslantern 01:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC) 01:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You said: if you look at the sites of professional organizations of psychologists and social workers that focus on suicide, such as the one I cited, or the AAS, I feel you will notice a tendency away from saying "commit" suicide; Well, prove it. Effacing the APA's (not to mention everywhere else's) accepted terminology from Wikipedia because you disagree with the connotations is itself POV. You also made the unsubstantiated claim that "kill oneself" is more encyclopedic. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for one, does not support you there [5]. Note also that one could readily "commit an act of kindness". 138.192.140.22 04:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

>> "...Well, prove it".

Umm.... no. It was a minor part of my argument: I've already quoted the section of the AFSP site that should establish that someone up there has thought about this issue enough to request the media to not use "commit". Beside, I don't get a clear sense that proving this would convince you, 138.192.140.22.

>> Effacing the APA's (not to mention everywhere else's)

>> accepted terminology from Wikipedia...

You make it sound like the APA and everyone else would object. I have already argued this: that I believe not only that they wouldn't object, but that they probably wouldn't even notice. Not only that, but "accepted terminology" implies that they've actually thought about it and made a decision on the use of it: not at all necessarily so. I would complain to them too (and should!).

>> ...because you disagree

>> with the connotations is itself POV.

If the connotations are judgmental, then leaving them would be sustaining this POV. And, if you're going to get picky, the act of USING a NPOV is, itself, taking a stance of sorts -- a POV (that we should be NPOV)! "Commit" is the most common way of referring to this act, AND it is judgmental -- not necessarily (and probably not) on the conscious part of the individual using it, but socially, as a nod to the shame that we used to (and some still do) feel should be attributed to suicide. The other reason that just occurred to me that it might be used would be for euphemistic purposes, by employing an arcane construction to distance the brute facts of the meaning behind it from both the speaker and the audience. But again, this also would carry a POV (that suicide is to be treated as taboo) in itself, as would it be if we started replacing instances of "X died in 1991" with "X passed away". While WP shouldn't go out on linguistic limbs, it should also avoid carrying on judgment (such as taboos). "Kill oneself" does neither.

While it is an idiom, it is one whose different parts are still used apart from each other and have their own denotations and connotations, intentional or otherwise. A written document, particularly a constantly refined one that pointedly strives for neutral point of view, has the ability and, sometimes, the obligation, to stray at times away from what is common usage, for various reasons, and this certainly wouldn't be the first time WP strayed from common usage for some reason important to its policies. Unless, of course, this straying would stand out as unusually novel, or pointed, or jarring. The change I made (which was reverted) did not do that (at least not any more than avoiding referring to "those who commit murder" in an article about murder, in favor of "those who murder" or "those who kill" would, for example).

>> You also made the unsubstantiated claim that "kill oneself"

>> is more encyclopedic.

Not completely unsubstantiated -- I've shown how it is POV, which makes it un-encyclopedic. But, true, additionally, I appeal to common sense in saying that, of the two different ways of saying it, "kill oneself" is more encyclopedic by comparison. It's right there in the definition (line 1): suicide means to kill oneself. And, "to kill oneself", while usually supplanted by "committed suicide", is still quite current, and the only connotation it has -- as, on its face, it is quite straightforward -- is as being blunter than the roundabout or euphemistic "commit suicide". Are you arguing that Wikipedia ~should not be that blunt~? And why?

>> The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for one, does not support you there

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosphy probably hasn't looked at this issue. They probably are using the more common "commit suicide" rather than the (current, but less common) "kill oneself" for just that reason -- because it's how their authors talk. That doesn't mean they would not change it if it were brought to their attention as something arguably less encyclopedic. Do you know they've dealt with this issue and come to a conclusion? Just because it IS used in other encyclopedias doesnt' make it necessarily more encyclopedic when viewed critically. We have the opportunity to do that here in Wikipedia.

>> Note also that one could readily "commit an act of kindness"

Point well taken. But this is the exception to the rule. Ask someone randomly "What act have you just committed?" and they will generally assume you are accusing them, humorously or not, of having just done something wrong. They will not get that same feeling from being asked what act they have just "performed", however, or what they have just "done". And the dictionaries bear this out: yes, "commit" can mean simply, to "do", but it has a particular connotation synonymous with "to perpetrate", clearly a word with judgmental connotations.

Again, unless someone can convince me otherwise, I am planning to revert "commit" back to "kill oneself" in this article. Friarslantern 16:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm.... no. Then your changes do not meet the criteria for verifiability. You, backed by a small minority of advocacy groups, do not get to change universally accepted language by fiat. You feel that the term "commit suicide" is POV; I do not, and neither do the overwhelming majority of scholars on the subject. And the idea that the APA, the Stanford Encyclopedia, Britannica and virtually every other reputable source out there do not at any point critically examine their language is ludicrous. Unless you can prove that there's a legitimate and well-supported reason that "commit suicide" is inherently POV, your changes will be reverted back. 138.192.140.22 02:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. This is not an issue of what facts are included in an article, or what articles are included: THESE are elements subject to verifiability standards! Backed by advocacy groups? Now you're trying to paint this as lobbying effort. Not so. "Neither do the overwhelming majority of scholars on the subject" assumes that the issue has been dealt with by these scholars -- I don't think so. "...the idea that the APA.... and virtually every other reputable source out there do not critically examine their language is ludicrous": Yes, it is. And I would be too IF I WERE MAKING SUCH A BROAD STATEMENT. I am not, and you are attempting to PAINT me that way. My point was that there's a good chance they haven't examined THIS PARTICULAR wording issue - which is a very different assertion. "Unless you can prove there's a legitimate and well-supported reason..."???! I have answered your (user 138.192.140.22!) and Sonofthemorning's (or are you the same people?!) counterarguments thoroughly here. I have kept coming back with clear reasoning, and straightforward language. You have never indicated any actual problem you have with the wording "kill oneself". I think the problem here is that you can't find any problem that you yourself actually have with the wording. You just don't like that I am proposing a change on a Wikipedia page that you wouldn't want to make in the way you yourself speak in everyday life and are offended, inappropriately I'd say, that I would make this change -- in speech and in writing. Well, I'm not asking you to change the way you yourself talk. But if that's your only reason, I will not let it stop me from making this change, for the sake of making this page a modicum more neutral, at no expense of readability and without adding a single neologism or modifying it in any way that almost any reader would notice for even a moment. Friarslantern 18:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You are unable to offer a real and objective reason that your changes would make the page more neutral. You feel that "commit suicide" carries a negative connotation, although this is not linguistically provable and most major organizations have no trouble with the wording. I respect that, but your personal feelings on the matter are entirely immaterial. Universally accepted terminology on Wikipedia is not subject to change simply because one or a handful of users feels that it is POV; this would lead to an endless and unmanageable euphemism treadmill in every article whenever some crank decides that basic idioms are in some trivial way invidious. If you wish to add a section on "naming conventions" or some such that would be acceptable, but changing standard language requires some significant degree of scholarly support, which you do not have. 138.192.140.22 05:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"Commit" ~does~ carry a negative connotation - see a dictionary. If you want me to quote dictionaries, I'd be happy to.

You say you're worried about a euphemism treadmill? Well, that's what I'm combatting here. It is you who defend the euphemism, and I who defend the plain speech (jeesh, my phrasing even has half as many syllables!). A quick check yielded this: on WP, "pass away" re-directs to "Death". An example of WP preferring the non-euphemism. I suspect I could find a general tendency in WP to do this. "Kill oneself" is not euphemistic, nor does it stand out in an ideological/soapbox way, nor is it needlessly profane (but these weren't your arguments anyway). People use it commonly because they want to use a euphemism. An encyclopedia's language should represent more than that. And, changing standard language does NOT necessarily require "some significant degree of scholarly support", as you claim: this is a red herring. I think it's clear that, even if the APA -- whose lack of an opinion on this you have cited as significant -- said "No one should say "commit suicide" anymore!!!", you would not then concede anything to me here. What we're talking about is is a style issue, and my arguments are "common sense", and have ~not~ been countered with scholarly arguments from you or from SonoftheMorning (really the same person, it appears, for some odd reason chosing to remain anonymous!!), but rather with other "common-sense" arguments.

Your arguments, frankly, masquerade as reason for the wording in this article not to change, IMHO, but are really arguments defending the use of the term in conversational speech; you are standing on the soapbox of conservativism for the sake of conservativism; your arguments are not literary, they are socio-cultural. And, you continue to dodge my question: what problem do you have with the meaning or even the sound of the phrase "kill oneself" to be used in this article. I supsect that, had you come to this article while it had this phrasing (kill oneself), you would not so much have noticed that it didn't use the word "commit". I have parleyed in good faith here for quite some time, and am changing the wording back now. Friarslantern 18:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

you would not then concede anything to me here This is an example of a circumstantial ad hominem attack; it is fallacious, irrelevant, uncivil, and in this case, completely incorrect. The fact that you feel the need to speculate blindly on my ostensible motives for wishing to preserve basic idioms when there's no legitimate reason not to suggests only a lack of merit in your substantive arguments. Regarding your actual points, "commit suicide" is not a euphemism-- it is frank, straightforward and ubiquitous. "Commit" does not necessarily carry a negative connotation, as you can plainly see here [6]. You claim that you have no obligation to find any scholarly support for altering standard language on the site, but it is evident that permitting people to go around changing universally accepted terms willy-nilly is repugnant to the basic mission of Wikipedia. 138.192.140.22 02:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

>>you would not then concede anything to me here

>>This is an example of a circumstantial ad hominem attack;

I disagree. I am defending my edits. I am giving point after point, half of which you're chosing not to address. I gave you a quote supportive of my position from the AFSP, and you wouldn't address it or, seemingly, let it sink in and affect your debate. It doesn't feel like a huge jump to say that, if I could find a statement from the APA condemning "commit suicide", as you implicitly have challenged me to do, you still wouldn't let it affect your debate. I feel your main position is a defense of the status quo, for the sake of the status quo -- which is fine -- you could argue, for example, that encyclopedias should preserve the status quo, for reason X.

The statement you quoted spoke to my frustration that you bring up arguments, I answer them, and -- with the exception that you've suggested I write a section on naming conventions, which was something of a concession, I'll grant -- you don't acknowlege the logic of my answers to your arguments: I am defending the action of my going ahead with my proposed edits (ie, to have thoroughly hashed it out in the Talk page) in addition to defending my philosophical justification for the change. If I had claimed that "You wouldn't concede anything to me even if the APA suggested it and therefore you're wrong that the WP article on Suicide should use 'commit suicide' instead of 'kill oneself'", THEN I would have committed a circumstantial ad hominem attack, and it would be "fallacious, irrelevant, uncivil, and in this case, completely incorrect." But this was not my claim. If you want to complain that I am speaking of your possible motives, fine, but it doesn't help the process that you insert false logic when you could simply re-state your ultimate argument, which is, I feel, maintenance of the status-quo in the wording of this encyclopedia, and emphasize, simply, how strongly you feel about this.

That you say there's "no legitimate reason not to" preserve basic idioms, is a good example of my complaint that I give you reasons, and you do not seem to hear my answers. I have explained why I feel "commit" is not NPOV, and said go to a dictionary, and you come back with a webpage ([7]) in which, you claim, I can "plainly see" does not necessarily support my claim that the term carries a negative connotation. And yet, the definition (in the first bulletted section, which is the relevant section in this case) states "perform an act, usually with a negative connotation". What are you saying, it's only "usually", not "always"??? This is what I mean by not responding to my arguments. I don't dispute that it's ubiquitous. I don't dispute that people don't mean to convey a negative connotation in a conscious, concerted manner when they use the term. As I have argued, this is an issue of subtext. A way of saying something CAN systematically have effects on others, such as judgmentalism, without that being the conscious intent, and still be used so as to maintain the status quo of the idiom, or, for some, to be euphemistic or to convey disapproval.

But, as I have argued already, written reference materials have the opportunity to word things more thoughtfully and simply. And when that wording can BOTH a)be more neutral; and b)do so in a way that doesn't disrupt an academic, literary style with neologisms or other strange wording, then I think it should be changed. I give you actual reasons for my changing it; you, on the other hand, have changed it back without a single reason on the merits for not liking my version, but instead arguing, essentially, that you're pre-emptively defending against "cranks" who would change things "willy-nilly". You're using status quo as reason to block my changes and not to respond to my question, What problem do you have with the sound, style, or effect of the wording "kill oneself" in this article?. I know that my insistence on this new wording here is a little unusual, but it is genuine; your aversion to responding to my basic question, though, seems to assume bad faith in me. Is not that something "repugnant to the basic mission of Wikipedia"??? Friarslantern 19:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

you still wouldn't let it affect your debate. This is speculative, false, irrelevant and fallacious. Kindly refrain from attacking me personally. If you're frustrated about your inability to put together a convincing case for making unnecessary and subjective changes to basic language, I suggess you buy a stress ball or a boxing bag instead. Speculating on my perceived motivations is uncivil and can only detract from whatever merit your arguments may have.

and you come back with a webpage ([7]) Wordnet is the Princeton lexical database, i.e. a comprehensive and sophisticated cross-referenced dictionary. It's also the first result when you google "define 'x'". Do some cursory research before disparaging other people's sources next time.

I have explained why I feel "commit" is not NPOV, Precisely. Why you feel. Not how you can prove that it is POV, not how you can rationally and objectively demonstrate that it is POV. A feeling is not sufficient reason to obliterate all uses of a common idiom from Wikipedia. This is clearly unacceptable practice. 138.192.140.22 23:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

you still wouldn't let it affect your debate. This is speculative,
false, irrelevant and fallacious.  Kindly refrain from attacking me personally.

This is a charge, but not an attack by any stretch of the imagination. Speculative? Perhaps. False, irrevlevant, fallacious? I suppose its possible, though it wouldn't be conscious on my part. But in order for me consider this, then tell me where you acknowledged or demonstrated above that the citation in question had an impression on you.

If you're frustrated about your inability to put together  
a convincing case for making unnecessary and subjective  
changes to basic language, I suggess you buy a stress ball  
or a boxing bag instead.  Speculating on my perceived motivations 
is uncivil and can only detract from whatever merit your 
arguments may have. 

No, I am frustrated by the arguments that you are using: that they are generally non-responsive to mine. This is a forum to discuss changes to articles, why they should or shouldn't be changed, and we're supposed to hash controversial changes out here it before making changes; if you will not logically engage some of my most cogent points, as I have quite straightforwardly requested, then you have the effect of walking away from the debate. I believe I have put together a convincing case, and it seems to me that you will not yield me a response on some of my most important points. Nevertheless, I will try to be more gentle from here on out.

and you come back with a webpage ([7])  Wordnet is the  
Princeton lexical database, i.e. a comprehensive and sophisticated  
cross-referenced dictionary.  It's also the first result when you  
google "define 'x'".  Do some cursory research before disparaging  
other people's sources next time. &para

If you would read the section I wrote, I didn't disparage your source at all -- in fact, I will now be looking to use it in the future. I simply pointed out that it didn't appear that your source supported your argument -- but rather that it supported my argument. You could disagree, & clarify how it supports your side. But otherwise, on the face of it, it goes to my position about connotation.

I have explained why I feel "commit" is not NPOV,  Precisely.   
Why you feel.  Not how you can prove that it is POV, not how you  
can rationally and objectively demonstrate that it is POV.  A feeling  
is not sufficient reason to obliterate all uses of a common idiom from  
Wikipedia.  This is clearly unacceptable practice.  
138.192.140.22 23:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC) 

The sad thing here is, my whole point is quite arguable, but you refuse to engage me on something where you actually have the advantage, instead, you fall back on a needless appeal to popularity. Granted, if enough people think that a)"commit suicide" is not loaded with any particular bias (which I'll concede, that the vast majority wouldn't say it is biased, at least when asked point blank); AND either b)"kill oneself" sticks out as awkward or too novel, or c)that the absence of use of "commit suicide" in itself feels awkward upon reading it, then my mind would be changed. But while I concede a), I don't concede b) or c), and therefore -- because "commit" has a negative connotation (which I pretty much have proven), and, I propose, "commit suicide" has a biased subtext and/or is euphemistic (my weakest point, but, ironically, one which you stop short of fully addressing) -- I am still left with the conviction that changing "commit suicide" to "kill oneself" is worth any minor awkward stylistic qualities (which qualities I can't imagine -- can you?) it might engender in order to make the article's language less judgmental, and more neutral. Friarslantern 17:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You haven't shown that "commit suicide" is biased language, and because it is the most commonly used term, it's the appropriate one for this article. Not every suicide involves actually killing yourself - euthanasia and "suicide by cop" spring to mind immediately, but there are others. It doesn't add to the article to remove "commit suicide". Orpheus 21:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have shown it's biased. What is your argument that it isn't? And yes, every suicide involves killing yourself, even if one indirectly employs others to do it. I have never heard of the distinction you're talking about. It doesn't strengthen the article to replace "kill oneself" and replace it with "commit suicide". Friarslantern 21:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you haven't - your argument isn't convincing, which the user editing from an IP address above has shown very clearly. "commit suicide" is overwhelmingly the popular usage in every English speaking country, and as a result Wikipedia should follow along behind that. Orpheus 21:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Which part of my argument isn't convincing? You say "commit.." is overwhelmingly popular - I conceded that above. But, like I said above, no one would notice a difference if the article said "kill oneself". And, as I feel I have shown convincingly -- and I am not the only one, there is a professional organization that requests the same thing of journalists in order not to show bias -- "commit" (and dictionaries, including the one quoted by the above anonymous user himself) carries a sting. You say WP should follow along behind the popular usage? Is there a policy or guideline you can direct me to in that regard -- and are you sure this would trump any possible bias claims? WP, it seems to me, often choses to use non-common usages. Look up any number of medical ills the way ~you~ would say them, and you'll be re-directed usually to a more technical name, often that you haven't heard of, as an article title (want to know about high cholesterol? You'll be taken to Hypercholesterolemia). So common usage is not an absolute here, if the change is for some greater purpose (in the medical examples, the purpose of standardization and organization; in my case, to eliminate a subtext of shame). So far no one is saying " 'kill oneself' sounds too stark and direct -- people don't like to hear about death that way -- that's why we say 'passed away'... the sound of it is distractingly vulgar and would therefore take away from the user-friendliness of the article" or giving a similar reasoning that deals with the "kill oneself" wording per se. I do not bring this up as a theoretical: I can assure you, that there are many people, suicide survivors, who subsequently have become painfully aware of the subtext of shame in "commit" (=perpetrate), and bristle at it, and don't use it... Friarslantern 23:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Look up any number of medical ills the way ~you~ would say them, and you'll be re-directed usually to a more technical name, often that you haven't heard of, as an article title (want to know about high cholesterol? Again, inadvertent nail on the head. Medical articles are organized according to the official terminology of the profession. Likewise, here we defer to the American Psychological Association [8], the American Psychiatric Association [9] etc. etc., along with any number of encyclopedias also written by trained professionals. "Commit suicide" is the standard and objective terminology amongst all major organization dedicated to psychology and subsidiary disciplines, yet you would have us disregard these institutions and trample over an expression that's universal and virtually unchallenged in both common speech and expert jargon because of your subjective, idiosyncratic perception of bias. So I ask, which is the better model for determining terminology on Wikipedia, credentialed authorities concerned with studying the phenomenon in question, or the lay opinion of an internet user? 138.192.140.22 04:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the medical articles you mention, you'll see that the technical term is used as the article title but the popular term is used throughout the article. In this case, as the IP user points out, the technical term *is* the popular term so there's no reason not to use it.

I asked around my local office (people who grew up in Australia and New Zealand), and they were of the opinion that "kill yourself" is more offensive than "commit suicide". This seems to be a cultural thing. "Asking your mates" isn't a reliable source, of course, but fortunately we don't have to rely on people I ask, or people you ask. We have two policies: WP:NEO and WP:CENSOR to guide us towards the technical and popular usage, specifically "Commit suicide".

Orpheus 07:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In Religion

I'm pretty sure I remember reading a Bible passage saying that the body is a temple and desecreation of the temple is a sin, so I believe there is a specific passage thats says no to suicide. Have to dig up my Bible and check on that specifically, but 1 minute of Google searching brought up 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have recieved from God? You are not your own, you were brought with a price. Therefore honor God with your body." This also seems to make obesity a sin and state that we are all slaves to the church... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.155.35 (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, but in a secular context, sin is irrelevant, and the criminal aspect of suicide, when present, is symbolic. Friarslantern 15:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is one interpretation of the passage, but not one commonly cited as prohibiting suicide, as opposed to, say, Augustine's argument from the sixth commandment or Aquinas' Aristotelian argument from natural order. It's also problematic when juxtaposed with some Christian notions of asceticism. But if you can find a good reference, by all means, add it. SonoftheMorning 04:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Something needed here about the shameful aspect

We need something in the Cultural section on how the shameful aspect of suicide (as evidenced, for example, in the continuing use of "commit" as the verb) is still prevalent in most cultures. It's also a factor that could be mentioned in the Impact of Suicide section - that the isolation survivors feel is not only due to their own grief, questioning and guilt feelings, but also to an automatic aversion that many people feel -- possibly due to the culturally shameful aspect of the act, possibly due to questions about the role that the survivors could have had in preventing or causing the suicide -- towards suicide, which manifests itself frequently as a reflexive withdrawl of contact or support towards people normally considered friends, people, who -- it's my sense -- would receive ample, more immediate support had their family member/loved one been murdered. In other words, there is a primitive taboo about it that survives in modern, industrialized culture -- about even discussing it. I'm nearly positive there's serious research out there to this effect, would need references.... (In general, this article could use more references.....). Friarslantern 16:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

On the subject

I kind of feel like killing myself today. Probably due to the fact that I edited Wikipedia - the methampetamine article, taking out stupid shit like "injection may be the safest way to use this drug" - when I used to do meth, and my bosses decided to riff and laugh on it one day after everything fell apart (or at least that's what I heard secondhand through the grapevine), and laughed at me when I couldn't and still can't make a living. It's not a good idea, but those are my feelings, and since Wiki helped me take away my job I figure it can take my confession.  ;) What an idiot I was to be honest about my identity on Wiki... Don't ever do it, guys!!! Discuss! 76.170.206.69 12:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious about feeling suicidal? I'd hate you doing that!!! Friarslantern 17:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am confused. How did wiki take your job? Were you fired for editing a meth article or (more likely) for being a meth addict? You sound incredibly paranoid, which is a symptom of amphetamine abuse. Please seek help, if you're still alive.

Intro POV

Hi all, I was reading over the intro when I came across the line "Most Western and Asian religions—the Abrahamic religions, Buddhism, Hinduism—consider suicide a dishonorable act; in the West it was regarded as a serious crime and offense against God due to religious belief in the sanctity of life." This is problematic - as written it conflates present religious attitudes with past cultural views all while collapsing all of Western thinking on the subject into one negative assessment. Western culture may have viewed suicide as a serious crime, but no longer, you don't go to jail or get probation for attempting suicide. As for all of w. culture viewing it as an offense against God, I think that's way too general and assumes a religious viewpoint for all western people, many of whom identify as agnostic or atheistic. Also the phrase "serious crime" probably shouldn't be used in conjunction with civil institutions (like all of western culture) when the frame of reference is spiritual and not secular. I suggest changing the wording to remove the ref. to western culture or rewrite it as two or more seperate sentences. Phyesalis 19:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Accidental Suicide vs Intentional

There is some ambiguity in this article: in it's defining line, the article states "Suicide (Latin sui caedere, to kill oneself) is the act of intentionally terminating ones own life." However, throughout the article there is reference to "accidental" suicide. How can intentionally terminating ones own life become accidental. I'm thinking either the definition needs to change, terminology needs to change surrounding "accidental", or something needs to be added to make it clearer how intentional acts can be "accidental". PsYoP78 03:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

goodbye world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.194.72 (talk) 08:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor Note on Photograph Caption

The caption for the photograph "Two Japanese Imperial Marines who committed suicide" says they "committed hari-kari by shooting themselves." This is incorrect as hara-kiri is the English word for "seppuku" meaning ritual suicide by disembowelment, not shooting. I suggest this caption be amended to simply "committed suicide by shooting themselves". --81.1.82.39 (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge Murder-suicide into Suicide#Murder-suicide

The standalone article has developed independent of the section in the parent article - though hasn't moved beyond a stub. Having two separate articles on the same topic creates a WP:CFORK. Having one article in one place allows people to work together to build the information in a progressive and organised fashion. When/if the information becomes too much to be contained within the section in the parent article then it can be broken out in summary style. A sub-topic is usually discussed within the parent topic as much as possible until it needs breaking out due to amount of information. If the amount of information is three paragraphs or less (a stub length) then it is unlikely to need breaking out. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 12:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be merged. Murder-suicide has its own category - so it probably requires an article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Quick grammar note

In the murder-suicide section, Chris Beniot's act was called "famous". I believe this word should be replaced with "infamous" or "notorious." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.254.45 (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

EL and further reading

I trimmed the EL and further reading sections per WP:EL and WP:CITE. There were waaaaaaaaaaay too many and huge amounts of duplication - the DMOZ should capture most of the support and discussion groups, and lots of official entities discussing it. Further reading trimmed to Durkheim and what looks like 2 scholarly publications. Any that people want to re-add should be discussed first. WLU (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)