Talk:Suicide methods/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Summarizing the lead

Poorya0014, regarding this? It was a poor summary. Per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to summarize the article. Your addition also had grammar issues.

Propose content in your sandbox so that editors can review and tweak it. I might also bring WP:Med into this.

Please don't WP:Ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

With regards to grammar, you are right and I accept it has language issues that need to be revised by native speakers, as I am not a native speaker. With regards to just putting the summary of the article in the lead, I can say I have seen article leads that have a little bit more information in them than just the summary of what's been said already in the article. With regards to creating a discussion so people can opine, I don't know how to as I am not familiar with the process here in English wiki. Can you please help me? If i just simply write it in the talk page, then that way I don't know how to make that discussion visible to more people or how I can invite them to discuss and reach a consensus. Thanks.Poorya0014 (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I can help. In the meantime, I've contacted WP:Med for help. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Flyer22 Frozen. It was a great help. But is there any other place that we can post the link so users can see and have more visibility? Like for example creating a commenting page somewhere?

My lead

For those who want to discuss my lead as mentioned above, here the lead that I wrote, which was reverted by User:Flyer22 Frozen:

A suicide method is any means by which a Suicidal person uses to purposely end their own life. Suicide is a phenomena present in the history of humans and different methods have been developed to achieve it. However, choosing some methods or wrongfully enacting any method, could cause long-term, sever, and sometimes, irreversible damages to the body organs such as the brain and bones. In the United States of America, only %8 of suicide attempts lead to death Because of this and for reducing such damages from unsuccessful suicide attemps, some advocates of suicide and pro Right to die groups, by scientifically and statistically examining various methods of suicide, have tried to find a method to help suicidal people, including those who are diagnosed wit a Terminal illness, or any other person who wishes to take their life while mainlining their dignity, have this option to do it in the most humane and easiest way; a way by which they undergo the least amount of pain and suffering. For example, Dr. Philip Nitschke, a pro right to die Australian physician, in his book, The Peaceful Pill Handbook, after reviewing different methods of ending one's life and the legal aspect of it, explains the advantages and disadvantages of each method based on factors such as reliability and peacefulness. According to his estimates and others, such as Derek Humphry, the author of Final Exit, Inert gas asphyxiation by using a Suicide bag is one these easiest and most peaceful methods of ending one's life. Since a person may only want to attract attention, but not really take their life, authors such as Geo Stone, an American pharmacologist, in his book "Suicide and Attempted Suicide", after discussing one's freedom to chose the way of their death, explains different suicide methods and discusses some safe and secure methods to just make this action look like suicide.

On the other hand attention should be paid to this fact that the Suicidal person, does not necessarily take their life due to mental illness, hopelessness, or any failure in life; but they may commit suicide for goals that they may have in their minds. Apparently, in these situations, the difficulty or easiness of the method of suicide, either is not that important to the person, or on the contrary, the person may intentionally choose the hardest and most painful method to show their opposition to a subject so intensely, or to reach any other subliminal goal that they have in their mind. For example, the Case of the Blue Girl in Iran, Sallekhana or death by starvation in India, and the murder-suicide cases of Kamikaze for fighting the enemy in Japan, are notable for such situations.

Discussions

With an Agree or  Disagree, please indicate if you think we should publish the lead like this or not and please explain your argument and offer your edits.

Agree Apart from grammar mistakes that could be solved by native users, I believe this lead is well-sourced, neutral and doesn't violate any wiki policy. I have translated this lead from Persian wiki, which was also reverted there and people asked me to discuss it in the talk page before publishing as it is a sensitive topic. Those who opposed this lead had different arguments, which I explain briefly here and how I answered them. However, 2 admins declared that whatever we decide here in English wiki, they will accept as some sort of consensus.

A The most opposing argument was that adding superlative adjective, such as in "the easiest way of death", to Wikipedia is not encyclopedic. However, my answer is that if the idea is backed up by good sources, then there is no problem. For example, if I argue that Uranium is the heaviest element in the periodic table, based on some strong sources, then I can put it in any encyclopedia. With regards to the fact that using a suicide bag attached to a nitrogen tank to commit suicide, is the easiest and least painful methods of death, it is enough to say that the even some state in U.S. are trying to implement it as a substitute for other methods of capital punishment.

B Writing about the easiest method of suicide is considered promoting suicide. My answer is that I never said that I believe that inert gas asphyxiation is the easiest method of death and I actually quote from some sources. It is all up to the reader's discretion to decide whatever they want. But just to support my idea even further, Dr. Nischke, who has helped many people take their lives with this method, correctly argues here that when the person knows they have the power to kill themselves with the easiest way, they tend to carry on more than thinking about death. So this is actually helpful, because death is minimized and the person feels in total control and thus, it could be a way of preventing suicide.

C This is an age-restricted topic and what if a miner, say an 8-year-old kid reads this? My answer is that the job of Wikipedia is not monitoring kids. Parents who are concerned about their kid's online activity, have access to so many solutions to monitor it. In addition, there are numerous other websites that kids could get wrong or harmful info; at least here in wiki, everything is supported by strong sources. Of course, I have that concern myself, but CENSORSHIP has no place in wiki.

Thank you,Poorya0014 (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Poorya0014, forgive me for declining to vote; every wiki has its own ways, and the English Wikipedia prefers plain discussions, especially where the wording of a section is concerned. The grammar problems are, as you say, something we could fix later.

Overall, I don't feel like this summarizes the article. I think it also has a pro-suicide and pro-parasuicide feel.

The structure of what you propose is:

• General background
• Random statistic from a single, non-representative country
• Praise for various people who try to make killing yourself easy, humane, dignified, painless, etc.
• Information about a book that gives advice on appropriate methods when your goal is parasuicide
• Information about suicide as a form of political protest, with the implication that they ought to be choosing methods suitable for parasuicide instead.

I don't think that the US statistic or the motivation of protesters should be included at all, and I'm very doubtful about the rest. I think we could do better than this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I notice that two months ago, someone blanked most of the old lead, which was well-sourced and summarized some of the article content (e.g. side effects and policy questions that are specific to certain methods). It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking part in the discussion, WhatamIdoing. Forgiveness is not needed. It is your preference and I respect it. The reason I want people to use "agree" or "disagree" is simply to have an idea of the discussion and how many people agree and how many disagree. Contrary to what you mentioned, every wiki works on the same core principals and policies, voting included, in which it doesn't prohibit us from using voting system, it just says it's better to use other methods and just not rely on voting to reach consensus. Here, I briefly answer your responses: With regards to summarizing the article in the lead, I have seen leads that have a little bit more info than just summary of the article, but you can shorten it if you want. With regards to pro suicide, no. Actually, the lead that you reverted back gives me a pro suicide prevention feeling for an article that is supposed to talk about the methods of suicide. However, personally and just FYI, I am pro any right that provides people the most amount of freedom, including right to die and right to live. With regards to random stats from a non representative country, they are not random and well-sourced and in addition, I provided those as an example, nothing more. With regards to parsing people, no. Mentioning a doctors place of work or history of what they have done, is not called parsing. This is just an extra layer of information to support them as a source. With regards to informing about a book with methods of para suicide, I don't see any problem. This article is about methods of suicide and para suicide is part of suicide. With regards to your last bullet point, sorry, but it seems like you have not understood the article or there is a problem with my English, because those are just EXAMPLES and nowhere in the article I meant to say people are ought to choose X method or Y method as a para suicide method. Peoples' motivation for suicide, affects the method they choose, that's they point. I also am going to revert part of what you reverted as I believe it should be put in suicide prevention and this article should only discuss suicide methods. ThanksPoorya0014 (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 Disagree but would like to have further discussing and edits to agree on a possible new lead. Checking it meets the manual of style and a grammar check would clearly be needed. I think it is too long for the lead, and opinions on the "easiest" method to use that have only a few sources are not enough for WP:MEDRS - in particular a New York Times article would not qualify as medical information. I would like to discuss further and collaboratively edit before changing the lead. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Amousey for using the voting method. It makes it easier to have an idea of how many people agree and how many disagree. I agree with both things that you mentioned. It could be long and for that, editors are welcome to shorten it. The second thing you mentioned about the fact that I have not a lot of sources to prove the easiest method, is also right. Definitely more sources are better and make the argument stronger, however, not having a lot of sources doesn't reduce the encyclopedic value of the argument. Actually, my purpose in wiki is just to translate, mostly from Eng to Per, and that's why I'm not that comfortable finding good sources and writing an article from scratch, however, I'm %100 sure those who agree with my lead, can find more sources, and my hope is that in the future, other states in the U.S. and other parts of the world follow what Oklahoma wanted to do about allowing inert gas asphyxiation to become a means of peaceful and humane capital punishment. My hope is we don't see any capital punishment or suicide at all, but till then, at least we can raise peoples awareness of suicide and its related subjects. ThanksPoorya0014 (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Poorya0014 With wanting to translate - that does not automatically mean the points will be accepted. There seem to be a lot of editors watching most pages here, and they may disagree or have stronger references. So please do not take offense when edits are rejected. I think it would be wise to use an online English grammar checker when editing though. The top section (lead) is the last section that should be edited because it should summarise everything else on the page - so put edits under the correct heading first, and then if they are accepted update the lead.

I don't know if you already do this, but other projects are very much in need of translation help - including https://wikidata.org and https://commons.wikimedia.org - if you are interested. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Amousey: Thanks for letting me know about other projects. Actually, my main goal in Wikipedia was to just translate articles exactly how they are from English into Persian. I rarely want to write in English, as I have neither enough acceptable academic writing expertise, nor am I that interested. If there is an article that I feel has something I'm interested in, from Persian wiki, that could also be informative for English speakers, then I translate. For example I noticed there was no article about suicide in Iran in English and so I created it. Apart from that, I really don't want to bother people here in English wiki.

Now, with regards to this particular article, just because we had a heated discussion in Persian wiki, I decided to translate my lead from there to have a more fair discussion and get familiar with more opinions. I never feel offended, but we are here to contribute together. Even if 100 users are against me here, my voice still should be heard and I should not be put in the corner and receive just punches. Constructive contribution does not mean to just point out mistakes and wrongs, but to help each other to reach an agreement. With regards to the fact that the lead should be a summary of the article, I think I've seen articles that their lead has a little bit more info than just the summary of that article. However, thanks, it's a good method, too. My main point here is to reflect right to die supporters' ideas, including the fact that Inert Gas Asphyxiation is the most peaceful and reliable method of death. Also, I've noticed that this article lead and the hatnote has become an anti suicide propaganda. This article should talk about suicide methods and if anyone disagrees and is against suicide, then that's fine, but they should know that there is already an article for suicide prevention, and if they insist, they can even create an article for Methods of suicide prevention, but it's not possible that they make this article look like suicide prevention. Another example to clarify my point here is that if someone is Atheist, then they cannot edit the argument of God in the articles relating to religion such as Islam or Christianity in a way that those articles reflect Atheism. Thanks.Poorya0014 (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

My feeling is the proposed lead has a strong point of view. Secondly, whilst we are required to maintain a neutral point of view, where opinions are not balanced we do not have to present them as balanced. On this issue I don't feel that there are balanced viewpoints. Some of the viewpoints you are expressing are held in a small minority, therefore per WP:DUE we don't have to give them the same weight or prominence. I don't think that the sources or adherents are reliable enough for this lead, I prefer the sources that you reverted which included two sources in the lancet describing the motivation for this topic academically, as I think those opinions of the subject are important. PainProf (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking part in the discussion PainProf. What you did here is called Wikipedia:revert war. The second part of the lead of the current article is all about preventing suicide, but not about suicide methods. If you would like to talk about suicide prevention methods, you can do so in the related article. On the contrary, this article should be only about suicide methods. With regards to academic sources, for disputed subjects, such as holokaust denial, it is so hard to find academic sources. Pro right to die groups have always been subject of limitation and censorship and thus, there are not much academic studies on the easiest way of death, but there definitely are enough sources to make them appear here in wiki. I am going to create an edit warning and will mention you as I want you to please let this discussion reach some sort of consensus, and then, based on that, we can change the lead. Thanks.Poorya0014 (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, that is not an edit war at least on English Wikipedia, I reverted to the revision by WhatamIdoing, because your change introduced poor grammar and did not have consensus, I purposefully reverted past my own change as I saw that you did not agree with it. PainProf (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@PainProf: As I mentioned in my talk page, when more than one person reverts what I write, while there is still a discussion going on, this to me looks like that all of them together try to push their ideas to the other person by force and I get this feeling in every Wikipedia, not just English. In my opinion as I mentioned before, the most stable version of an article where there is a heated discussion about it, like this one, should be the one from before all parties edits that does not include any of the parties ideas. The current version reflects you and whatamidoing's idea, which is not fair in any discussion. I think this version is more neutral before we all reach an agreement. Not to mention that the current version is all about suicide prevention which already has its own article. This article should talk about suicide methods and if you are against suicide and would like to suicidal people to have access to information about prevention methods, (which by the way is a very good deed) you can create an article about methods of suicide prevention. Please don't take offence my friend. In spite of the fact that I've been living in an English speaking country for a few years now, it seems like I still haven't learned how to speak in a language that people respect my opinion. You know, as a human the worst thing that could happen to you is that you get treated unequally. So if there is something I can paraphrase or change, please let me know and I'm more than happy to do so.

PainProf, I liked the sourced content you added, and I've turned it into a section about why studying methods is important. That seems very relevant. If we have the sources for it, then there are non-prevention reasons to study methods. One is to know whether it will work (usually framed around the uncommon terminal-illness suicide situation), and the other is to know what healthcare resources will be needed for survivors (e.g., liver transplants for some poisons). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Good points, but there is already an article for suicide survivors, so if you think that you can gather resources for suicide survivors' help, its a great idea to do so and put it in the corresponding article. This article is about suicide methods. If you are against suicide, that's fine, me too, I also never feel happy to hear that for example in one part of the world, suicide rate is higher and in another, it's lower. Wherever a person takes his/her life, weather he/she is American or Asian, doesn't matter to me; it makes me sad. However, that does not mean that I can oppose the encyclopedia's neutrality, which is its fundamental policy, and start to write things in articles that are not relevant to the main article. I chose U.S's stats due to these 3 reasons: 1- Due to transparency and availability, their stats are more reliable. Also, the fact that U.S has communities from all around the world, it adds to the reliability, in my opinion of course. 2- As far as I know, the U.S is the only country that has proposed to accept killing by inert gases to become a humane way of capital punishment, i.e people now have more freedom for their end of life. So I thought that this could support my idea more than anything else. Now, with regards to the stats only, where I talked about percentage of failed suicides in the U.S, you can omit if you want, but if you omit part about using inert gas asphyxiation as a means of capital punishment in the U.S then I'll lose a strong source. Thanks. Poorya0014 (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@PainProf: I think we should first rvert the article back to when it was before our changes so that we first agree upon everything and then we can publish the lead based on our agreement. This lead my frind is about suicide prevention which has its own article already. This article is about suicide methods. It should contain info regarding suicide method. Actually, in my opinion, it should even contain images and how-tos of different methods. I am also strongly against any notice at the beginning for suicide prevention and I've explained my reason above this page. Also, as I mentioned, if there is grammar issues, friends like you could help me solve them. This way, I also learn sth new. Tnx.Poorya0014 (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do how to/manual articles in any form so I think that would be a non-starter, WhatamIdoing's rationale for restoring is that was the last stable lead. For the hatnote, there has been a request for comment run previously in tandem with one about suicide, so to remove it requires a new one. PainProf (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

How-to content is banned by WP:NOT. Encyclopedic content about a suicide method probably includes:

• a basic description of the method (just enough that the reader knows which method is being discussed),
• some indication of prevalence in different places (e.g., "common", "rare in Europe, but common in developing countries", "12% of attempts in the US", "12% of reported suicides in the US", "usually seen in older men in countries with poor gun control laws"...),
• some indication of the results (e.g., rarely results in death, nearly all survivors regretted jumping halfway down, scars persist for life, resulting poisonous fumes require the evacuation of building to prevent harming others, recovery operations endanger the lives of emergency personnel, rotting corpse likely to be found unexpectedly by innocent hikers...), and
• information about any policy changes that are specific to that method (e.g., fencing around jumping places, keeping guns away from suicidal people, Helium tanks no longer contain pure Helium...).

If the method has been declared unethical (see: poisonous fumes, endangering lives, frightening the innocent, etc.), then I'd probably include that, too, but I really can't see any need for how-to or step-by-step information. We are not trying to tell people how to use a method; we are trying to educate them on the fact that multiple methods exist, and that each has its own separate considerations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Good, so how bout talking about the difficulty and easiness of some methods, where there is scientific data for? With regards to how-to, maybe I have to correct myself, because you are right. There is no article that mentions the word how-to in it or at least not that I know of, however, there plenty of articles that have the concept. For example, lethal injection, although nowhere in the article talks about how to, but it kind of describes the process step by step, so then the concept is the same. It doesn't say for example, put the person on bed, then put the needle in his/her arm, then... . But it's written in a way that when a person reads, they understand thoroughly how its' done. That is what I meant by how-to.

That's absolutely right. So when in the article under suffocation it says: "Suicide by suffocation is the act of inhibiting one's ability to breathe or limiting oxygen uptake while breathing, causing hypoxia and eventually asphyxia. This may involve an exit bag (a plastic bag fixed over the head) or confinement in an enclosed space without oxygen. These attempts involve using depressants to make the user pass out due to the oxygen deprivation before the instinctive panic and the urge to escape due to the hypercapnic alarm response..." This actually informs the person of the process, which is what I'm looking for. What it lacks, however, is that it does not talk about the easiness of this method in comparison to the other methods. In other methods also there is not info about easiness or difficulty or reliability of the method based on the stats that are studied and established. Now with regards to ethics, I don't think if we can push our ethical values to the reader. The reader him/herself will decide which method he/she finds to be ethical. This is very odd to me and it's really my first time I hear that an editor wants to neglect the neutrality of encyclopedia by the use of ethics. It's someone who is against abortion wants to push his/her ideas into the article just because he/she finds it unethical or ethical. The can create an independent article about abortion and ethics and they can gather as much sources as they can and write it there. If they are against abortion, then they can gather sources that proves their idea and put it under =Beliefs against abortion= or if they support it they can write under =Beliefs pro abortion=. But they cannot change the main article ,abortion, based on their ethical value. And by the way, it is also my first time hearing that someone can commit suicide by frightening the innocent. If somebody frightens an innocent person, the innocent person will die, not the one who frightens. I'd be really happy if you can give me an example with source that proves the opposite. Poorya0014 (talk) 06:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:PainProf and User:WhatamIdoing about what Wikipedia is not, and most other points. As I said before the easiest method is not being referred to in academic, reliable sources and is very much a matter of opinion that depends on the conditions in the relevant country and the person's situation. I also dislike the assumption that the easiest method refers to one that is the least painful etc rather than simply the most accessible. A choice of method for capital punishment has no relevance here - since that it is suicide. Lethal injection is not used as a suicide mention as far as I have seen - possibly due to laws restricting the sale of such drugs, and a blanket ban on them in some countries eg the UK. Information on assisted suicide belongs on the right to die page. I also feel that the article is overall pro-suicide. - Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I never said that lethal injection should be counted as a suicide method. My point was that if you read the article, you can clearly see that it describes lethal injection's process step by step, which to me is the same concept as a how-to text; though no where in the article they use the word how-to. With regards to the article being pro-suicide, I think exactly the opposite. I think the current version of the article is so against suicide and is not neutral at all. It should neutrally talk about suicide methods, not suicide prevention methods; because that has its own separate article. With regards to suing the word "easiest", Dr. Philip Nitschke, by considering other methods, has concluded that using a plastic bag and a nitrogen tank is the most reliable and most peaceful way of death, which, like other methods, has its own limitations. For example, if the person is suffering from a respiratory problem, this method might not be beneficial for them, but in normal cases, this methods it the best between all other methods. So, this is sources and I did not make it up on my own. Poorya0014 (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Three things:

• I agree with Amousey. "Easiest" could mean many things: least pain, cheapest, most accessible, etc. A method that is "easy" in one place could be difficult in another.
• The point about mentioning ethical problems specific to individual methods is that it's not always obvious, so most people can't just make up their under-informed minds. To give an example, the ethics of inert gas asphyxiation are pretty simple: please leave a suicide note (so nobody gets accused of murdering you), and please arrange for someone to find your corpse before it starts to rot (i.e., before it becomes a health hazard to others). The ethics of blowing up a nuclear power plant or crashing an airplane are even more obvious to most people: mass murder is bad. However, the ethics of jumping off a bridge are not obvious to most people: if you're seen jumping, then your choice of method risks the lives of emergency responders (who are required to fish your broken body out of the water, just in case you survived), and if you're not seen, then you cause all sorts of problems with people wondering where you are, and then there's the chance that parts of your body will wash up on shore later, which (a) is a health hazard to others, and (b) could frighten and disgust innocent people. "Make others sick" is not ethical, right? And "make others risk their lives to retrieve your body" is not ethical either, right? But most people don't know that this is the practical result. They're thinking "I jump off the bridge. The end!" They should be thinking: they'll regret it halfway down (because you're conscious enough to realize that you've just taken an irrevocable action, and you have several seconds to think about it), and now the coast guard is going to have to send out a boat to retrieve their bodies.
• About the overall balance: Wikipedia doesn't say, "Some people believe in a right to die and some people don't, so we will present both equally and let the readers make up their own minds." We also don't say "Some people believe in a Flat Earth and some people don't, so we will present both equally and let the readers make up their own minds". These views are not held equally, so we don't present them equally per policy. Even right-to-die proponents think that many suicides, and most suicide methods, are bad. Right-to-die proponents do not want battered women to kill themselves; they want people to stop abusing them. Right-to-die proponents do not want dumped teenagers to kill themselves; they want the teenagers to live long enough to learn that breaking up is not the end of the world. Right-to-die proponents do not want unemployed men to kill themselves over the shame of being rejected and poor; they want them to have jobs and respect and security. Right-to-die proponents are largely interested in a very narrow set of circumstances: untreatable pain that has already been endured for a long time and has no realistic prospect of recovery (sometimes including psychological pain), and people who are going to die soon anyway. And even when the situation is supported by right-to-die proponents, those same proponents reject nearly all of the methods listed on this page. As a result, WP:NPOV means that this article overall must lean towards prevention instead of promotion.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Just as a kindly suggestion, calling people "under-informed" not only is not friendly, but also violates Wikipedia:civility. Also, I see users mentioning that my suggested lead is pro-suicide, which I think is not that in line with Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Although I don't hesitate to say that I write all my articles with the freedom of circulation of information in mind. In addition, I'm not sure what is the relation of blowing up a nuclear power plant and crashing an airplane with the suicide methods and ethics. Interestingly, In my country Iran, just recently an unfortunate incident happened in which, due to escalated situations and threats that the IRGC felt about 6 flying F35s from U.S.A on the Iranian borders, they shot our own airplane. Also, one of Iran's nuclear sights was the target of Israelis' spy attacks and underwent sever damage due to explosions. Both of these could be 2 examples of what you mentioned and if you prefer, I can courageously talk about the ethics of such incidences. However, if we want to move back to the main relevant discussion, I still repeat my main concern about this article's neutrality that is being violated greatly right now. This article should talk about methods of suicide, but not methods of suicide prevention. I do understand all points about wanting to help preventing suicide, but that has its own way. We cannot change this article's point which is to talk about methods, into an article about prevention. Suicide prevention has its own article. In addition to that article, anyone who is interested in academic articles, can create and article and name it Suicide prevention methods and there I myself will help expanding it. Thanks.Poorya0014 (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Our main point there is that it is impossible to talk about these sources without talking about prevention, all of the academic sources are prevention focused and those are considered the most reliable. I think the point of view of people who study suicide methods is important when discussing them, and indeed its highly encyclopedic. PainProf (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I see that you use the word "ALL" with confidence. Have you really studied ALL academic sources to know that they have a prevention focus? Even if that is true, which is not in my opinion, but that does not mean that an article in encyclopedia should put aside its neutrality. Also, I'm not convinced that only academic sources could be reliable. In addition, no where in wiki's policies state that only academic sources should be used. There are numerous subjects that no academy dares to investigate. Or maybe they don't have enough fund to do so, but does not mean that the subject should be left out from an encyclopedia. With regards to POV, yes, you are right. All of us, when we write an article, have our own purposes and our own belief system, based on which we shape our texts. That does not mean that we want to push our ideas, though. For instance, someone who is interested in cars, they write articles about the cars they like, but that does not show their POV. It is just their choice of interest. When I write about anything here in wiki, my main motivation is to achieve the most amount of freedom of circulation of information and breaking taboos. In suicide prevention, nowadays unlike past, the belief is that talking about suicide not only does not increase its rate, but also helps the suicidal person. If you take a look underneath the so closed RFC above in this page, you'll notice that users have mentioned correctly that this way of suicide prevention, i.e. adding preventative hatnotes or actively talking about suicide prevention in an article that should talk only about suicide methods, is actually counter-defeating your goal. As a good source for this, please listen to Dr. Philip's notation here about the fact that if a suicidal person knows that they are in control, they think less about taking their life. And by the way, just because you are so interested in acadmeic stuff, please study Émile Durkheim's theory on deviance. He believes that it is a sign of a healthy successful society. I consider suicide (in some cases and not all) a deviance and a society without suicide, is either non-existent or if it exists, then it is surely the most constraint and its people are experiencing the least amount of freedom. In addition to all of the things I mentioned to answer you, let me ask you a good question. It is a personal question and I know that in discussions it's better to refrain from asking personal questions, but because the subject of this article is very sensitive and I myself am %100 open to any personal clarification, I ask you. You can reject answering and it is all up to you. I see that you have a preventative approach towards suicide, which is very good, as I myself never ever like anyone to take their lives. I also see that you are interested in academic kind of reliability. You probably know better than me that each year around 1 million people take their lives by suicide in the world and unfortunately, this number is growing, in spite of all efforts to prevent suicide. So, you cannot disagree with the fact that weather me and you want or not, there are people who take their lives, all around the world, right? So, wouldn't you be happy if they leave this world with ease and peace and in a very humane way and with dignity? Or do you want to see them die in agony, with pain and suffering? Sorry for making this a little long, but as my last statement let me quot one of my high school teacher's saying, which is very valid till today, at least for me. He said: "Always be good and do good deeds and never do any bad deed, but if you ever want to do something bad, at least do it in a good manner." He gave us an example of a thief that breaks into a home to steal stuff. If the person just steals stuff and comes out without hurting people, the person has done a bad deed, but has done it in a good manner. However, if the person breaks into a home, rapes and kills people and steals stuff and then comes out, then person has both done a bad deed and in a bad manner. In some cases, suicide is a bad option, but because we know that the person does that for sure (in the U.S 13 individuals out of every 100,000 individuals, take their lives each year) at least let them do it in a good manner. Hopefully due to the efforts of pro right to die groups, nowadays we know much more about a peaceful and reliable death than 50 years ago; one that doesn't leave the person with a sever disability if it fails, one that doctor's themselves approve to be the least painful and one that can easily be accessed in many parts of the world. If we don't include information about such a method in this article, which is totally relevant and legitimate, then those people who are certain about taking their lives, will choose other methods that are for sure more painful and less reliable. Once again, this also has prevention inside it hidden, because as I mentioned, once the person feels in control, the probability of them killing themselves greatly decreases. Thanks.Poorya0014 (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the points of physician assisted suicide are distinct, I'm not overly sure that there is a pain free or risk free method without the contribution of a doctor. The importance of study of suicide methods with the goal of prevention is supported by high quality evidence. Suicide methods and the means of restriction are subject to substantial academic discourse and its presence in the article is therefore justified. Methods to restrict access and the academic pursuit of understanding are relevant to this article. Means restriction is supported by the World Health Organisation, substantial reviews in high quality academic journals including by systematic meta-analysis. Wikipedia doesn't allow descriptive guides of this kind, and in this situation we see an exceptionally strong reason for this rule. High quality evidence supports that knowledge of new methods of suicide and excessive descriptions may increase their use. Given, that many suicide attempts in the context of mental health crises are impulsive, in this case I would argue there is absolutely a public health imperative to uphold Wikipedia's rule against giving excessive methodological details or How-To guides. Regardless of the rates of those with terminal illnesses this represents a very small proportion of the total number per year, the greater proportion of those are those with suffering an acute mental health crisis. High quality evidence from academic studies supports this position and I think equally high quality evidence would be required to refute it. PainProf (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I would really appreciate if you could answer that personal question as it could clarify many things. Of course there is no obligation at all and it is just a friendly question. OK. Actually, the whole point of the efforts that Dr. Philip and other right to die advocates like him do is to empower people to finish their life on their own without assistance from anyone and they never have argued that there is a %100 pain-free or risk-free method. Using a suicide bag with inert gas is the most peaceful and most reliable method, but only if the person does the process correctly. For example, Dr. Philip understood that after the success of this method using Baloon Tanks with 95% helium and 5% oxygen, the company increased their oxygen levels from just 5% in each tank to about 25% which renders their product useless for this purpose. Therefore, Dr. Philip created a company called Max Dog Brewing and replaced helium with nitrogen which is even more available than helium. With regards to what you call "high quality", can you please provide me with just 1 (one) not even more, academic source that has studied "SUICIDE METHODS" from an academic perspective? I'm emphasizing: an academic source that has studied suicide methods, but not suicide prevention methods, coz that is totally irrelevant to our discussion. With regards to descriptive and how-to kind of language, which you believe wiki shouldn't do, can you please read lethal injection#Procedure and then tell me what exactly does it do? Doesn't it explain the procedure in a descriptive language? I think it does, although no where in the article it says how-to. With regards to what described as: "...many suicide attempts in the context of mental health crises are impulsive...", can you please provide a source for that? As I'm not sure really if its true or not. With regards to those who suffer from an acute mental illness, I believe that if they reach a point where they decide that they want to take their lives on their own, due to the fact that maybe their treatment did not work, who am I to force them no to do so. I look at that, the way I look at severe physical problem or terminal illness. I even want to go one step further and say that even a totally healthy person, without any mental or physical issue, if they desire that they want to finish their life, they should have access to both preventative sources and non-preventative sources. I mean if they for instance search for suicide help, they should find sources and if they search for suicide methods, they should be able to find it. Here in wiki, even broader, we should not decide for people. Anyone should have enough freedom to decide for themselves. Now don't get me wrong. If someone comes to me and tells me about the fact that they have suicidal ideation, I will definitely help the person find suicide prevention help resources, but if that person asks me about suicide methods, I never say "I will never tell you", but I say, "I don't know, but you can search for it." This way, I respect the person's freedom and according to Dr. Philip, just because the person feels in control, the probability of the person taking their life decreases. So that is a preventative measure. However, again I repeat my point that this article should remain neutral if wiki is an encyclopedia. But if wiki's admins decide that they want to turn it into a tribune to preach people what to do and what not to do, then I really get disappointed at editing. I also repeat that if you believe that wiki needs an article about suicide prevention methods, you are more than welcome to create it, as I'm not still convinced why we should put prevention methods in suicide methods. To me its like someone wants to combine Texas with Nevada, on the basis that both belong to U.S.A. You see, each subject should have its own topic. Talking about Texas in the article of Nevada is irrelevant, no matter how many academic sources relate these 2 together. (Also I forgot to say that governments used to think about addiction prevention the way you think about suicide prevention. But nowadays most governments even provide healthy equipment such as sterilized injectors to the addicted population, because they have figured out with a lot of try and error that this is the best way of controlling the issue. What I am doing here is kind of like that. I'm trying to provide information as I believe that is the best preventative measure.) Thanks.Poorya0014 (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's accurate. Medical evidence supported needle exchange programs. Medical evidence also supports means restriction, the study of means being an encyclopaedic topic. Regardless a lot of medical focus is also on restricting exposure to drugs that cause addiction. For instance the changes in opioid prescribing practices. Population data supports for instance reducing the pack size of over the counter drugs, restricting access to firearms. As noted in the Lancet article many suicides are impulsive and means restriction may reduce suicides at that level whilst it may lead to substitution often that substitution is with a less lethal method and overall rates fall. Besides this is not preaching. This is explaining how and why suicide methods are studied. This seems to be of interest to the reliable sources. I'm not sure that what you are saying is based off medical evidence rather it seems to be your personal opinion. Your personal opinion is welcome! But it does not trump high quality medical sources. Its possible you could even find high quality sources that disagree with this approach or provide contrary evidence about the study of suicide methods. I would support including that material too. PainProf (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I worry that we won't ever agree on this. One thing I suggest we could do is include some neutral statements in Wikiprojects to try to gain broader consensus. The original question of the lead seems unresolved. PainProf (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I highly encourage you to study Drug liberalization#Portugal and Drug policy of Portugal. Means restriction belongs to past. A human is capable of finding and doing what he/she wants and no one can restrict anything %100. What you are saying is like pushing ashes and dirt under carpet instead of dealing with them directly. Anything that becomes a taboo or banned, people look for it more. A suicidal person who is determined, will for sure find information on the Internet, even if they don't find it here in wiki, but because at least there is some sort of importance giving to the sources, it is more reliable if they find here. In Arabic there is a famous proverb that goes: "الانسان حریص بما منع" which means "Human becomes greedy to what he/she is banned from". Which part of what I said is without a source? For sure all of us first determine our motivation and then will find sources to prove our statement. I think you also do the same thing. You first shape your mind about suicide prevention and then, will find any sources that prove your statement. Most of my lead is written based on sources already existing in wiki, particularly about inert gas asphyxiation. Actually, I learned about it the first time in wiki and then, just because wiki is among top most visited sites in Iran, I decided to translate them. So if you take a look at articles with the topic of suicide, I've translated most them into Persian myself. With regards to agreeing, we need more participants. It's not fair if there are only participants affirming your opinion. There should be a balance of both. It is clear that when 4 people disagree with 1 person, those 4 people will push their idea. So I agree that we need more participants and a user has already created a section linking to this discussion in wiki med project. But the thing is, maybe people are not that interested in these discussions or they are kind of hesitating to opine on this topic. Even in Persian wiki I am facing the same kind of situation. If you take a look at here under "نظرخواهی" you'll see that I even have pinged users that I knew, but no one has been willing to opine. With regards to the original question of the lead, I presented 2 simple opinions:1- There should be no preventative hatnote as it violates neutrality and 2- the lead should talk about the easiest most peaceful method of suicide. Also, again I'm repeating that I also share your concern of preventing, but each article has its own topic. Anything relating to suicide prevention should either be written in its corresponding article or should be put in a new article, if there are enough sources. The part that you wrote as the current lead and the academic section is all about suicide prevention which should be moved to its corresponding article. Thanks.Poorya0014 (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Means restriction does not belong to the past. I would encourage you to look at what happened to the teenage suicide rate in the UK when they limited the number of pills someone could buy in a single trip to the chemist's. Apparently, by the time the the kids have to walk to a second store to get the rest of the pills, they're not interested in killing themselves today any longer.

For your above questions about the academic literature, PMID 8553417 compares the suicide methods chosen by different groups. This paper says that impulsive attempts have different methods than planned attempts. This paper reports a change in suicide methods and overall rates of suicide among young women when Japan restricted access to one previously common suicide method. I particularly want to draw your attention to sentences like the one in this paper, which says "This paper analyzes how specific drugs are associated with method of suicide, a critical topic because drug use bears on the etiology of suicide and may lead to policies aimed at deterring suicide." In other words, one of the reasons for studying methods is to know how to prevent suicide. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @WhatamIdoing: for incorporating politeness. Plz ping me so I know that the discussion is moving on and can take part. Ok, you might be right about the fact that taking away a particular method, could possibly reduce the number of suicides with that particular method in short-term due to lack of accessibility. However, I should emphasize on 2 things: First, it is good for just a short period of time as I mentioned and after a while, people will find other substitute methods that could be even more dramatic. For example, suicide by rice tablet was and somehow is so prevalent in Iran. This pesticide is used for killing insects in rice. The government has put in place restrictions for selling it to individuals under 18 and there are campaigns to eventually prohibit the use of such pesticide. This one I agree, because death by it is very painful, however, in those areas where this substance is scares, people kill themselves with city gas. This brings me to my second point: restricting a particular method, has absolutely nothing to do with the total number of suicides, at all. The reason I said that means restriction doesn't work is because it is just possible for few number of methods and it works for just a short period. You see, couple of months after the revolution in Iran, they banned consumption of alcoholic beverages to prevent people from drinking. Due to strict rules, in the first couple of months, it worked and even those who had such drinks in their home, brought them out and abolished them. But guess what? only a few years after that, according to unofficial stats, each year Iranians consume over 200 Million square litters of non-standard alcoholic drinks which have created a lot of disaster such as people getting blind or even dying due to drinks being non-standard. I think the same prohibition was put in place in the U.S in 1920s or 1930s, I'm not sure. Means restriction always makes things worse. The best prevention methods is to tackle the underlying reasons. Let me finish by asking a simple question. You know that each year unfortunately more and more people take their own lives. This "HAPPENS", weather we want it or not. Now the question is, now that we know it happens, for the time being, which one is better: watching people die with agony and pain and suffering, that in some case could even last for couple of hours, or, reducing their pain and sufferings and at least make this process for them as fast as possible, now that they themselves want to go?? Tnx.Poorya0014 (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, we need to talk about two things here. method substitution is not guaranteed. Did you see

1. Means restriction does not make things worse. That's a myth, and it's wrong. Means restriction can cause "a substantial decrease in overall suicides". That's an exact quotation, word for word, from a peer-reviewed scientific journal article. Method substitution is not guaranteed, especially for what the research calls "low-intent" suicides. Also, means restriction often results in people using a less lethal method, so they don't die.
2. It's not Wikipedia's job to help people choose more comfortable methods of killing themselves. It is definitely not our job to assume that someone who attempts suicide "wants to go". Most suicide attempts do not involve a high degree of intent. They involve a failed test at school, or the effects of a treatable medical condition. So I could ask you: Why do you want people to die an "easy" death when we know that most of them don't really want to die today?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

1. Just 1 article cannot be generalized to the whole. Also, I'm not sure using less lethal methods necessarily end up in not dying. In most cases, less lethal methods could cause more painful outcomes than death and may add a severe prolonged physical problem to the person's already harsh mental issues.
2. It is also not wikipedia's job to tell people what is right and what is wrong. That's the base of my argument. They should have free info to choose themselves. Also, please do not put words into my mouth. I never assumed that people who attempt suicide necessarily want to die. On the contrary, I said let's give free info to those who actually will die by suicide, so that they have a peaceful and less painful death. Each year, nearly 1 million die by suicide and apparently, in spite of all the efforts to reduce this number, it grows each year. I believe it is even more than that because most cultures consider suicide as a taboo and thus, the reports are not that reliable. Failing at school or a medical condition, are just 2 of so many factors involved in suicide omission, but not the most. For example, if a woman cannot find a husband or a sexual partner from opposite sex, due to being queer or not feeling attraction towards men, she might think about suicide. And to answer your last question, it is a fallacy that you take something as a fact and then shape your idea based on it. I never want people die easy or hard. I actually believe in individual's freedom. What I want is that those 1 million people who are determined to die by taking their lives and will eventually commit suicide, have access to free information about methods, including the easiness and difficulty of each method. Today, according to Dr. Nischk, if the suicidal person has access to information and means of suicide and thus feels in total control, the chances of him/her taking their life by suicide reduces dramatically. Just so you know, this method of suicide prevention is so novel and works better than means restriction. Tnx. Poorya0014 (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Flyer22 Frozen: I know you don't like to be pinged, but it's been a while that we have created discussions about this matter here in this page and in wiki med projects, but apparently, not so many people are willing to take part and the way some users have edited the article right now, has even more ruined the article's neutrality. If one reads the beginning of the article right now, he/she will think it is about suicide prevention, but not suicide methods. So what is your opinion? What else can I do if disagree with the fairness of the discussion? Tnx.Poorya0014 (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Nothing is ruined. My advice is that you listen to editors who are more experienced than you are. Try to understand what they are stating about how Wikipedia works. As for editors who are less experienced than you are, or have about the same experience, it is also worth hearing them out. But regardless of editors' personal feelings on the topic, we have policies and guidelines to follow. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

When someone attacks me personally in a discussion, I get happy as I know the person cannot tackle my argument, so he/she will try to use Ad hominem. First, I am not sure based on which criteria you categorize peoples' experience levels? Second, even if I am less experienced, that does not mean that my argument is wrong or I should keep silent, just because other people in the discussion have higher voices. Third, accusing me of not understanding how wiki works requires you to prove that I really don't understand how it works. Because you know, otherwise, anyone who reads this may think that just because you cannot answer my main argument, you try to stick to fallacies to hold your position. The fact that I am complaining about this article's neutrality that's being ruined, makes you think I don't understand how wiki works? As far as I know, neutrality is the most fundamental rule of any encyclopedia, because otherwise, without it, that encyclopedia becomes nothing but a tribune for a special group of people. Attacking me personally just deviates the main topic of this discussion. My argument is that this article should only be about suicide methods, but not prevention methods. When we write articles, we should based it on facts not our personal biases. A person who searches "suicide methods" here in wiki or google, wants to know about methods, period. If he/she wants to know about prevention methods, he/she will search "suicide prevention methods". tnx. Poorya0014 (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2020

www.wozz.nl is a dead link (rev 84) 85.147.79.17 (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seagull123 Φ 17:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

a missing method

There doesn't seem to be any mention of the method whereby one attaches one or more weather balloons to themself launches themselves into the atmosphere whereby they suffocate from lack of oxygen at high altitude. Which section ought this one to appear under? Rebroad (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• What are the sources for the use of this method? If this is actually used with any kind of regularity it would belong under suffocation; however, if it's something that has only happened once it's probably more suited to List of unusual deaths than to this article.GideonF (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no mention of suicide bombing? Perhaps it may have an article all of its own, but they are certainly acts of suicide which occur with high enough frequency and exposure, that they are mentionable on this particular page, no? --99.63.207.46 (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Methods in infobox

Is there explicit consensus to include the methods of suicide in the Template:Suicide sidebar across all suicide-related articles? Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut, it's mentioned in Template talk:Suicide sidebar, when they were talking about the best order. I have never seen a discussion on whether it should be there at all, only on whether it's too high or too low in the template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed the section and added Suicide methods to the epidemiology section.[1] This will make more sense if we add more statistics to this article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Table of contents

I changed the section heading levels, so that the TOC wouldn't be a mile long. I thought it would make it easier for people to find the information that interested them than the long version. If you really don't like it, then feel free to revert. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Big improvement imo.--Iztwoz (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Please consider not commiting suicide

Your worth it stay alive 2A02:C7E:3A7B:9700:69DC:3DB5:E7DC:1273 (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Change the way money is used ... Like trading ...

Overall government,social media ,money we wouldn't need a government if everyone helps everyone when they can not just needa or wanna make money cuz they have to or they want this ! Politics on the way they look at things why don't we look at the one island that has no guns hardly Hany crime that the cops don't even carry guns .... Why don't we all look at the good things done places are doing and learn from them then we're just doing what we do .. improving humans not the earth why is some country's are 60% eco for there powered no need for wast in away 2605:8D80:6A1:4121:84FD:23BA:5374:3EAE (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? -cspan02 (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hotlines help

I know that wikipedia is against censorship, and I support that 100%. However, I believe it would be best if we at least showcase some suicide prevention hotlines at the top since people may be searching this article for non-educational purposes and might be a danger to themselves. I am not advocating for the deletion of this article, however I think it would be best to do what Google does when you search for "suicide methods". SaxyGuy (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@SaxyGuy, I fully understand your point of view. However, this has been requested a handful of times, and the response to each request has been no. It goes against the neutrality of the article. One action that has been taken, however, is the addition of a subsection about the publication of suicide methods, as discussed here.

untitled

21:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Untitled.docx (talk • contribs)

Should be not deleted

This encourages people to take kill themselves, the point of Wikipedia is to provide helpful, useful information not to tell them to commit suicide, so blame's on Wikipedia for 20% of the world's deaths— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.177.210 (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Our readers are not mindless infants who need to be protected or shielded from knowledge because of what they might do with it. We don't play kindergarten teacher and we don't censor objective, verifiable, reliable information presented in a neutral point of view...just because it makes some people uncomfortable or because they may use that information to make possibly questionable decisions. You have fundamentally misunderstood the "point" of wikipedia. Check out the five pillars of this project: WP:PILLARS Shabidoo | Talk 00:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The request is strangely worded (and misplaced), Shabidoo; but your response seems odd. First, I don't know why you are bringing up "mindless infants". Secondly, I checked out the five pillars and was struck by the possible relevance here of the fifth. -- Hoary (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Readers are not mindless infants. They can read the material provided and make their own conclusions about the topic and do what they want with it. Our role is not to protect people but to provide well sourced reliable information. We aren't kindergarten teachers censoring info deemed dangerous to the vulnerable.

As for the 5th pillar, I'm not at all sure what the 5th pillar has to do with censoring information. You ignore the rules to if they get in the way of making an article better. Not to align the article with an ideology or advocacy nor to deprive information from readers.Shabidoo | Talk 22:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

On "mindless infants" (again!), "kindergarten teachers", and "an ideology or advocacy", Shabidoo, please see Straw man. Anyway, IP-who-posted-the-question, requests for deletion from Wikipedia are commonplace. They're ineffective if made on the article's talk page. If you want to have an article such as this one deleted, this is what you have to do. Note that the process is rather complex, that it requires persuasive reasoning and (normally) citation of policy, that for this article the process has been tried eight times already (here's the eighth), and that a ninth attempt will undoubtedly fail unless it cites facts and factors that haven't already been cited or is hugely more persuasive than any of the preceding eight. (Don't confuse "persuasive" with "impassioned": any sign of passion is likely to doom the attempt.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hory perhaps you should refer to the article Metaphor, might help you figure all this out. Shabidoo | Talk 23:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Very possibly, Shabidoo, I am having trouble figuring all this out, whether because of incompetence in English, senility, retardation, or something else. In the meantime, rather than "metaphor", I'd venture "auxesis". -- Hoary (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Why don't we include consequences for ALL of the methods if someone fails to commit suicide as well as documented examples? OfficerAPC (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Still shouldn't be up here, you still shouldn't assist suicide by giving someone a way to do it. I mean, come on. I personally have dealt with the urge and to be honest, I've asked multiple suicidal people and they agree that if they are told how, they would do it because it feels like ur telling them it's ok. Yes, they have a mind of their own but it dont work like normal, filled with sadness, hatred, despair, and death. Our mind is coruppte by what we are told. Think about that. NoReasontodie (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not your personal soapbox. As such, it is intended for factual information. There is no evidence that all suicidal peoples have minds that "don't work like normal" and are "filled with hatred, despair, and death". Some people, maybe, many people, possibly, but not all. Some people are in terrible, untreatable pain, due to illness, disease, old age, disability, etc, and they choose to die for very rational reasons. This is not a place to enforce your morality on others.2001:BB6:2860:7F58:4DE5:9571:3323:B3BC (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Hoary here. This page proves dangerous to people who are not currently in a good place. It shows them ways to end their lives. This page must be deleted immediately, even if readers are not mindless infants. Moreover Shabidoo, your points make no sense. Yes, Wikipedia is a website for factual information, but one must be careful about the data they put up on the internet. Editors of Wikipedia are not instructed to be heartless.

A search on google or duckduckgo with the phrase 'methods to commit suicide' throw up a ton of results. VV 12:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Proposed deletion and all related pages|to reduce the number of teenage suicides Allan de Vine (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Allan de Vine, if you are referring to the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process, this page is ineligible for it because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide methods already exists.

I think this article needs a substantial amount of work. I encourage you to help identify bad (or badly sourced) content that should be removed, or reliable sources that we could use to update the contents. For example, I read recently about a man who accidentally killed an innocent bystander during a suicidal act. There are probably sources that talk about certain methods being unethical because of the danger they pose to others (e.g., Suicide by pilot), and I think that content belongs on this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Why not show suicide helplines?

The fact that no suicide helplines are offered here is appaling to me. This is such a graphic article, with the power to teach vulnerable people how to do suicide. Why not add Samaritans phone or location-based helplines at the top? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.235.166 (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed a number of times. For a recent example, look above to RFC: Hatnope at Top. - Boneyard90 (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that access to a help line should definitely be in here somewhere, it's just a matter of where it can be put in. To keep the article with a sense of academia perhaps having a piece of information that links to the Crisis hotline page? Something along the lines of "It is common for Crisis hotlines to train their operators with familiarity with these subjects" for example. Sorry if this is not appropriate for an article, I'm still getting used to Wikipedia styling. Redcoat05 (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I have proposed this before, but consensus was not in favour of keeping a hatnore there regarding crisis lines. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• @FormalDude: diff hasn't this been discussed before?--Renat (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@RenatUK: I removed my edit given the prior censuses, but given Wikipedia has readily available multiple resources such as WP:suicide and list of suicide crisis lines, it seems imperative they be provided on relevant articles. There is also the issue of liability for not including a disclaimer. I'd like to hear the cunctations for adding a template like this:

{{Suicidal content}}

—FORMALDUDE^(talk) 07:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Moot

 – Prior consensus already reached at WP:Perennial proposals#Content warnings and WP:Content labeling proposal. —FORMALDUDE^(talk) 06:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding a subsection about the publication of suicide methods

What about adding a subsection on the publishing of suicide methods? We could discuss how publishing the means of suicide may lead to Copycat suicide, and the journalists now often include Suicide hotlines and use careful language. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: That's a promising idea, and one certainly more encyclopedically relevant. I'd love to explore it further. (I hope you don't mind I gave your comment a heading in order to separate it from the prior given nonviable proposal, as yours could prove to be auspicious.—FORMALDUDE^(talk) 07:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I like this line from the New Yorker: "You who are reading this are at statistically increased risk of suicide right now."[2] But it's an opinion piece. I discussed suicide contagion at Talk:Robin Williams. I'll have to come back to this. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Some language from sources:

• Media reporting on the method of a death by suicide is "a practice strongly discouraged in Mindset and other recommendations...This recommendation to avoid detail about the method used is not only found in Mindset, but also in other guidelines such as the internationally-applicable WHO guidelines and the British Samaritans Media Guidelines for Reporting Suicide...The widely-used Associated Press Stylebook now recommends 'suicide stories, when written should not go into detail on methods used' [36]."[3]
• "Certain ways of describing suicide in the news contribute to what behavioral scientists call "suicide contagion" or "copycat" suicides...Exposure to suicide method through media reports can encourage vulnerable individuals to imitate it.10 Clinicians believe the danger is even greater if there is a detailed description of the method."[4]

Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. Maybe make a new section right underneath ==Purpose of studying suicide methods==? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I added this section.[5] Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Added link to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.[6] Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Should we decide for people?

Is it a church or mosque or kindergarten here to preach or teach people or children what is wrong and what is right? Do you write a hatnoe or any advice note on top of articles such as smoking for people to know how to get sober or murder for people to tell them what will happen after they kill someone? The argument of people who try to violate Wikipedia's neutrality is as wrong as those who argue that no knives should be allowed to be sold because knives kill people. We are not gathering here to tell people what to do. We are here to provide as much true and up-to-date info as possible. And above all, do you really think that a person who wants to kill him/herself will care what you think about suicide and what he/she plans to do? By not providing enough info on methods, we just make their work so harder and more painful. You want it or not, 1m people kill themselves every year. Do you want them to die with peace or with a lot of suffering? Now, notice that this is not to encourage people to take their lives, but it is providing them with info to decide for themselves. It's like telling someone that knife can be used for both pealing an apple or cutting a throat. Everyone is responsible based on their choice, but we can't ban those who want to peal apple with knife from using the knife just because others might use knives to cut people's throat. Poorya0014 (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. We are also not here to provide as much true and up-to-date info as possible. We are here to write an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedia articles say things like "This method was popular in medieval Europe" or "Experts say that this intervention prevents suicide deaths from this method" or "This method is painful" and not even a little bit like "you can use a knife". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I feel sorry if you think that an article in an Encyclopedia should not be up-to-date and true. But I agree with you on saying for example "This methods is painful." So why not saying for example "This methods is painless"? What's wrong with that? We can include both, so people can decide for themselves. How come if we say "This method is painful", in your opinion it's ok, but if we say "This method is peaceful", then you have problem with that? About your last peace, I guess you need to read my writing again. I never said to any one to "use a knife." It was an example to clear things and make my point more understandable for people. Trying to put words in the mouth of people is a fallacy and people use fallacy when they are sure their argument cannot stand on its own feet.Poorya0014 (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I have not said that I think the article should not be up to date and true. I have said that I think that the goal is not providing "as much true and up-to-date info as possible." You can either provide an encyclopedic summary of a subject, or you can provide as much information as possible, but you cannot do both. As much information as possible would require multiple books. As you say, trying to put words in the mouth of people is something you do when your argument cannot stand on its own feet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: It is interesting for me how you don't ping me so that I can answer as soon as I can. This behaviour reminds me of a little naughty girl who just for fun throws little stones in to the window of the neighbour's house and runs away not to have to face the consequences. What you are doing is actually not answering me. What you are doing is to tilt the direction of the discussion to somewhere else, instead of its straight track. I asked couple of simple questions which were supporting my idea, but I didn't receive any answer. I asked why do you think that stating the X method is painful, is OK but stating the X method is painless, isn't OK? It seems like you really care about the article to be Encyclopedic. I do too and that's why I say this article is not neutral. It is written with this notion in mind that suicide is bad and its methods should be limited. I agree that for some people, and just some people not all, this may be the case, but should we decide for the reader, even though something may be bad for he/she? Encyclopedia should as much info as possible for the person to deiced on his/her own. If not, then the article becomes like Bible or Qoran to tell people what's good and what's bad, which is absolutely dangerous for freedom of speech and freedom of information circulation. By "as much info as possible" I don't mean redundancy or talking about irrelevant things. But in this article if we talk about each method without saying how it is done and what would be the consequences, then we are omitting crucial info that is needed for the reader to understand. Talking about means restriction on the other hand should be put in to another article that is about preventing suicide, not this one. It's like writing about Gun law in the United States and not taking about Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Then this deprives an anti-gun reader such as me from crucial info as to why guns are still legal in there. On the other hand, we don't necessarily need to talk about Gun politics in the United States in that article about gun laws, because that would need its own separate article, which hopefully exists. So there is no redundancy, as well as the fact that we have provided as much info as possible. Again, I repeat that we are discussing, so there is not winner or loser. There is no fight. We're are trying to make Wiki better, so I' OK with being pinged because I believe my argument can stand on its own feet and I stand behind everything I say. Thanks.Poorya0014 (talk) 06:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Poorya0014, please show me where on this page I have said that "stating the X method is painless, isn't OK". I request that you stop putting words in my mouth.

I care about the article being encyclopedic. "Being encyclopedic" means that the article is a concise summary of verifiable information, written in a formal tone, for general educational purposes.

Separately, this article needs to be neutral. The definition of WP:Neutral at the English Wikipedia is that the article represents "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

This means:

• If most reliable sources in the world think that suicide is bad, then the article must indicate that suicide is bad.
• If most reliable sources in the world think that suicide is good, then the article must indicate that suicide is good.
• If most reliable sources in the world think that suicide is something that individuals should make up their own minds about, then the article must indicate that suicide is something that individuals should make up their own minds about.

Now I'd like you to think about the reliable sources you have encountered. Would you generally say that most of them are "biased" towards saying that suicide is bad, good, or something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Now this is what I call a mature discussion, full of politeness and without any disrespecting. Please stop saying that "In English wiki, we do this, we do that". All wikis work based on the same principals. Actually, to your surprise, I had the same discussion in Persian wiki and as I mentioned above, most users and managers were not necessarily siding with me. That is why they said its a good idea for me to discuss matters here to see what more people think and have more opinions. Like here, in Persian wiki I also noticed that this article is not neutral and has hatnotes, which I am against. Anyways, you said that an encyclopedic article is the one that " ... is a concise summary of verifiable information, written in a formal tone, for general educational purposes." Where in my previous statement I said something that is against this? I have provided different sources for the fact that suicide by inert gases is the most peaceful one and I believe it should be stated clearly in the article. I agree that providing more sources will be extremely great for the richness of the article, but you cannot ommit this fact just because sources are not too much. Now, about your understanding of neutrality, in spite of the fact that you quoted it from WP:Neutral, I think you really are mistaking about its meaning. The definition says a neutral article is the one that is written "... fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Then based on this you conclude that if most sources say suicide is bad/good, then we should also put it in the article that suicide is bad/good. No. Because if you do so, then "fairness" and "proportionality" will be lost. Let me give you an example. Most western countries, or maybe all, believe that Occupation of Palestine is a right for Israel. On the other hand, we have some countries that think the other way and demand that Israel give back the lands and stops building illegal cities. Now, both sides have numerous "reliable" sources, historically and so on, to prove their statement. Then according to your understanding of WP:Neutral we should go with the first argument just because "MOST" people or sources say that. This, defeats the purpose of neutrality, fairness and proportionality. In my opinion, in such cases, we should give weight to both sides in the article in a 50-50 manner. Now, going back to our article of suicide methods, again you are making a big mistake by thinking that in human sciences, we have good or bad. No one in this article has said suicide is good or bad. Actually, we shouldn't say that at all and leave it to the reader. It is totally a personal choice. However, this article is about suicide methods, so if we want to behave according to the definition of WP:Neutral we should give " ... as much info as possible ... " about suicide methods, NOT ANYTHING ELSE. I don't want to repeat myself, but I need to. I ask you once again. You know that in spite of all prevention efforts, 1 million people kill themselves each year, weather we want it or not. (you need to agree on this fact because the rest of my argument is based upon it) Now that we know people do that, why not giving them more info about all methods so that they can choose the least painful one. Hopefully we have the knowledge now, thanks to the hard workings of people like Dr. Phillip. I am pretty much sure you don't want a person to eat poison and die with agony and pain, while he/she, if given the right info through the anonymity of the Internet, could use a much peaceful method to go. I was etiquetted in Persian wiki by a wikipedian that I am promoting suicide. However, I said I am as preventative as everyone else is, but that doesn't mean that we have to deprive people of freedom of information. I am a promoter of freedom of info and I think wiki has it in its core. So please answer the above question because it is important for me to know weather you see this benevolent thinking of mine or not. Now, about your question which you asked weather I believe my sources say suicide is good or bad. As I said, the sources I provide don't care weather suicide is good or bad. Dr. Phillip and the others believe that if someone wants to go, it is more humane for the person to leave the world with the least painful method. All they do is to promote freedom of choice, but unfortunately in this world we have so many biased and dogmatic people who don't want him to be heard and thus, they called him the doctor of death. Thanks.Poorya0014 (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Please stop saying that "In English wiki, we do this, we do that". All wikis work based on the same principals.
  • This is not true. Commons is a wiki, and it has very different principles. Meta-Wiki is a wiki, and it has very different principles. The Wikivoyages are wikis, and none of them have an NPOV policy.
• you said that an encyclopedic article is the one that " ... is a concise summary of verifiable information, written in a formal tone, for general educational purposes." Where in my previous statement I said something that is against this?
  • Your statement "you really care about the article to be Encyclopedic. I do too and that's why I say this article is not neutral." makes me suspect that you believe that an encyclopedia article must be neutral.  This is not true.  A look in Category:Encyclopedias of religion should prove that biased, non-neutral encyclopedias are not unusual.
  • Wikipedia's articles are required to be neutral, but a page could be neutral without being an encyclopedia article, and it could be an encyclopedia article without being neutral. Being encyclopedic and being neutral are separate considerations.
• you cannot ommit this fact just because sources are not too much.
  • This is not true. In fact, NPOV requires us to omit any fact if only a tiny minority of sources support it. You would never say that about another subject. Imagine someone writing "You cannot omit the fact that the Earth is flat just because there aren't too many sources for it". You would laugh at such a wrong statement.
• Now, about your understanding of neutrality, in spite of the fact that you quoted it from WP:Neutral, I think you really are mistaking about its meaning. The definition says a neutral article is the one that is written "... fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Then based on this you conclude that if most sources say suicide is bad/good, then we should also put it in the article that suicide is bad/good. No. Because if you do so, then "fairness" and "proportionality" will be lost. [...] In my opinion, in such cases, we should give weight to both sides in the article in a 50-50 manner.
  • I am not mistaken about its meaning. If the high-quality reliable sources have a 50–50 split on a subject, then the Wikipedia article should have a 50–50 split. If the sources are 70–30, then the article should be 70–30. The article should reflect the balance of sources, and it should not pretend that the mainstream viewpoints are equally balanced when the sources are not equally balanced. If – as in this case – the sources are closer to 95–5 against suicide (and 100% opposed to certain methods), then the Wikipedia article should be 95–5, too.
• Now, going back to our article of suicide methods, again you are making a big mistake by thinking that in human sciences, we have good or bad. No one in this article has said suicide is good or bad. Actually, we shouldn't say that at all and leave it to the reader.
  • In the human sciences, we most certainly have good and bad. In the hard sciences, we don't: atoms smash into each other, or bacteria divide, or trees die, and there is no good or bad. But in the human sciences, which are also called the moral sciences, we most certainly do have good and bad.
  • "Leave it up to the reader" is usually a sign that an editor is pushing for a non-neutral article.
• However, this article is about suicide methods, so if we want to behave according to the definition of WP:Neutral we should give " ... as much info as possible ... " about suicide methods, NOT ANYTHING ELSE.
  • We addressed your error about "as much info as possible" last time. Books are for "as much info as possible". Encyclopedia articles are for short summaries.
  • A policy change that is specific to an individual suicide method is "about suicide methods, NOT ANYTHING ELSE". We call including information about all aspects of a subject being "comprehensive".
• Now, about your question which you asked weather I believe my sources say suicide is good or bad. As I said, the sources I provide don't care weather suicide is good or bad.
  • I didn't ask you about the sources you personally choose to provide. I asked you about all of the reliable sources, including the thousands of sources you don't provide. If you go to your local library and pick the first ten books you find on suicide, or if you search for academic journal articles about suicide and take the first ten that you find, or the first ten newspaper articles about suicide, how many of them to do think are in favor of suicide? How many high-quality sources share your personal view that suicide is unpreventable, acceptable, inevitable, and the only real concern is whether the person is comfortable during the process? Almost none? Slightly more than that?

I am always surprised in your posts how helpless you seem to feel about suicide. You seem to believe that every suicide is unpreventable and that every suicider is invincibly determined, to the point that even when the statistics prove you are absolutely wrong, you march on with this fatalistic "It can't be helped, so we might as well make suicide comfortable". I am not asking you to post any personal information, but I often wonder whether your constant rejection of the facts is an unconscious psychological defense mechanism against the pain of losing a loved one to suicide. Some people would rather believe that suicide is inevitable, than to believe that the suicide(s) in their own lives might have been preventable (or at least delay-able). The guilt of thinking "If only I had known and taken away the method..." can be devastating. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: When 2 adults talk to each other, they name each other. This is a sign of respect. In addition, as I mentioned before, when you don't ping me, I feel like your inner naughty girl is throwing stones and runs away not to face the consequences. So, in order to punish (or a better way, negative reinforce) your inner little naughty girl, I'm going to postpone answering you. But I will answer you for sure as I've never been so coward not to answer people's argument specially when I believe my argument can stand on its own feet. --PS: You didn't answer my simple question: Each year, around 1 million people commit suicide, in spite of all these bad preventative efforts and unfortunately, the number is getting higher and higher. Now the question here is do you like them to die with utmost agony and pain and suffering, in spite of knowing that it happens weather you want it or not, or do you want them to die peacefully? I'm looking for an answer that comes from your ration, not emotion. I say this because I know that you are a woman and women tend to use their emotion more than their ration. The reason I'm insisting on knowing your answer to this question in particular is beaus it shows me the level of your morality and ethical thinking. Thanks.Poorya0014 (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comments here have been raised at ANI (permalink). In brief, any further exchange of personal thoughts about other editors will lead to an indefinite block, and any further WP:NOTFORUM violations are likely to lead to a short block. This page is to discuss actionable proposals to improve the article. See WP:DR to resolve disagreements. In summary, discussion must focus on actionable proposals. If anyone believes administrator attention might help, please ping me. Johnuniq (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Further Reading

I've added Docker, as one of the main authors on the subject, to the Further Reading section. Wikipedia flags that the source should be verified if from Createspace a 'self-publishing source'. Docker's imprints used to be 'Exit', of which he is the Director (This was the first organization to produce a suicide methods book in 1980). He holds a post-graduate degree in Medical Ethics and has been published in leading law journals (LexisNexis) and the BMA. He produces critical editions, providing extensive support and references from professional journals in his books. I have only mentioned the most recent work. His others include Departing Drugs, Beyond Final Exit (co-author), and Five Last Acts II. I trust this assists and satisfies the veracity requirement. Parzivalamfortas 18:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2022

there is a missing comma in "The United States has both the highest number of suicides and firearms in circulation in a developed country and when gun ownership rises so too does suicide involving the use of a firearm", instead it should be "The United States has both the highest number of suicides and firearms in circulation in a developed country, and when gun ownership rises so too does suicide involving the use of a firearm." Ilikepitbulls (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Shooting - edit to include bilateral loss of vision / blindness after gunshot to temporal bone severing optic nerves

Shooting - edit to include permanent bilateral loss of vision / blindness after gunshot to temporal bone severing optic nerves. The standard Hollywood gunshot to the temple (side of the head) leads to instant blindness in both eyes as the two optic nerves are easily severed by the bullet but little other life threatening brain damage results and it is rarely immediately fatal. Permanent blindness as a high risk outcome from any shooting attempt is something that should be listed.

Permanent hearing loss is also a likely outcome from any shooting attempt.

I am a new user to this website so I do not know all the correct procedures so I ask for your patience. I added several requests for edit to this semi-protected article on the TALK page associated with it. First I expect they may need to be discussed to get a consensus. Please refer to the items I added to the talk page for refs etc. All I am trying to do here is to flag the additions I made to the talk page so that they will be read and considered.\Thank you.

• What I think should be changed:
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Riomhaire1 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: I am not completely clear on what the change requested is. But to add information on outcomes of unsucessful scuicide would require WP:Consensus to be added. Alternatively Suicide attempt might be a better place to request this sort of addition. Terasail^[✉️] 13:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2022

Please add the US National Suicide Hotline phone number to all pages regarding suicide. 800-273-8255 174.240.191.165 (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. ––FormalDude talk 08:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit suggestion 01 Sep 2022 – lethality in the USA of suicidal acts with a firearm

'In the United States suicide by firearm is the most lethal method of suicide resulting in 90% of suicide fatalities...'

I read this to mean that in the USA 90% of suicide fatalities are caused by a firearm, which clearly is incorrect and not the aim of the editor. Hence, I suggest rewording it to read:

'In the United States suicide by firearm is the most lethal method of suicide – 90% of suicidal acts with a firearm were fatal...' 82.15.254.27 (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks. ––FormalDude talk 20:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

By who exactly

The article say’s under the means reduction section that: “Choosing not to restrict access to suicide methods is considered unethical.[13]”. But never specifies who considers it unethical.

And should the counter point not also be said? How some consider restricting access to suicide methods to be unethical? 2600:1700:BA0:FC40:286A:DCAA:2579:794D (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I added an in-text attribution. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe that is a widely held viewpoint. There are very few people who believe that it is inherently unethical to restrict access to suicide methods. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

WikiEd stuff

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hulings1 (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ln168282 (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 16 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Edwarchng, Chung.esther (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Edwarchng, Chung.esther, Mdoherty44.

Edit Request - Poisoning - include Sodium nitrite, Nembutal and anti-emetics

The Peaceful Pill handbook has extensive discussion of use of Sodium nitrite for suicide, including the various necessary Prescription only anti-emetics. This is all publicly well known now, and as a result pure sodium nitrite is now very difficult to obtain by a private individual, though it is legal to import and possess because it is a standard food curing agent although normally used at only 6% concentration where it is no longer fatally toxic.

Another of the primary agents used is oral Nembutal / pheno-barbital -- both in the Peaceful pill handbook and in Swiss clinics. Discussion of prescription anti-emetics and the difficulty of sourcing or importing veterinary nembutal is discussed.

Neither of these "primary" poisons listed in the Peaceful Pill handbook and similar literature are even mentioned in the present wiki article - though they are widely known and counter measures are all already in place to protect the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riomhaire1 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that this article needs to go into a lot of specifics or name every possible substance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure it does -cspan02 (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello 2600:100A:B032:BFE4:6F2C:CAE0:9608:6FE4 (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)