![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
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)
For those who want to discuss my lead as mentioned above, here the lead that I wrote, which was reverted by User:Flyer22 Frozen:
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: |archive-date=
requires |archive-url=
(
help)
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.
Thank you, Poorya0014 ( talk) 07:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Suicide methods has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
www.wozz.nl is a dead link (rev 84) 85.147.79.17 ( talk) 12:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Your worth it stay alive 2A02:C7E:3A7B:9700:69DC:3DB5:E7DC:1273 ( talk) 22:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
untitled
21:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Untitled.docx ( talk • contribs)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)
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)
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 and all related pages|to reduce the number of teenage suicides Allan de Vine ( talk) 08:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
{{ Suicidal content}}
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)
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)
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]
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)
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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Suicide methods has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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.
![]() | This
edit request to
Suicide methods has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
Riomhaire1 ( talk) 18:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Suicide methods has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
'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)
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)
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.
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)
Sure it does -cspan02 ( talk) 22:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't know where to put this - and the main article is protected from editing - so I will put it here and hope it helps.
(a) Argon is incorrectly listed as an inert gas that can be used with a suicide bag. It is necessary that the inert gas be less dense than air for the suicide bag to function to exclude air/oxygen and also flush away exhaled CO2. Argon is denser/heavier than air and does not work with a suicide bag. The bag fills from the top down from the flowing gas piped into the suicide bag. Then after filling the bag from the top, the ongoing excess inert gas flow spills out the partly open neck of the bag. This maintains an ongoing barrier to stop any room air / oxygen flowing into the open lower neck of the bag. It also flushes away out the open neck of the bag any exhaled CO2 which is also denser/heavier than air. This way the bag is continually kept full of the less dense inert gas, and free of CO2. This works with inert gases Helium and Nitrogen which are less dense than air. It does not work with inert gas Argon. Denser than air argon will just spill out the open neck of the bag and will not fill it from the top down and will not exclude room air/oxygen. The bag will actually continually allow in less dense fresh room air/oxygen as the denser argon flows down out the open neck of the bag. There are just 2 references that I have found describing an attempt with argon. As expected neither resulted in a fatality, in contrast to the very many demonstrated cases with Helium or nitrogen where one deep breath led to unconsciousness and death followed within approx 10 minutes.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352260222_Suicide_Attempt_by_Inhalation_of_Argon_Gas
Tincu, R.C.; Cobilinschi, C.; Tomescu, D.; Ghiorghiu, Z.; Macovei, R.A. (2016). Suicide attempt after argon gas inhalation – Case report. Toxicology Letters, 258(), S109–. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2016.06.1454
Argon is non toxic ( unlike eg butane or Carbon monoxide) so without almost complete exclusion of Oxygen, fatal suffocation will not result and it should not be mistakenly listed here with Helium and Nitrogen as inert gases used with a suicide bag for suffocation. Only less dense ( than air) inert gases work in this arrangement.
(b) method restrictions
The low pressure/low flow helium cylinders originally used in this method were intended as disposable helium for party balloons. They are now all filled with only 80% helium and 20% air, so they cannot be used for suicide any more.
Regular high pressure helium cylinders cannot be used for this method as suitably low flow regulators and flowmeters are not available. Regular nitrogen/argon etc flowmeter controllers yield much too high minimum flow rates for helium and are not usable.
Given that gas suppliers are aware of the nitrogen / suicide bag method, it is now extremely difficult for private individuals to obtain a cylinder of nitrogen, for which there are few uses by a private individual without eg HVAC certification.
(c) Suffocation / hanging - edit request : A ligature does not simply block the oxygen carrying carotid arteries for blood flow to be interrupted. The ligature can be fatal without being so tight as to block the carotid arteries.
- The use of a ligature first compresses the jugular veins and blocks blood flow from leaving the head, at a much lower force than that required to block the entry of fresh oxygenated blood through the deeper seated carotid arteries or the even much higher force required to occlude the airway.
This engorgement of blood in the head and blocking of blood drainage is the reason for the characteristic petechiae or burst blood vessels seen in such cases. The incoming blood is blocked because it cannot overcome the back-pressure caused by the blocked drainage veins. There is no way for the blood to get back out of the head once the veins are blocked. That is why the oxygenated blood flow input stops. The veins are blocked - then with higher force the arteries may be blocked, then with yet higher force the airway is completely blocked.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Riomhaire1 (
talk •
contribs)
17:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
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)
For those who want to discuss my lead as mentioned above, here the lead that I wrote, which was reverted by User:Flyer22 Frozen:
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: |archive-date=
requires |archive-url=
(
help)
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.
Thank you, Poorya0014 ( talk) 07:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Suicide methods has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
www.wozz.nl is a dead link (rev 84) 85.147.79.17 ( talk) 12:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Your worth it stay alive 2A02:C7E:3A7B:9700:69DC:3DB5:E7DC:1273 ( talk) 22:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
untitled
21:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Untitled.docx ( talk • contribs)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)
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)
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 and all related pages|to reduce the number of teenage suicides Allan de Vine ( talk) 08:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
{{ Suicidal content}}
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)
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)
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]
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)
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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Suicide methods has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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.
![]() | This
edit request to
Suicide methods has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
Riomhaire1 ( talk) 18:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Suicide methods has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
'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)
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)
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.
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)
Sure it does -cspan02 ( talk) 22:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't know where to put this - and the main article is protected from editing - so I will put it here and hope it helps.
(a) Argon is incorrectly listed as an inert gas that can be used with a suicide bag. It is necessary that the inert gas be less dense than air for the suicide bag to function to exclude air/oxygen and also flush away exhaled CO2. Argon is denser/heavier than air and does not work with a suicide bag. The bag fills from the top down from the flowing gas piped into the suicide bag. Then after filling the bag from the top, the ongoing excess inert gas flow spills out the partly open neck of the bag. This maintains an ongoing barrier to stop any room air / oxygen flowing into the open lower neck of the bag. It also flushes away out the open neck of the bag any exhaled CO2 which is also denser/heavier than air. This way the bag is continually kept full of the less dense inert gas, and free of CO2. This works with inert gases Helium and Nitrogen which are less dense than air. It does not work with inert gas Argon. Denser than air argon will just spill out the open neck of the bag and will not fill it from the top down and will not exclude room air/oxygen. The bag will actually continually allow in less dense fresh room air/oxygen as the denser argon flows down out the open neck of the bag. There are just 2 references that I have found describing an attempt with argon. As expected neither resulted in a fatality, in contrast to the very many demonstrated cases with Helium or nitrogen where one deep breath led to unconsciousness and death followed within approx 10 minutes.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352260222_Suicide_Attempt_by_Inhalation_of_Argon_Gas
Tincu, R.C.; Cobilinschi, C.; Tomescu, D.; Ghiorghiu, Z.; Macovei, R.A. (2016). Suicide attempt after argon gas inhalation – Case report. Toxicology Letters, 258(), S109–. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2016.06.1454
Argon is non toxic ( unlike eg butane or Carbon monoxide) so without almost complete exclusion of Oxygen, fatal suffocation will not result and it should not be mistakenly listed here with Helium and Nitrogen as inert gases used with a suicide bag for suffocation. Only less dense ( than air) inert gases work in this arrangement.
(b) method restrictions
The low pressure/low flow helium cylinders originally used in this method were intended as disposable helium for party balloons. They are now all filled with only 80% helium and 20% air, so they cannot be used for suicide any more.
Regular high pressure helium cylinders cannot be used for this method as suitably low flow regulators and flowmeters are not available. Regular nitrogen/argon etc flowmeter controllers yield much too high minimum flow rates for helium and are not usable.
Given that gas suppliers are aware of the nitrogen / suicide bag method, it is now extremely difficult for private individuals to obtain a cylinder of nitrogen, for which there are few uses by a private individual without eg HVAC certification.
(c) Suffocation / hanging - edit request : A ligature does not simply block the oxygen carrying carotid arteries for blood flow to be interrupted. The ligature can be fatal without being so tight as to block the carotid arteries.
- The use of a ligature first compresses the jugular veins and blocks blood flow from leaving the head, at a much lower force than that required to block the entry of fresh oxygenated blood through the deeper seated carotid arteries or the even much higher force required to occlude the airway.
This engorgement of blood in the head and blocking of blood drainage is the reason for the characteristic petechiae or burst blood vessels seen in such cases. The incoming blood is blocked because it cannot overcome the back-pressure caused by the blocked drainage veins. There is no way for the blood to get back out of the head once the veins are blocked. That is why the oxygenated blood flow input stops. The veins are blocked - then with higher force the arteries may be blocked, then with yet higher force the airway is completely blocked.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Riomhaire1 (
talk •
contribs)
17:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)