DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Suicide

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác
Former good articleSuicide was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 25, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 2, 2013Good article nomineeListed
October 25, 2025Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


GA Reassessment

[edit]

Suicide

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale is at Talk:Suicide#GA status. I posted there first because I was hoping someone would be interested in addressing the concerns. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

790,000

[edit]

There are reasons to believe the real figure is much higher, possibly in the tens of millions. This site mentions a study's conservative estimate of almost 1.4 million. All the decisions we make and actions we take inflate the annual count. Please tread cautiously. Saitzken (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't list the methods of suicide!

[edit]
FADE TO BLACK
Closing this, per @Anastrophe:'s request. This started as a good faith bread and butter request. But it geared into WP:NOTFORUM. The change won't be made. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 02:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please, delete all the intructions to commiting suicide! These things should be censored, especially the methods, because lives are more important. Kacperd40 (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored. The article is reasonably listing the documented top causes in an encyclopedic manner, not prescribing them, and frankly anyone who's really interested in finding information on how to commit suicide can just as easily turn to Google. If there is specific text that is of concern to you (I didn't see anything that looked like "instructions"), you're welcome to call that out so we may discuss further. DonIago (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But Google censors, or at least makes it very hard, to find advice on how to commit suicide. The "Methods" section in this article lists different methods to do that. Kacperd40 (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow the link that editor Donlago provided. Wikipedia is not censored. Personal sensibilities don't override the requirement for an encyclopedia to present facts. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But depressed people will read this and commit suicide because they know how to do that... Kacperd40 (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and also the polish suicide article and this https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samob%C3%B3jstwo._Studium_z_socjologii is concerning
and there a lot of these across wikipedia about suicide Kacperd40 (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry the topic disturbs you. There's a phrase, 'barking up the wrong tree'. Put your energy into things that will actually save lives. Wikipedia isn't going to change on your say-so. Redirect your energy where it can actually do good. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are barking up just the right tree. Wikipedia, due to its popularity, has a unique set of responsibilities that distinguish it from other public encyclopedias. Saitzken (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean, could you explain it simply? My English is not the best Kacperd40 (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
see Barking up the wrong tree. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but what does "unique set of responsibilities" mean? Kacperd40 (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Repeating what I wrote on a different one of the many articles user Kacperd40 shared their thoughts, in reponse to user Saitzken):
More people committed suicide around the globe in the year 1999 - before Wikipedia existed - than do today. The world's population was six billion in 1999. It's more than eight billion now. So the rate of suicide has dropped dramatically.
Wikipedia does not encourage people how to commit suicide, nor does it tell people how to commit suicide (it is trivially easy to take one's life, instructions are not even needed).
I'm sorry the topic is sensitive to you - I say that genuinely - but there are better ways to save lives, such as donating to the National Suicide hotline (in the US) as I do. That actually saves lives. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're being presumptuous. You don't know what else this person does with regards to suicide prevention. Suicide statistics are notoriously unreliable due to multiple factors. There is absolutely reason to believe that suicide and suicidal ideation have, in fact, increased dramatically since 2004. One study suggested that 40% of girls in American high schools had contemplated or even attempted suicide. Another showed that 57% of men between the ages of 45 and 65 have contemplated it. Saitzken (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I don't know what else Kacperd40 may or may not do with regard to suicide prevention. The point is that fighting a 'war' trying to change policy to match what one feels is not going to prevent a single suicide, therefore it's non-productive and will not save lives.
Please provide a source that verifies that "Suicide statistics are notoriously unreliable due to multiple factors". Yes - there are cases where suicides are ruled 'accidents' in order to hide the "shame" that may be attached to the act. I'm not aware of it being so common that the statistics are "notoriously unreliable".
Suicide is a completely different thing from suicidal ideation, attempted suicide, contemplated suicide and other things that do not have an outcome of a life ending. This should be obvious, but it is routinely conflated with suicide itself. There is a relationship, but there is a massive gulf between thinking about it, and even attempting it (most attempts are via least-lethal means, as a cry for help) and actually ending one's life.
But - this entire thread is diverging far away from the purpose of talk pages which is article improvement. The policy is clear and about as close to written in stone as it gets. As editor Donlago points out, the article prominently notes means of help - not means of doing it.
If you wish to challenge the policy, there are formal paths for that (however, I've no idea what they are, as I intentionally avoid such paths). cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BY THE WAY, I do not think that suicide methods should be removed from this article. I just object to the way you have talked to @Kacperd40, and I think that this article should have some kind of warning or message to help suicidal people. I know for a fact that some have visited this article when they were feeling very low. Saitzken (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first item of significance in the article is a link to suicide prevention. Other options have been discussed as per the notes at the top of this page. I think the idea that WP somehow plays a significant role in whether or not one opts to take their life is pretty unfounded, but if you disagree, please provide sources that support your position. DonIago (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the suicide prevention link is barely noticeable. It should be big and red so it draws attention. And it should be at every suicide article, in every language of Wikipedia. Kacperd40 (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should every article about homosexuality similarly have a big red warning? If suicide is such a critical issue as to merit this kind of treatment, what other articles should be treated this way as well? I'm sorry you're sensitive to this topic, but I have grave doubts that this article in its current form has any negative impacts. DonIago (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What does homosexuality have to do with suicide?
+ suicide articles should have big red warnings because they can be dangerous, and it's not that hard to add this Kacperd40 (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some people would argue that discussion of homosexuality is dangerous. You're beating a dead horse here; if you want to be more persuasive, present hard data establishing the validity of your concerns, please. DonIago (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually argue that this discussion be closed. It has already diverged heavily into discussions unrelated to article improvement (below).
The question of warnings and disclaimers has been litigated many times before, and no doubt will be litigated many times in the future. For the policies to change, it requires exceptionally strong arguments, persuasive discourse based on policy, and the willingness to take a hard fight to the right place - this matter is not confined to this article specifically, as Kacperd40 has pushed the point on multiple suicide-related articles, therefore it needs to be addressed elsewhere. See this discussion for previous coverage of the matter at an appropriate starting point.
Those interested in trying to counter that six-year-old discussion and outcome will need read the entirety of it, and come up with new, more persuasive arguments to make. It is unlikely the policy will change, but if you want it changed, take it to the appropriate forum. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some additional previous discussions of the matter. As above, if you want this to change, you're going to have to find 'substantially compelling arguments to override previous consensus.
If you feel I've been uncivil to Kacperd40, I'm sorry that you feel that way. I believe I've been civil and sympathetic. We'll have to disagree on that. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you were being uncivil, just overly dismissive. I should have been clearer, my apologies. Saitzken (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"take preventative measures" Based on my mother's suicide attempts, mostly hide away or lock away the pills that the suicidal person intents to swallow. There is no overdose if there is no access to large quantities of pills. As for the usual cutting in the arms with broken shards of glass, simply remove glass containers from the fridge and start using plastic ones. After one particularly bloody attempt when I was 12-years-old, we replaced each of the broken containers with plastic ones and never bought glass ones again. Dimadick (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least here in rural Appalachia and among service members, if one gun owner goes to another and gives them their firearms for safe keeping, it's just kindof understood what that means. No explanation needed. For people with actual firearms training, we're generally aware that the person statistically most likely to shoot you in your home is you. GMGtalk 13:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improving top-importance medicine articles: Join the Vital Signs campaign 2026

[edit]

The goal of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Vital Signs 2026 campaign is to bring all 101 top-importance articles—including this one—up to at least B-class quality. Many of these articles are widely read but overdue for review, so even small improvements can have a big impact.

If you watch or edit this article, your help would be very welcome. You can:

  1. Add yourself as a participant
  2. Note the state of the article in the Progress table (is the current class still correct?)
  3. Update the article based on recent clinical guidelines and review papers
  4. Help address gaps, improve clarity for a broad audience, or improve image selection

To reach B class, articles should have: suitable referencing, reasonable coverage, a clear structure, good prose, helpful illustrations, and be understandable to a broad audience. Contributions of any size are appreciated. Femke (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]