On 20/04/07, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
It informs
public debate. It informs the debate on gun control to know
the levels and patterns of shooting sucides; it informs the debate on
restructions on sale of dangerous substances to know the rates of
self-induced poisoning; it informs the debate on drug policy to be
able to confidently divide drug-overdose statistics into wilful and
accidental.
But...that's not in the article, and there's no reason that it
shouldn't be in an article on [[suicide]].
Yeah, a section in [[suicide]] which then expands to a daughter
article if size makes it appropriate is the right idea. Certainly
there's enough material out there to warrant it if we get an
interested editor.
Perhaps I should be clearer; I'm not trying to talk about the
not-very-good article currently there, but rather the philosophical
issue of having the article at all, which seems to be the issue here.
Anyone wanting to tear down a shitty article has my blessing, but we
should be wary of declaring a subject bad simply because an attempt to
cover it was bad.
Are there currently articles about either of those?
[[Causes of
accidental death]]? Nope. [[Medical causes of death through
illness]]? Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate makes a
first go at it, but there's certainly room for a more discursive
approach to the topic.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk