Folks
What began as a discussion about an Article in Wikipedia, describing the various methods that can be used to commit suicide, seemed to somehow evolve into a discussion about a person¹s ³right to die² and the moral issues regarding the act of suicide.
Some final thoughts from me:
A person¹s ³right to die² is a legal issue; whether it is ³right² for a person to take their own life is a moral one.
If a person is in unbearable pain, and relief from that pain and its cause are beyond the abilities of present day science; than, yes, I believe that person does have the right to end that pain.
A person is not born with a set of morals; these are taught to us as a part of the particular culture we happen to be born into.
I work with the core of a person. This is the deepest, most fundamental part that exists before the cultural, social and religious are superimposed. This is a person¹s ³gut instinct²; that part that says, ³this doesn¹t feel right². When a conflict exists between what a person feels is right and what they have been taught is right; this most often, results in emotional pain and, in extreme cases, the person decides death is the only thing that can relieve this pain.
It is my commitment to this person to help them resolve this pain.
As for the Suicide methods Article: I can see no positive reason for its existence.
Marc Riddell
On 20/04/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
As for the Suicide methods Article: I can see no positive reason for its existence.
I can. It's part of a field of academic study - a current one, one that reflects a facet of modern society - and an encyclopedia is essentially a synopsis of existing academic knowledge for the general reader.
Why is it a field of research? Why does it help society to know about what methods someone chooses to take their life, rather than just the bald numbers of how many do?
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.
It tells us interesting things about cultures and groups, using this as another way to examine similarities and differences.
And, yes, it helps those who wish to kill themselves choose a method. But it also helps those who wish to prevent them from doing so, by informing them on the best ways to spend their energies.
If people want to kill themselves, they're going to do it. They're going to read up on it, and if we have an article then, yes, they are likely to read that. I know of cases where this has happened. It's sad, but if we did not have this article, I don't think they would have stopped.
I am really not convinced that having a factual, well-written, non-sensationalist article on the methods by which people commit suicide is any less appropriate for an encyclopedia by having a factual, well-written, non-sensationalist article on the causes of accidental death, or on the medical causes of death through illness.
If the article was attempting to be a guide to methods, then yes, it should be cleaned up. But it is not an inherently vicious topic.
On 4/20/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/04/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
As for the Suicide methods Article: I can see no positive reason for its existence.
I can. It's part of a field of academic study - a current one, one that reflects a facet of modern society - and an encyclopedia is essentially a synopsis of existing academic knowledge for the general reader.
Why is it a field of research? Why does it help society to know about what methods someone chooses to take their life, rather than just the bald numbers of how many do?
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]].
It tells us interesting things about cultures and groups, using this as another way to examine similarities and differences.
And, yes, it helps those who wish to kill themselves choose a method. But it also helps those who wish to prevent them from doing so, by informing them on the best ways to spend their energies.
If people want to kill themselves, they're going to do it. They're going to read up on it, and if we have an article then, yes, they are likely to read that. I know of cases where this has happened. It's sad, but if we did not have this article, I don't think they would have stopped.
I am really not convinced that having a factual, well-written, non-sensationalist article on the methods by which people commit suicide is any less appropriate for an encyclopedia by having a factual, well-written, non-sensationalist article on the causes of accidental death, or on the medical causes of death through illness.
Are there currently articles about either of those? [[Causes of accidental death]]? Nope. [[Medical causes of death through illness]]? Nope.
If the article was attempting to be a guide to methods, then yes, it should be cleaned up. But it is not an inherently vicious topic.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 20/04/07, Anthony wikilegal@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.
On 4/20/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Fair enough. I don't disagree with you that something useful could be put where the current article sits.
Anthony
On 20/04/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
As for the Suicide methods Article: I can see no positive reason for its existence.
on 4/20/07 2:39 PM, Andrew Gray at shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I can. It's part of a field of academic study - a current one, one that reflects a facet of modern society - and an encyclopedia is essentially a synopsis of existing academic knowledge for the general reader.
Why is it a field of research? Why does it help society to know about what methods someone chooses to take their life, rather than just the bald numbers of how many do?
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.
It tells us interesting things about cultures and groups, using this as another way to examine similarities and differences.
And, yes, it helps those who wish to kill themselves choose a method. But it also helps those who wish to prevent them from doing so, by informing them on the best ways to spend their energies.
If people want to kill themselves, they're going to do it. They're going to read up on it, and if we have an article then, yes, they are likely to read that. I know of cases where this has happened. It's sad, but if we did not have this article, I don't think they would have stopped.
I am really not convinced that having a factual, well-written, non-sensationalist article on the methods by which people commit suicide is any less appropriate for an encyclopedia by having a factual, well-written, non-sensationalist article on the causes of accidental death, or on the medical causes of death through illness.
If the article was attempting to be a guide to methods, then yes, it should be cleaned up. But it is not an inherently vicious topic.
Andrew,
From an encyclopedic point of view, you make some strong, thoughtful
arguments. Thank you. This is a very sensitive issue with me professionally, and I still have some strong reservations.
I just looked at the "Articles for deletion/Suicide method" discussion page, and it appears, by the large number of "keeps", that it is very probably going to stay.
If this is the case, then, I would like to suggest that the number for the National Suicide Hotline be placed at the top of the Article. What do you think about that?
Marc Riddell
On 4/20/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
If this is the case, then, I would like to suggest that the number for the National Suicide Hotline be placed at the top of the Article. What do you think about that?
Whose National Suicide Hotline?
I don't think that's appropriate in an encyclopedia in any case. It might be appropriate to mention in the lede that such exist and link to a Wikipedia article on the topic of suicide hotlines, which might appropriately give links to such organizations worldwide.
-Matt
on 4/20/07 3:26 PM, Matthew Brown at morven@gmail.com wrote:
Whose National Suicide Hotline?
This: http://suicidehotlines.com/national.html
Marc
Marc Riddell schreef:
on 4/20/07 3:26 PM, Matthew Brown at morven@gmail.com wrote:
Whose National Suicide Hotline?
??? That's not the national one, that's an overseas one. ???
Eugene
on 4/20/07 3:42 PM, Eugene van der Pijll at eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Marc Riddell schreef:
on 4/20/07 3:26 PM, Matthew Brown at morven@gmail.com wrote:
Whose National Suicide Hotline?
??? That's not the national one, that's an overseas one. ???
Eugene
Eugene,
You are absolutely right, this is a USA hotline. That was totally unthinking of me. I'm feeling very stupid right now.
OK, would it be possible for other countries to list their hotlines? SOMETHING?
Marc
Marc Riddell schreef:
You are absolutely right, this is a USA hotline. That was totally unthinking of me. I'm feeling very stupid right now.
No problem, it has happened before on the internet. It's something the rest of the world has learned to accept.
OK, would it be possible for other countries to list their hotlines? SOMETHING?
Perhaps a prominent link to [[Crisis hotline]], which list a number of international sites and phone numbers (including one which is not labeled by country, but just named "National"... see, it happens to others too!).
Eugene
on 4/20/07 4:08 PM, Eugene van der Pijll at eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
No problem, it has happened before on the internet. It's something the rest of the world has learned to accept.
Thanks. And I have got to start thinking outside the little box that's painted red, white, and blue - and has little stars all over it. :-)
Marc
On 20/04/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/20/07 3:26 PM, Matthew Brown at morven@gmail.com wrote:
Whose National Suicide Hotline?
Which is less than useful to half our readers, and here we find a problem.
On 4/20/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/20/07 3:26 PM, Matthew Brown at morven@gmail.com wrote:
Whose National Suicide Hotline?
en.wikipedia.org, not american.wikipedia.org. ;)
Why would we practice advocacy here?
on 4/20/07 3:46 PM, Info Control at infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/20/07 3:26 PM, Matthew Brown at morven@gmail.com wrote:
Whose National Suicide Hotline?
en.wikipedia.org, not american.wikipedia.org. ;)
Why would we practice advocacy here?
Because we are, presumably, human beings - who, hopefully, care about other human beings.
Marc
Yes, human beings working toward a goal, and one thing that goal is not is counseling people. Suicide hotlines are not hard to find, and furthermore its not our duty to help them find it. I could potentially go work as an aid worker in Iraq and save lives. So could you. But we dont, because we have more pressing things in life. Just like we have more pressing things on the encyclopedia. When Pat Parker up and decided he wanted to off himself, I was the first one to do anything. I got in contact with who I deduced his school to be, let them know about the situation, and others followed suit. I dont want someone to kill themselves. But dealing with the issue on the 'pedia was a major, major distraction to our work, and should not be tolerated. People aren't stupid. If they want a suicide hotline, they can find it. Its not our mission to present it, and it leaves us open to trolls who know we'll respond, because we have to from a moral point. Its not worth it to allow it on the wiki. And as a further note, if you have to announce it on an online encyclopedia instead of real world friends and family, you know, people who truely are supposed to care about you, well. Either they're not telling those because its not a serious and we should just leave the immature idiots alone, or if they dont have them, well, that life sucks to the point that they may be better off.
On 4/21/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/20/07 3:46 PM, Info Control at infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/20/07 3:26 PM, Matthew Brown at morven@gmail.com wrote:
Whose National Suicide Hotline?
en.wikipedia.org, not american.wikipedia.org. ;)
Why would we practice advocacy here?
Because we are, presumably, human beings - who, hopefully, care about other human beings.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 4/20/07 3:26 PM, Matthew Brown at morven@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think that's appropriate in an encyclopedia in any case.
Please stop with what is or isn't "appropriate for an encyclopedia". The small act of placing a phone number on a page could actually prevent a death.
Marc
On 4/20/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Please stop with what is or isn't "appropriate for an encyclopedia". The small act of placing a phone number on a page could actually prevent a death.
A phone number in what country, then?
On 4/20/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Please stop with what is or isn't "appropriate for an encyclopedia". The small act of placing a phone number on a page could actually prevent a death.
on 4/20/07 3:53 PM, Info Control at infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
A phone number in what country, then?
I've already been called on this :-). We're still working on the possible options.
Marc
On 4/20/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/20/07 3:26 PM, Matthew Brown at morven@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think that's appropriate in an encyclopedia in any case.
Please stop with what is or isn't "appropriate for an encyclopedia". The small act of placing a phone number on a page could actually prevent a death.
Do you really think so? I highly doubt it. I suppose there's a more than 0% chance of just about anything.
Anthony
On 4/20/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Please stop with what is or isn't "appropriate for an encyclopedia". The small act of placing a phone number on a page could actually prevent a death.
So we should also put something along the lines of "wear a seatbelt" at the top of [[Driving]]?
I tend to feel it would fall under the spirt (is that the popular term at the moment?) of [[Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates]]
Were not here to do that. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with that. its one of the [[Wikipedia:Five Pillers]]. The question about whether it is appropriate for an encyclopedia is EXACTLY the one that should be asked.
On 4/20/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/20/07 3:26 PM, Matthew Brown at morven@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think that's appropriate in an encyclopedia in any case.
Please stop with what is or isn't "appropriate for an encyclopedia". The small act of placing a phone number on a page could actually prevent a death.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Brock Weller wrote:
Please stop with what is or isn't "appropriate for an encyclopedia". The small act of placing a phone number on a page could actually prevent a death.
Were not here to do that. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with that. its one of the [[Wikipedia:Five Pillers]]. The question about whether it is appropriate for an encyclopedia is EXACTLY the one that should be asked.
A good demonstration that [[Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules]] applies to everything, even the Five Pillars.
On 4/21/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
A good demonstration that [[Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules]] applies to everything, even the Five Pillars.
[[Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules]] applies to incompetent rule lawyers. No one else needs it.