On 20/04/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> 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 Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk