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.