Talk:Suicidal ideation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kolya Butternut (talk | contribs) at 07:15, 19 February 2021 (→‎Requested move 13 February 2021: Change vote to "waffling".). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Suicidality redirects here but this link says it is not about suicidal ideation alone

..this link http://www.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/mental-pubs-m-mhaust2-toc~mental-pubs-m-mhaust2-hig~mental-pubs-m-mhaust2-hig-sui

maybe it's wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:7155:6d00:f513:b931:66eb:f79f (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Definition and Terminology section

This is a continuation from the #Short description section above.

I reverted Markworthen here and here. And this is why: Having the lead sentence state "usually means thoughts of engaging in suicide-related behavior" is not a good WP:Lead sentence. The wording "engaging in suicide-related behavior" is vague while the wording "is thinking about suicide with deliberate consideration or planning" is clear and tells us exactly what it is. This is not only the DSM-5 definition. That is why the lower part of the lead tells us that passive suicidal ideation is "not wanting to be alive or imagining being dead", while active suicidal ideation "is thinking about different ways to die or forming a plan to die." The "is thinking about suicide with deliberate consideration or planning" covers those two aspects. There is no need to state anything in the lead about a definition not being universal. It is beneficial to have a Terminology section, or a "Definitions" section that can also be about terminology. If anything in the section needs cutting, then let's discuss that.

If Markworthen feels that the issue is with the IP having added "deliberate", we can discuss that. But, like I noted above, suicidal ideation is not a passing thought about suicide. It's persistent thoughts of suicide, or a pronounced enough thought about it that it is distressing or leads to suicide. I also noted above that "I know that the article states 'varies from fleeting thoughts to detailed planning.' But the fleeting thoughts are persistent...at least for a time in the person's life. That's why they are considered a risk factor for suicide. I've yet to see an expert on this topic who feels that someone having thought about suicide once and with no serious consideration toward committing suicide as someone who has experienced actual suicidal ideation."

We can list sources for our arguments here. But let's leave the WP:Status quo in place while we discuss. I'm fine with reverting the IP's change to the lead while we discuss. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You will not be surprised to learn that I disagree with your analysis. Here is why your reasoning is faulty:
  • You (Flyer22 Frozen) wrote, "The wording 'engaging in suicide-related behavior' is vague ...." The full sentence was, "Suicidal ideation usually means thoughts of engaging in suicide-related behavior, although this definition is not universal." You might consider part of the sentence to be vague, but, as the four (since deleted) references showed, this definition was developed 20 years ago, and has continued as the recommended definition by the U.S. Surgeon General, the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The definition is broad, not vague. It is broad because suicidal ideation covers a lot of territory. In particular, contrary to the DSM-5's ill-conceived definition, it does not refer to deliberate consideration or planning alone.
  • You wrote, "while the wording 'is thinking about suicide with deliberate consideration or planning' is clear and tells us exactly what it is." Simply because you (Flyer22 Frozen) assert that your preferred definition is accurate does not make it so.
  • And, with regard to your statement that the current wording "is clear": While we all prefer clarity and conciseness in Wikipedia prose, clarity and conciseness are not truth.
  • You assert that "thinking about suicide with deliberate consideration or planning" covers passive suicidal ideation, which the article describes as "not wanting to be alive or imagining being dead". How do you reconcile "deliberate" with "passive"? If you "passively" think about going for a walk, is your thinking "deliberate"? passive means "not acting but acted upon : subject to or produced by an external agency; lacking in energy or will; not active or operating : not moving : inert, quiescent".[1] And deliberate means "characterized by or resulting from slow careful thorough calculation and consideration of effects and consequences : not hasty, rash, or thoughtless; characterized by presumed or real awareness of the implications or consequences of one's actions or sayings or by fully conscious often willful intent"; and "deliberate always indicates full awareness of what one is doing and, used precisely, implies careful and unhurried consideration of procedures or consequences".[2] Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 15:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting into all of that, especially since I'd be repeating myself, I would have to list no telling how many sources, and you have now started a RfC. I'll just state that I stand by what I've argued and that the table in the #Comment section below speaks to my point. Those sources show what I mean about how we should begin the lead sentence. There is no "Simply because [I] (Flyer22 Frozen) assert that [my] preferred definition is accurate makes it so." Everyone knows that I don't argue that way and that I instead adhere to the literature and our policies and guidelines...such as what is a better lead sentence for readers. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And as for the "deliberate" wording, which I did not indicate being tied to, what I stated is that the "is thinking about suicide with deliberate consideration or planning" wording is covered by the lower part of the lead because passive suicidal ideation is "not wanting to be alive or imagining being dead", while active suicidal ideation "is thinking about different ways to die or forming a plan to die." Saying that not wanting to be alive or imagining being dead is not deliberate consideration is something that one can consider questionable. There is overlap on this topic. If one is arguing that the passive matter is an intrusive thought matter, that person should provide sources for that. And we should not be relying on dictionary definitions for the topic or for words of the definition(s). My main point has been that I've yet to see an expert on this topic who feels that someone having thought about suicide once and with no serious consideration toward committing suicide is someone who has experienced actual suicidal ideation. My main point has been that the thoughts are recurring. And the literature backs me up on that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Passive suicidal ideation is thoughts of wanting to not be alive, not necessarily wanting to not be alive. The DSM below lists recurrent suicidal ideation as a sympton of Major Depressive Disorder, etc.; suicidal ideation itself isn't necessarily defined by recurring thoughts, because that would be redundant to say that a sympton of Major Depression is recurrent recurring thoughts of suicide. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kolya Butternut, you appear to have followed me here. And I wondered if you would while I was away, but I hoped that you would not since medical topics are out of your field of expertise. Follow me to an article again, and I will be reporting you. You've been warned on your talk page before about WP:Hounding me in any way. As for your commentary on this matter, I pay it no mind since you do not know what you are talking about. I do. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC) I took this matter to the editor's talk page. I stand by this post and what I stated on the editor's talk page.[reply]
And that suicidal ideation is a symptom of major depressive disorder does not negate the fact that suicidal ideation is a recurring matter. That it is recurring is why sources speak of "thoughts." It is not defined as having thought about suicide once in a non-serious manner. Similarly, many people have thought about killing someone without it being serious, often as an intrusive thought matter; this does not mean that the person is homicidal. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer, as I explained on my talk page,[1] I came here by way of Markworthen. I'm sorry you feel this way; but I am not responsible for your perceptions. I'm not responding further to content-unrelated matters. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Markworthen, as a fan of your advice, I noticed many "you" statements in your above comments which may not be ideal. I hope you're giving yourself breaks to watch funny pet videos :-). Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, ed. Philip B. Gove (Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam, 1961, 1993, periodically updated as Merriam-Webster Unabridged), https://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/unabridged/passive
  2. ^ Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, ed. Philip B. Gove (Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam, 1961, 1993, periodically updated as Merriam-Webster Unabridged), https://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/unabridged/deliberate

Tower of Babel: Nomenclature for Suicide

Consider the recommendations from "Rebuilding the Tower of Babel: A Revised Nomenclature for the Study of Suicide and Suicidal Behaviors" which uses "suicide-related ideations" and describes them anywhere from casual and transient to persistent and with intent. doi: 10.1521/suli.2007.37.3.264 . Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a very good source... Talpedia (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on "committed suicide"

There is a RFC on the use of "Committed suicide" language open at VPP, with the intention to add language to MOS:BIO on a consensus-based conclusion. The RFC is here: WP:VPP#RFC: "Committed suicide" language. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 13 February 2021

Suicidal ideation → Suicidal thoughts – After reviewing a number of sources on this topic, it looks like "suicidal ideation" is the term favored in sources that are written for healthcare professionals while "suicidal thoughts" is the most common name used in sources that are written for a general audience. Since Wikipedia is a general use encyclopedia targeted towards non-expert readers, I think we should be using the more common lay term for this article's title, as that is the term that our average readers are more likely to recognize. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, WP:NATURALNESS. "Ideation" in an article title is excessive, unnecessary jargon when there is a decent plain English alternative. Common usage of "suicidal thoughts" includes "thinking about, considering, or planning suicide", I believe, so it would not change the article scope. (t · c) buidhe 23:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Buidhe. "Ideation" is an unnecessarily unfamiliar term. Aza24 (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Great idea and excellent points by all. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 06:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Suicidal ideation" is the term for the symptom. If these terms are not interchangeable in the medical literature we'll need a separate section discussing "suicidal ideation" as a symptom. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kolya Butternut: Good point, and I think we can do that without too much trouble in a new article titled "Suicidal thoughts". Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 07:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article will obviously continue to cover the more technical aspects of suicidal ideation, such as its use as a symptom used as a diagnostic criteria. But from what I can tell, "suicidal thoughts" and "suicidal ideation" are indeed interchangeable terms. "Ideation" is just the more technical term that is more often used in medical literature, though the medical literature also uses the term "thoughts". Rreagan007 (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't care as long as the first sentence contains both terms in bolded text. Also, note that there was a discussion last year about whether those were actually synonyms, with some editors claiming that suicidal "thoughts" had to be persistent or intrusive before they counted as "ideation". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Suicide-related ideation" I think is the clearest term for the symptom. Although it's not common, perhaps we could use it in the opening of a section on "suicidal ideation". See above at #Tower of Babel: Nomenclature for Suicide. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Buidhe, though as people have said above "ideation" may be the best term when discussing medical literature on the topic. --Bangalamania (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • support per editors above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per WP:MEDTITLE, which is clear as day about this sort of thing: The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name)...For example, heart attack redirects to myocardial infarction. (Emphasis in source.) OP noted that ""suicidal ideation" is the term favored in sources that are written for healthcare professionals" without realizing this is precisely why the move should not occur. In line with this, compare PubMed's 14,482 results for "suicidal ideation" with the 2,856 for "suicidal thoughts". Since MEDTITLE has not been mentioned yet, I am pinging back the supporters to see if they wish to change their 'vote' now that it has been pointed out: Rreagan007, Buidhe, Aza24, Markworthen, Bangalamania, Ozzie10aaaa. Crossroads -talk- 04:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As "suicidal thoughts" is also used in the medical literature, it can't really be considered "unscientific or slang name" as WP:MEDTITLE seems to envision. So "suicidal thoughts" is still a "scientific term" in that sense. I'll grant you that it's not the most common term in the medical literature, but in this specific case I think WP:COMMONNAME (which is official policy) should override the strict letter of WP:MEDTITLE (which is only a guideline) because of how much more familiar our average readers are likely to be with "suicidal thoughts" over "suicidal ideation". And the example of heart attack isn't a very good analogy for this case, as there is some ambiguity with "heart attack" as it is used to refer to both a myocardial infarction or cardiac arrest. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Crossroads, are there any better examples? I see that we use Bruise instead of contusion despite that there are 8,688 results in PubMed for contusion[2] but only 803 for bruise[3]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I learn something new about Wikipedia editing at least every week, and this is my new learning for this week. Thank you Crossroads for pointing out this important consideration. I want to think about it and see what other editors say, but you clearly raise a valid objection. ¶ Some more background info: In terms of potentially relevant statistics, on the English Wikipedia (using Google site search), the terms are used in equal numbers: "suicidal ideation" - about 1,070 results; "suicidal thoughts" - about 1,080 results. ¶ In terms of Google searches, significantly more people search for "suicidal thoughts". These links to Google Trends show data for the last 5 years: Worldwide | United States. ¶ In terms of books, which likely includes self-help books, but (probably) more professional texts, the term "suicidal ideation" has increasingly predominated since 1980: Google Ngram Viewer results. ¶ In terms of Wikipedia policy, on the side of "suicidal thoughts" are these guidelines from Deciding on an article title: Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize; and Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. ¶ On the side of "suicidal ideation" is this guideline also from WP:CRITERIA: Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. (The "box above" links to WP:MEDTITLE.) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 19:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. When I edited as an anon, I was told in no uncertain terms that "heart attack" is titled "myocardial infarction" and "brain freeze" or "ice-cream headache" is titled "cold-stimulus headache" on Wikipedia because of the rules. People still don't know why we're using the title "cold-stimulus headache".[4] So what gives for not sticking with "suicidal ideation"? Does consistency not matter? "Suicidal thoughts" may not be unscientific, but it is the lay term, and "suicidal ideation" is a lot more accessible to readers than "myocardial infarction." I don't think those voting to change the title thought things through. Take grammar, for instance. Are we going to say "Suicidal thoughts is thinking about, considering, or planning suicide."? How is the terminology to be handled in terms of the diagnostic material when the refs use the term "suicidal ideation"? The intro says "It is not a diagnosis." Yeah, "suicidal thoughts" are not a diagnosis. Are we going to change "passive suicidal ideation" to "passive suicidal thoughts" even though the refs don't call it that? I, frankly, see nothing wrong with the title remaining "suicidal ideation." In fact, it appears that this title is more accurate. Raining Parade (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (Waffling towards oppose; the lead sentence is from sources using "suicidal ideation". My thought is that if suicidal thoughts and suicidal ideation are not equivalent, then suicidal thoughts is the broader subject, so it would be appropriate regardless of MEDTITLE. Using the definition of thoughts, the lead could read "Suicidal thoughts are instances of thinking about, considering, or planning suicide." Besides Bruise, another analogous article title is Goosebumps, which does not use the terms piloerection or cutis anserina. Brain freeze is obviously an inappropriate title because the brain itself cannot feel cold. Ice cream headache actually is used in medical literature, but it is only a piece of the broader subject:

    (ICHD-3) defines cold stimulus headache (CSH) as headache brought on by a cold stimulus applied externally to the head or ingested or inhaled [1]. This includes headache following exposure of the unprotected head to a very low environmental temperature. Ice cream headache (ICH), also known as “brain freeze,” and headache attributed to ingestion or inhalation of a cold stimulus are also incorporated under this definition.[5]

If suicidal thoughts and suicidal ideation are equivalent, then I might agree that the policy COMMONNAME overrides MEDTITLE where the common name is not decidedly informal. A doctor will write "goosebumps", but they are less likely to write "farts". But suicidal thoughts does seem to be used equivalently in medical literature: "We searched PubMed for studies published in English... We did two separate searches of the scientific literature. One search was for suicidal thoughts using the query ('suicidal thoughts' OR 'suicidal ideation')"[6] While it may be original research to conclude from that that the terms are identical, we know ideations are thoughts. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Waffling Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suicidal_ideation&oldid=1007658433"