Talk:Suicide pact

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Death: Suicide Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Suicide task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

IMO, the article Internet suicide is sufficiently distinct from the more general idea of suicide pact to be better served as a child article. The text indicating the child concept could perhaps be expanded slightly here, but the main text relating to internet suicide should remain in its separate article. Of course, more historical information on non-internet suicide pacts (over the last few thousand years) would benefit this article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with LULU. I wrote the original article to be a single unified piece and the ONE AND ONLY reason it was divided was in order to address a completely different issue -- the issue of my now admittedly STUPID act of adding an unlinked note about "internet suicide" beside the "suicide pact" link. The issue of dividing the article should have been discussed BEFORE actually doing it, and the doing of it was done in obvious HASTE and ERROR. Now that it has been done, I am at a distinct disadvantage in the discussion, since no one is able to read the piece as it was originally written, in order to form an opinion as to whether the subsequent division represents an IMPROVEMENT. I respectfully propose that I be allowed to revert the article to its original unified state, so that anyone wishing to discuss the issue at least knows what they are talking about. If a majority of opinions then agree that it should be divided, I will happily concede to that. --Victoria 22:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria: I think you're new to WP, so may not have a good sense how it works. It is easy for any editor to read a prior version of the article by clicking on the "history" tab, then following the specific historical version. For example, the last version prior to Philwelch's refactoring is here. While, AFAIK, the thing that got me or Philwelch to look at this page in the first place was indeed the issue of the suicide template, I continue to feel that his refactoring improves the article (not as a "final versin" of the article, but as a good start at Wikipedia:Summary style). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i think it's different a conventional suicide pact and an internet one and it's right to split them, and now both can grow, 'cause they would stop in a few lines if kept together, AND IT'S OBVIOUS WE ALWAYS WANT MORE AND MORE DEATH, am i wrong? unregistred 22:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.34.87.123 (talk)

   I made up my mind in another direction before checking out the talk page, and i may be wrong. Here's what i said, within the markup, as a comment addressed to other editors who apply the strategies in the same order:

   It's far easier to be comfortable explaining such deviancies either as "jointly thwarted" or as "brainwashed by a cult", than to try to plumb the depths of the gradations between. Thus i argue for making the real distinction between the two extremes, without trying to parse the mixtures or necessarily subjective intermediates in the middle ground.

I'll feel i've wasted my effort if no one questions the version i've worked up, or if someone reverts (or replaces with a third version) without telling me why i'm wrong.
--Jerzy•t 09:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta say, the article's entire focus being on Internet suicide pacts feels odd; while it acknowledges that suicide pacts have existed "throughout history," the Internet very much has not. I'd either recommend moving the current content to a subsection ("Internet Suicide Pacts"), or an entirely different page, and at least getting a stub going for "suicide pacts" without primary focus on the Internet. My $.02 worth... User:RavenpiUser talk:Ravenpi 09:51, 13 Oct 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.207.104.231 (talk)

Thanks for providing a novel and painless way to die, in the way of CO from briquettes. It sounds much better than throwing myself under a train or grabbing live electric wires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.45.119.4 (talk) 22:36, November 1, 2006 (UTC)

People who contemplate violent suicide are not the same people that would kill themselves painlessly. __meco 10:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvia_divinorum#State_legislation Look at "Brett's Law". The link is broken, but I read it some months ago, and it basiclly says what's on the page; he killed himself via carbon monoxide poisoning. On a side note regarding the motives, he become highly nihilistic after using Diviner's Sage, S. Divinorum, a not unheard of occurance with ego-dissoving "psychedelic" psychotropics. FerventDove 08:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section is incidental to the article and I have proposed that it be moved. Also there is another article altogether dealing with the subject of charcoal suicides. __meco 10:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a sentence basically saying that the largest pact EVER, involved "seven people." This is obviously ridiculously incorrect, and the BBC source that was listed in fact said seven people died the largest suicide pact "in Japan". Read carefully!-DMCer 08:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprise to find that this didn't include any notable or famous examples of suicide pacts. I'm tired of being bold, so I'd rather just ask if others think this would be a good addition to the article? Dlabtot (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like how about Adolf Hitler committing suicide with Eva Braun, that sure is famous. 110.20.130.141 (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did I see Rocky and Bullwinkle? Jillianrunkle (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   (Or maybe "Just like Romeo and Juliet", or "Just like Bogey and Bacall", i dunno what to think...)
--Jerzy•t 10:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]