Talk:Suicide by jumping from height

Death: Suicide Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Suicide task force (assessed as High-importance).

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety team maintains a list of crisis support resources.
If you see a threat of harm on Wikipedia, please follow these steps.

9/11 "jumpers"

I don't know if this content is appropriate here as as the article is about people who commit suicide. Can we really categorize people fleeing flames as suicides? The deaths have been classified as "homicides" by the NY Coroner's Office. Changing this re: WP:BRD. Moving the content to the Falling man article. Open to discussion on this. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it deserves a mention here. At least a mention that "New York examiners do not classify 9/11 jumpers as suicide, but as homicide as they were forced/blown out of the building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.37.177 (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm a little late to this conversation, but this is the main reason I came to this article, to see if anything was mentioned about the jumpers on 9/11. They are arguably the most famous (or infamous) jumpers there have been (even though they are classified as homicide) but I thought there would be some kind of mention here about them.Zdawg1029 (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable suicides removal

I've reverted the removal of the "Notable suicides" subsection because the reasons given for it in the edit summary - 'distasteful and seems like it is celebrating suicide" - are clearly covered by WP:NOTCENSORED. We've had many discussions here at Wikipedia about whether suicide should be given any special treatment or display any particular sensitivity and the almost-uniform decision has been that it should not. (Search on "suicide" at the Village Pump and at AFD to find many such results.) But I'm wondering if a case cannot be made for removing that list in this article for this reason: Lists of examples in an article, just like images, are supposed to be included to help illustrate the article in a way that the text cannot. I'm not sure that this list does that in this article: What does a list of notable suicides really add to the discussion of suicide by this method? While it might be an acceptable standalone list, does it really belong here where it's not really on topic? On the other hand, lists of notable examples in articles are widespread and the rule these days seems to be that the list should be appropriate in length and notability in relation to the size of the article such that the tail does not wag the dog. So much so that the idea that I mentioned above about helping to illustrate the article in a way the text cannot may have gone away. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More than one news site that I read has a policy of providing information for people thinking of suicide at the end of any news item dealing with suicide. This is a list of best practices for reporting. I know we're not *reporting* on suicide, but it is similar in some ways. The list of "notable suicides" was only added in October. It seems to have been fine without it for over a decade. I don't understand why it would suddenly become necessary now. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page used to have a section on "notable suicides" but it was removed in 2010 by Mahanga who seems to have been an admin at that time. No one objected. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on list of notable suicides by jumping from height

Should this article about a particular method of suicide continue to include (i.e. keep) a list of specifically-named notable people who have died by this particular method? Does such a list have substantial value to explain or illustrate the topic of this article? Or should the existing list be removed (i.e. remove) with the consensus that it not be replaced without a new future consensus to do so?

The list in question is, as of this writing, the list beginning with "Prominent examples of autodefenestration include..." followed by a list of linked names.

What this RFC is not: This is not on the question of whether such a list should not be included (a) due to concerns about either sensitivity for the surviving friends and relatives of people on the list, (b) due to concerns about whether such a list publicizes suicide in a way that might empower or encourage living individuals to kill themselves by this method of suicide or in general, or (c) similar concerns. This RFC is also not about the sentence beginning "The highest documented suicide jump..."

What this RFC is: This is only about whether the list benefits this article under ordinary Wikipedia principles for inclusions of lists of things in articles.

Please weigh in by beginning with Keep or Remove or Other meaning, respectively, Keep the existing list in the article, Remove the existing list from the article and do not replace it without a new future consensus to do so, or Other and explain.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Remove. The topic of this article is simple: The suicide technique of causing oneself to fall from a high place. That topic is so simple and obvious and its occurrence such a matter of common knowledge that no particular individual examples are needed to illustrate the concept. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC) (as proposer)[reply]

Remove The very incomplete list does not add to the understanding of the topic. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Lists like these are inevitably WP:OR in nature due to the impossibility of creating clear inclusion criteria. Individual noteworthy suicides can of course be mentioned in the text provided we have sufficient sourcing to establish that they are WP:DUE and in some way serve a useful purpose when it comes to discussing the topic as a whole, but they shouldn't just be included because they happened and received coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove There's no benefit and a small amount of risk with such a list. (Summoned by bot) --I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 23:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I don't see how the other user's comments are valid, but there are too many notable examples to list here; Category:Suicides by jumping contains 451 articles according to PetScan. A standalone List of suicides by jumping from height (with proper references!) would be acceptable. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. It is certainly not possible to list all verifiable examples of suicide by jumping in this article, and I don't see how one would select a few examples to list except through, essentially, OR. If a given example really is highly notable, it can always be mentioned in the text, with prose explaining why it is considered to be so by sources about the subject. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I see no justification for inclusion of these details. The information is not required for the article to serve its purpose. NE0mAn7o! (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Not terribly useful to the article and I'm willing to bet that it would open a Pandora's box of edge cases where notable people died from falling from heights but their intent is not clear. PraiseVivec (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Adding that information would, in my judgement, cause article-creep to enter the article. WP:CREEPWritethisway (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : (summoned by bot for biographies) IMO a list of linked names ( WP ) benefits this article under ordinary Wikipedia principles. Inclusion criteria are obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuerzele (talk • contribs) 19:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove in its current form: I think the paragraph about Charles "Nish" Bruce should stay, but the list below should be removed. It is an indiscriminate and arbitrary sample of notable people who died by suicide by jumping from height. I would support adding it back if someone comes up with a list of notable suicides, as in, people whose suicide (by jumping) itself was so notable that we could even write a standalone article about it. Or some other criteria that is not just "whatever anyone wants to add to the list". MarioGom (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. It feels kinda icky to include this half-hearted list. In terms of how useful, I don't think it's that useful. SWinxy (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

(Summoned by bot) Before casting a !vote, it would be useful if anyone who supports the keep option gives a rough idea of what the inclusion criteria would be for this list. MarioGom (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About Apartment

Rorochan_1999's falling from apartments of death.. and... died in 2013.. i have not enough, of tiktok and twitter. This gacha life... that... no one. Idk who? What's this? R.I.P. rorochan_1999. Oh, ok. 37.239.33.32 (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there external links right in the middle of the lead?

Man, I'm confused. — Python Drink (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean links to sources? That all that I see. (Which is not to say that any or all of those sources are adequate or meet our definition of an acceptable reliable source.) Admittedly, most of what's in the lede in this article ought to be in the body along with the sources linked to and the lede should just be an introduction without links. But that's really just a stylistic thing that's not overly important (at least not enough to me to fix it). Or maybe you mean something else by "external links"? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 April 2023 and 11 June 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pwr2ayjk (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Itchen628.

— Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rareness of suicide jumps

Jumping is surprisingly infrequent because tall buildings are often condo or office buildings not accessible to the general public. I doubt this as in most cities there are many bridges over highways and rivers accessible to the general public.--93.218.93.146 (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marked as needing a reliable source. It had a citation at one time, but that citation was correctly removed in September, 2022, as not being reliable due to its being a self-published source. I have some doubt that the assertion about condos and office buildings can be reliably sourced without engaging in prohibited original research and will remove (or support the removal of) that assertion if a reliable source citation is not added within the next 30 days or so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]