Talk:Self-harm/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

External links?

i am a cutter and i struggle with making it through a day without the need to cut, i think that it would be helpfull to provide information on how to quit and get help if you are going to have a page like this...


Little Pagan GRL (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and therefore only provides information on the condition itself. It is not a self help site and it is not appropriate to provide medical advice on wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Medical_disclaimer. In this article, there is a section on typical treatment methods to deal with self-harm. However, we do not advise on individual cases, for that the only advice you will ever receive from anyone on wikipedia is seek help from a health professional. Polyamorph (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

....sorry i just thought... never mind im not quiting anymore anyway....

Little Pagan GRL (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some links now. According to MIND "Knowledge is power."
See: http://www.mind.org.uk/Information/Booklets/Understanding/Understanding+self-harm.htm#What_can_I_do_to_stop_self_harming_
Just to clarify for everyone else, I did not add external links as an answer to Little Pagan GRL, I just thought this page needed them. --78.86.146.148 (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted your edits. Wikipedia cannot give medical or self help advice and these links are effectively doing that. Any external links should be provide useful and reputable information on the condition itself, we should not be giving a list of self help groups etc. The issue of what is and is not acceptable has been discussed on this page before here: Talk:Self-injury/Archive_2#Creating_new_link. Before adding any such links, consensus must be made on this talk page first. Polyamorph (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The links recently added:

Those links that simply provide information on the condition are probably ok, however, self help sites or support networks are not. Polyamorph (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with that to some extent but most sites have some detail on help, the Royal College of Psychiatrists is probaly a sound one, esspecialy as that is a potenial source. --Nate1481 17:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I have put the Royal College of Psychiatrists link back. Polyamorph (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Put back the BBC one, and the Canadian Mental Health, as both good links, I'm working on the criteria of 'would that be a reliable source?' and the MIND one may also be good. Thoughts?--Nate1481 12:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, yes working on the criteria of WP:RS is sensible. I am worried though that if even reliable sources on the condition might contain medical advice, if we are linking to these sites this might be construed as us giving medical advice? Is there a wikipedia disclaimer that states it does not approve or moderate the content found on external sites. I do think though that if we are sure the specific url that we link to predominently provides information on the condition itself (and falls in the criteria as a reliable source), as opposed to predominently advice on treatment, then we should be ok. Polyamorph (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the MIND one is a good source for information. --82.22.69.21 (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Put the MIND link back in. Polyamorph (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that providing a link is the same as giving medical advice. I think it qualifies as INFORMATION if presented in a NPOV way and especially if it meets notability guidelines. For example, I can't imagine an article on ADHD that didn't include a link to CHADD or an article on breastfeeding that didn't link to La Leche Leaugue. Information and endorsement are not the same. If the article said, "An excellent source for help on this topic is ABC" that would not be NPOV, that would be an endorsement. However to state that ABC has information that is considered reputable by the medical community and site XYZ has information that is considered outside of the medical mainstream, controversial or experimental, that would be giving information. Saying that linking to a site is the same as giving medical advice is akin to saying, "seek medical advice from a health care professional" is the same as giving medical advice. Does it mean that wikipedia endorses mainstream health care or the medical establishment? (no since wikipedia doesn't endorse anything, being NPOV) I believe that links can be added responsibly as long as the site is a source of information and endorsement is not implied.

The fact THAT there are support groups and who the major ones are seems to me to be encyclopedic and important to to topic at hand. If outside links can not be included in the article at least inside links could be included to organizations that have their own articles. Wikipedia should be user friendly and it should be easy and possible to find what you are looking for. 24.56.242.121 (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)amyanda2000

Advising someone to see a health professional is not the same as providing a link at all. We have to be very careful about giving out medical advice on wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Medical_disclaimer. Where a health professional is qualified to give out such advice, external links may not contain reliable or accurate information at all, and since we may not have any way of knowing it is safest to not link to them at all. We should be ok if we work according to the guidelines of WP:RS, as Nate1481 above, many of these self help groups or organisations you speak of do not, however, meet these guidelines. Polyamorph (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Shing

Shing are an alien race and very prominent element of the Hainish Cycle of science fiction writer Ursula Le Guin. I started an article about the alien Shing_(Hainish) and tried to make a disambiguation page, but it seems I failed :) Any help to disambiguate these terms properly in wikipedia would be much appreciated :) Capricornis (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to have anything to do with the Self-injury article. Please ask your question here instead: Wikipedia:Help_desk. Polyamorph (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The reason why I asked it here was that the search word 'Shing' redirects to this very article. Thus the disambiguation would be between this article and Shing_Hainish article (if I knew how to do it properly) Capricornis (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, I see now why it might be redirected from SHing. Please use the help desk since they will know instantly exactly how to make a disamb page, having not made one before I can't really advise. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think I did it right. Shing search now redirects to a disambiguation page with links to the alien race and this page :) Let me know if I messed up something Capricornis (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Note that names are case sensitive - so in fact, Shing doesn't exist, and you might as well create/move the page there. It's SHing which is the one that used to redirect here. Mdwh (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I made this fix and added a link to the disambiguation page from shing. Polyamorph (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Be careful about promoting dubious hypotheses such as the 'beta-endorphin' model

There is no documentation that proves endorphins are behind this, neither behind the so called 'runners high'. Naloxone has not effect on runners high and even though it may seem to have an effect on preventing self-harm, that's no proof either. Naloxone potentiates PAIN and will make it harder for ANYONE to cut herself. Naloxone will generally make anyone more inactive, dysphoric and less motivated because it blocks the natural endorphins in the brain. But who wants to feel like that?

To prove that endorphins induce self-harm, we need studies that can replicate the symptoms in healthy subjects by administering the same endorphins. So far there have been none of this. 87.59.101.104 (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no part of this article that mentions Naloxone. So not quite sure why you mention this. The short sentence that mentions the possibility that the release of beta-endorphins may help people who self-harm feel better is referenced. I also think this is fact rather than hypothesis, i.e. pain does indeed result in the release of these chemicals. The article doesn't go into much more detail than simply state this fact. Polyamorph (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
What I meant was that since naloxone does not block the so called 'runners high', endorphins cannot be used to explain it. If endorphins indeed was behind the runners high, administering naloxone to runners should block it completely since naloxone blocks the receptors. Naloxone is the gold standard in research for testing whether endorphins are active in the body or not. It is true that endorphins are activated by intense, prolonged pain but my point is that there is no evidence that they are involved in this disease. T.R. 87.59.103.57 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the 'runners high' statement because I think this just confuses things. Self injury is not a disease, it is the deliberate infliction of harm to ones body which may be influenced by some other mental health problem but in itself is not a disease! I have retained the information on the release of beta endorphins as this information is cited by reliable and peer reviewed sources and as I mentioned before, the article is merely stating the fact that the infliction of pain will release these endorphins. Polyamorph (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Usage of the word "creativity" in regards to means of self-injury in Definition section

The word was removed, perhaps rightly so, but then replaced with a statement that didn't quite say the same thing, the very valid point (and I'm sure documented, and I'd add a new cite if I wasn't off to bed shortly) that methods are very varied, and often take forms invented according with individuals' idiosyncrasies. Creativity may be a poor word choice since the term is often given positive connotations, so I've replaced it with "inventiveness". Any objection? ---D--- (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the statement that Axmann8 added, but agree that it lost the import given by "creativity". As the word is a little on the positive side for the subject, I think inventiveness is a slightly better choice. Maedin\talk 13:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
No objections to the use of "inventiveness" although I have no real concerns with the word creativity either since it has the same meaning and doesn't necessarily have to be positive. I'm not sure the rest of the statement is quite right yet though, maybe something like "..individuals inventiveness and determination to harm themselves.." would be better? Polyamorph (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds about right! ---D--- (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent spamming by dynamic IP

This article is currently semi-protected due to excessive spamming by a dynamic IP user. A discussion has been started on this issue here. Polyamorph (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Image

I've added an image that I've stumbled upon while browsing Flickr. If the image is not appropriate (because the injuries it documents are so heavy that they were possibly inflicted in a psychotic state) - feel free to delete. Best regards, ---CopperKettle 22:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The image is ok although probably more suits the Self embedding article. For now though, I think it should stay until a more suitable image comes to light. Polyamorph (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this image fits at all with the definition and area this article is going for. You mention Jdrewitt that it should stay until a more suitable image comes to light. My question is what image do we deem suitable? I think if we all have in mind what should be up there, it would be much easier to find it. An image of some cuts on an arm? A leg? I'm just trying to get an idea here of what would be considered suitable. 72.91.239.41 (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I think your right. Either way or more suitable image is needed even if that means removing the current one first. This has been discussed before, please see Talk:Self-injury/Archive_1#Pictures Polyamorph (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I support removing the current image and replacing it, eventually, with a more suitable one. I checked out the interwiki links, and, out of 20 articles, only 2 have a picture of injuries, and it is the same picture (simple and Hebrew, for your info). To be one of the very few articles out of 20 to have a picture, and one that is hardly even relevant, seems misguided to me. We should either have no illustration or something more appropriate. As already mentioned, the current picture is of a severe case, is more appropriate to Self embedding, and the injuries were probably spurred by psychosis. A more appropriate image, I think, would be, as suggested before, a picture of a healing cut (or cuts) (probably on an arm, but not necessarily) with visible scars caused by wounds of a similar nature. This is the best illustration (I can think of) of the nature of repetitive self-harm. The picture in place at the Hebrew and Simple wikis almost fits, except that there are no scars shown. It's also poor quality and slightly out of focus, but maybe that is a good thing, to avoid an overly-gruesome image. For those who find "triggering" an issue—the whole article is triggering. If a self-injurer is reading the article, an image is going to add only a negligible amount of "trigger", and if they want to avoid triggers, they shouldn't (or wouldn't) be reading the article. I think that's common sense. Even websites intended to help those who self-injure are triggering, without images, that's why they have a warning. Maedin\talk 10:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is trying to find a high quality freely available image - I've searched several times but never found anything free and suitable. The best option would be an image taken by a medical professional or institution as opposed to a self made image - although if done well the latter would be acceptable. The best option for now appears to be to move the current image to the self embedding article and use the image given in the simple and hebrew wiki's until (if ever) a better image arises. In fact I will now make this change. Polyamorph (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't care for the current image either in the sense of a long term choice, but it's currently the best option, and is far far better than what was up there. Freely available is indeed the problem, and I doubt help forums would appreciate someone searching for one to be made freely available. AncalagonTB (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As a harmer I could provide you with an image of scarring caused by self inflicted wounds if you are unable to find such.. Bekkabop (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bekkabop, it is certain that we need a better image, but please do not consider making an image donation unless you are clearly and unequivocally happy with the possible repercussions. It is likely that any quality, on-topic, and clear self-harming image would be used by multiple wikis (not just en), and it would be associated with your user name, which may, either now or in the future, be somehow associated with your real-life identity. Judging by the vandalism that this article gets, it's clear that self-injurers can sometimes be a target for ignorant negativity, and I suppose this could be directed at you, as the subject and provider of the image. I hope you will take these points into consideration before making a donation, :-) Maedin\talk 07:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
If this is a concern, one alternative is to create another account here or on WP:Commons under another name and up load it from there, if you keep that just for uses such as this, it will be less liky to be linked to your real life identity. (p.s. yes this is an acceptable use of multiple accounts) --Nate1481 08:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Notable Experts

I'm not sure if there is any type of guideline on this, but I think it would be helpful in medical and psychological articles to have some type of section on or mention of notable experts in the field. I do not mean as an endorsement. I mean for example the doctors who have named a condition, made it well known, done extensive work on some aspect of it, are well known as advocates of patients, even perhaps those who have been dubious or infamous in relation to the topic. Assuming they are notable in some way, either mainstream or within the comunity. Perhaps they could be included in the "see also" section. I am doing some research into self-cutting and I would like to know who some of the leaders in the field are as far as treatment and research. I want to be able to search further on wikipedia as well as beyond. To me, as it stands this article is a dead end, and without some mention of notable experts is somewhat lacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.242.121 (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Notable experts in the field can be found from the extensive academic citations in the references section. Polyamorph (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
That's fine when I get to Amazon or the library. But I'd really like to know what experts are notable enough to have an article of their own. Yes, there is a list at the bottom of the page of references, but it's really just an incomprehensible list unless I go through each one with a fine toothed comb. I would rather know who some of the leaders in the feild are, not just anybody who's written a book or article. I don't know if I'm making sence but the citations are a bit too vague for what I am lookiing for- it doesn't even include first names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyanda2000 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Generally in publications academics are known by their surname and initials, this is really because forenames are more common and so it helps to distiguish the individual researcher. I think it is safe to say that those authors who have articles published in well respected peer reviewed journals (given in the references) will be experts in their field. I'm not sure if academics researching self-injury would necessarily meet the notability guidelines for their own wikipedia biography. It depends what contributions they have actually made though I guess. This is not much help to you I know, one solution is to add the authors names to the prose when discussing particular theories etc. Polyamorph (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Legal aspects

In the UK, after SOCPA passed, the police may now arrest you to prevent you from causing physical injury to yourself. I think this is worth including. Are there any other legal aspects to self-injury/self harm? Fences and windows (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

How exactly is Self-injury a criminal offence? I thought you had to commit an offence, i.e. break the law to be arrested. I know nothing about legal matters but surely this is simply saying police have the ability to stop someone harming themselves if they can but surely no way would they actually arrest that person? Polyamorph (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I know nothing about legal matters, either, but I think (from memory) that committing suicide is against the law in some places. A little hard to prosecute if you've carried through with the act, of course, so perhaps they pursue attempted suicide, thereby meaning that a misunderstanding of self-injury could be interpreted as such? I suppose it is possible too that self-injury (or threats of it) could be used to exert control or cause emotional torment of another person, implying that in some cases it could be viewed as criminal behaviour. Maedin\talk 17:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Or maybe its the means by which the person is harming themselves, e.g. if they use a prohibited weapon or something. Really though the SOCPA needs more citations and the details need to be clarified before this could be incorporated into the article. Polyamorph (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
That'll teach me not to believe what I read on Wikipedia! The summary of the police powers of arrest was deeply misleading. Fences and windows (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Treatment

I think there ought to be a section on the main page about treatments for self-injury. That would be notable.--24.164.85.127 (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There is, see Self-injury#Treatment. Polyamorph (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Medical Causes

There are some medical conditions, such as Addison's Disease (though self injury is a rare presentation). It seems there should be a section on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.203.253 (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Common sense

I added a common sense tag to the Demographics section. The user who removed it, Jdrewitt, gave his justification: "reverting -- Not quite sure what you are trying to do here except adding redlinks about a commonsense issue which I do not agree with, this article deals with the standard definition"

The text states: "..9.8% of the students surveyed indicated that they had purposefully cut or burned themselves on at least one occasion in the past. [When] expanded to include [other variations], 32% of the sample said they had done this. In other words, while this problem is often associated with severely disturbed psychiatric patients, it is fairly common among young adults."

A common sense understanding puts the issue in the context of repeated self-injury, not just one-time self-injury. The topic of this article deals less with single-occurance or minor-level mutilations, but with repetitive and severe mutilations. The generalization violates common sense context. The impression given in the article is that the authors consider single occurrences as equivalent with multiple occurrences, such that gives the impression that such negative phenomenon is more "common" than is actually is (cf. mass hysteria). Discussing the point on the talk page is appropriate. -Stevertigo 21:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

But the article does not exclude one time occurances at all, the sentence you point out even says "on at least one occasion". Of course though, people who self harm often do so more than once. I don't understand why you think this goes against commonsense, it is just what tends to happen. I reverted because all your action seemed to do was add some redlinks at the bottom of the article which I considered to be unecessary. Perhaps you need to clarify your point. What is exactly wrong and what should we do to correct it? Polyamorph (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I have known people who have injured themselves on single minor occasions leaving a mark of some kind (does body piercing/modification not also count?), as well as people who have done repeated compulsive destruction to their bodies. Aside from the casual observation that these both may constitute destructions of (the) being (which might be disputed), these are not the same thing, and if the word "disorder" means anything it means infinitely more the latter and equally less the former. If science has not yet considered such a distinction, I now have stated it clearly.-Stevertigo 21:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Body piercing/modification does not come under the same definition and are treated in other articles, if you look at the note at the very top of the article you will see tht we refer readers to the relevant pages. Accidental injury is also different. But any other form of injury to oneself, whether a one time occurance or repetitive, will come under the definition dealt with in this article. I still cannot see what the commonsense issue is or what exactly the point is you are trying to make and how it might help to improve this article. It makes perfect commonsense to me that self-injury is injury done to oneself. As opposed to simply injury which may be caused by any number of different means. Polyamorph (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
"Common sense" here refers to simple degrees of scale, the consideration for which seems to be missing in this article for some reason. I can see how from a psychological point of view, these might be considered the same kind of act —differentiated only by a quantity. In certain cases, quantity makes a difference. If one tries to say, commit suicide by overdosing on pills, it may be relevant to note whether that person swallowed 28 pills or 2 pills. Likewise there may be some subjetivity with regard to the concept of harm or injury itself. Someone with a newly-sprained back might try to stick themselves a few times with a pin just to complicate their pain sensation, and allow them to get their mind off one injury and put it onto another.
Note also the article tries (not badly) to be both conceptual ("not suicidal") and inclusive (alcohol abuse), and though there might be some room for development in these particular areas a bit more, the only thing missing AFAICT is how concepts of scale are regarded and treated. -Stevertigo 18:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I see your point clearly now, thanks for taking the time to explain. I agree with you that some forms of self harm are more serious than others and there may be many different motivations and these should be differentiated. Exactly as you say, degree's of scale should be considered. Polyamorph (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

historical context/explanation of the spike in self-harm reports

Many times editors have tried to tie in flagellation, mortification of the flesh and various other culturally accepted (in older times) forms of body modification. Are they self-harm? It doesn't seem logical that these behaviors just developed in the last 100 years. So I wonder is there any evidence and sources giving an historical context to self-harm? I found an NPR radio article (link starts playing the program) suggesting that self-harm is an ancient phenomena but the transcripts don't seem to be available. The article could be better served by a history section but there's controversy over calling some of those ancient practices as self-harm and a lack of archeological/anthropological reviews looking for characteristics of self-harm. This book claims self-harm is new and an epidemic. Is there some new cause in our environment? Is it a result of greatly improved reporting mechanisms combined with the clarification of the definition that has led to the spike in reporting? Is it the internet and the spread of the idea of self-harm spreading through the young like a viral video? Waiting on the new studies... Alatari (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

From my perspective, based on all the journal articles I've read, the modern phenomena identified as "Self-injury" is defined primarily by function, not form. This article here is targeted at self-injury as a coping mechanism. Flagellation, mortification, etc, don't serve the same function at all. This discussion has come up a bit in terms of what should be included. I haven't had my coffee yet today, hopefully that makes sense. AncalagonTB (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense. So is there historical evidence that self-injury as coping mechanism was used in the past? How far back? Are some or all forms strongly genetic and passed along for many many centuries? Is the genetic component just focused around the dopamine receptor/supply mechanisms? (Wellbutrin has completely alleviated my desire). To tie self-harm behavior into the ritualized harm, like the flagellates, would a widely influential leader with self-harm genetics encourage people who would not necessarily self-harm into the fold and attracting others of similar genetic tendencies into the culture of ritualized self-harm? These suppositions require research that prolly doesn't exist. I'm trying to find context to why people like us exist. If it's common enough then maybe it's a disorder when it's maladaptive to a persons life but an adaptive behavior useful in some environments past or present. Maybe it was useful in dealing with the stress of extended life and death war situations. I've found Google Scholar and some searching there maybe will turn something up. Alatari (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Found some history (p. 16) pushing self-harm back to 1880 (Favazza, 1998) and Menniger's work in 1935,38 describing Partial Suicide. P. 17 describes Mennigers 6 classes of self-harmers, p.18 brings us to Favazza's 2 self-mutilation categories: 'cultural rituals' and 'deviant' whereas 'deviant' is this articles subject material. Is this the classification still used? (bedtime) Alatari (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I got some time and went WP:BOLD using the defended dissertation of a psychology doctorate with 130+ original sources to fill out a brief timeline from 1880 on. The ideas there present the fluctuating concepts of what is and isn't self-harm alluding to several topics that editors have brought up in the past. Alatari (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, good work but a couple of issues. (i) which doctorate thesis did you use, i.e. has it been cited, it needs to be. (ii) you have a few citations in there which aren't in the same consistent format of the rest of the article. You need to use < ref > for those citations. (iii) the table should be converted to wiki format. Polyamorph (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the table, now need to cite those other references properly. I see the thesis is cited so thats ok but its also useful to cite the original sources (Ok we can't cite 130 of them but at least cite the most notable sources). Polyamorph (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Would the books for each new author(s) thesis be enough? i.e. Favazza (96), Menninger (35) Alatari (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes that should be fine if these are they are the original sources, just would be good to have all the citations in the same format i.e. using the < ref > coding. Polyamorph (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Added some of them, ran out of time. The 1880's line I can't find and will prolly have to write the author of the dissertation. There are many details about freudian explanations adding them might destroy the flow of the section. The explanation of the spike in reporting doesn't belong in this section and needs a whole new phase of research. I may not be able to get back to this till July. Alatari (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Support sites etc

I noticed you put that you didn't want links to support sites and I was wondering why this was? I am part of the co-ordinating group of a veryactive charity (lottery funded) who promote help for people who self harm and also have a support forum. I am going to put an article about us up on Wikipedia anyway but wondered if we could either be in the links or as a subheading e.g places to get help?

Just to add to this as I'm blind it seems! You say you recently added sites in the external sites talk bit but they aren't all on the page. Fantasiapink (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The answer is that we are following the guidelines at WP:RS for what is and what is not a reliable source. Also, Wikipedia is not here to advertise or promote specific websites, even if these are good charitable causes. With regards to your second point, the links in the discussion above that have been deemed reliable sources are in bold and are listed in the external links section in the article. Polyamorph (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
If you write an article, it might be worth linking to the article as a "See also", rather than putting the external link. (But when writing your article, remember to provide third party references - see Wikipedia:Notability. Also I would recommend reading Wikipedia:COI and Wikipedia:Starting an article.) We've tended to avoid having links to support sites/forums, due to Wikipedia:External links, and if we start including one, the list could quickly grow large as everyone else puts their own forum in (if people want links to support sites, perhaps one thing we could do is instead link to http://www.dmoz.org/Health/Mental_Health/Disorders/Impulse_Control/Self_Injury/ , using the Template:Dmoz template?) Mdwh (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

culturally sanctioned self-mutilation

Would that article point to body modification? Should it have it's own article? The current 'body modification' article is very contemporary with little historical view. It's basically a list. Maybe an article list of body modifications and focus on a varied cultural view and look through history in the main article? I'll take this to the body mod page too.

I redirected deviant self-mutilation here under the Favazza/Rosenthal definition. Alatari (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I restored culturally sanctioned self-mutilation which had been mistakenly removed. It is a request for page not yet honoured. Alatari (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Involuntary Detainment

Should it not be mentioned that in the UK and US (and probably most other developed countries) that a self harmer can be detained/arrested under law and placed in a psychiatric hospital involunarily for their own good? The article may already have this in.. but I just read it twice or so and couldn't see it. Dvmedis (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well somebody mentioned this in a thread above under Legal aspects. If you have reliable sources for this claim then we can find a way to incorporate it. Polyamorph (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this link suitable? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2204983.stm (BBC Q&A about invoulntary detainment - the first thing that came up when I Googled it). Just on a personal note, I have known 3 people (in the UK) detained under this act for either overdosing or slashing their wrists. If someone could provide a US or European perspective.. that would be good? Dvmedis (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
It will probably just about meet WP:RS guidlines but I can't see where it says people can be detained specifically for self harming (except for one sentence where it says they can remained detained if they are shown to pose a risk to others or themselves). I think we need a source with more specific examples of people being detained for the act of self harm as described in this article. Polyamorph (talk) 09:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is an excerpt from a BMJ article by A Hull, BMJ. 1999 October 2; 319(7214): 916 "The Mental Health Act is for the treatment of mental disorders. It does not authorise the treatment of a physical disorder even if it arises as a consequence of a mental disorder. Therefore the Mental Health Act is of no help in the immediate medical management of patients presenting with deliberate self harm and refusing treatment, other than to permit detention in hospital if the patient is considered to be suicidal as a result of mental disorder."
I'm not convinced there is a case to detain someone simply for self-harming unless there is another underlying mental disorder. If you can, however, find sources to the contrary then it would warrant inclusion in the article. Polyamorph (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The BMJ article is interesting - and I'm still searching for a solid source. Just unofficially, in my own personal experience; I am a voluntary patient in a day psychiatric hospital - and someone in there was sectioned solely for slashing her wrists to shreds. AFAIK she had no 'diagnosis' like OCD/BPD/Psychosis etc - she was just a danger to herself because she self harmed Dvmedis (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Anecdotally, I've heard stories of people being arrested for self-harm, but as has been said, we really need reliable sources. It would also be good to present accurately what the law really is in various countries - e.g., can people be arrested by the police, and/or sectioned; does it need to be linked with a disorder? Mdwh (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I think in the cases where people have been sectioned for self-harm alone it was probably very severe or life threatening? We might be able to find a more reliable source but I've found this guide to the mental health act: http://www.hyperguide.co.uk/mha/contents.htm . Sections 2, 3 and 4 have to be applied for and state that the patient has to be suffering from a mental illness. However, under section 5 of the mental health act a doctor or nurse may prevent someone from leaving hospital who is otherwise a voluntary patient on the condition that an application for an admission under the mental health act "ought to be made": http://www.hyperguide.co.uk/mha/s5.htm. So in that instance there may not be any additional underying mental health problem. We need more specific and well cited examples though and possibly someone who has a better grasp of legal matters. Polyamorph (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
How about this? (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1116734). Quote: "Temporary mental incapacity also occurs as a result of intoxication and in states of high emotional arousal. These factors are most often operating in uncooperative patients who deliberately harm themselves." (Sectioning under mental incapacity)? Dvmedis (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0394/SEC463.HTM&Title=-%3E2008-%3ECh0394-%3ESection%20463#0394.463 <--- Baker Act in Florida, there's the statute on involuntary examination. AncalagonTB (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh... What?

Many teens and young adults who struggle with self-injury, have discovered recovery, hope and healing through their faith in Jesus Christ. www.doorofhope4teens.org Teens who struggle need to develop healthy coping mechanisms along with a new mindset that includes positive thoughts.

Whoever puts this there needs to have it removed immediately. Shameless promotion of a religious website- not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I have removed it, until a viable source can be located. Unconscious (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Good call, it is blatant spam. Polyamorph (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the definition correct?

I would like to propose a revision of the introduction and the following definition:

"Self-injury (SI), self-harm (SH) or deliberate self-harm (DSH) is deliberate infliction of tissue damage or alteration to oneself without suicidal intent."

but would welcome some views first:

Consider the following:

  • The mentions of self-harm in this article outnumber self-injury by almost 2 to 1. Either the title should be reconsidered or the two topics should be split as self harm covers a wider range of behaviour than self-injury.
  • Self-injury is arguably a subset of self-harm. The definition as it stands excludes some common methods of self harm such as hanging and suffocation that often involve no tissue damage but are potentially very lethal.
  • One important international definition is that of the World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases: Intentional self-harm (X60-X84). Not the most user friendly definition but certainly comprehensive.
  • The restrictions to repetitive self harm, severe self-injury inflicted during psychosis and without suicidal intent seem un-necessary. Most self harmers do so relatively few times. A very small percentage will self harm several hundred times per year. Apart from defining 2 incidents or more as repetetive self harm there is no convenient point on the spectrum to form a boundary. Similarly for severe self-injury and sucidal intent. Research of 'near misses' indicate that many of those who almost killed themselves did not mean to do so. Conversely many self harm incidents are failed attempts at suicide. The vast majority of self harm incidents are unlikely to be fatal but many of those who do self harm are at increased risk of suicide so once again any restriction seems un-neccesary.

Declutter (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

And your sources are...? I don't want to entirely dismiss what you're saying, I'm just saying that if you're doing to suggest we radically change the scope, naming, and definition, I'd expect some sources. The article title was discussed in a previous archive and we decided on Self-Injury for a few reasons. First, it is the term most individuals who do it use. This can be referenced by visiting help forums and reading journal articles. Second, Self-Harm is nowhere near specific enough as it could also include topics such as over-exercising and eating disorders. Third, journal articles typically use Deliberate Self Harm, Non-suicidal Self-Injury, Self-injurious behavior, or Non-sucidal Self-injurious behaviors. DSH has been used less and less frequently, NSSI we deemed unnecessary because this subset of Self Injury is by definition non-suicidal. SIB and NSSIB we did not like because of the word "Behavior". It, in our minds, carried unneeded connotations for the intent behind the action.
Also, I have a quote here from a fairly recent article on Self-Injury:
"Self-injury has gone by several names, though self-harm and self-mutilation have been the other most common appellations. While any language may suggest an implied judgment about the behavior and self-injury certainly invokes a more favorable connotation than self-mutilation, weuse the term self-injury since it was used by our respondents most frequently. Although a range of behaviors may be considered self-injurious, including eating disorders, excessive laxative use, and extreme body modification, among others, we focus here on those specific behaviors that have been identified by the psychiatric and medical communities as falling into this specific syndrome: self-cutting, burning, branding, scratching, picking at skin or reopening wounds, biting, head banging, hair pulling (trichotillomania), hitting (with a hammer or other object), and bone breaking."
Adler, Patricia A, and Peter Adler. "The Demidicalization of Self-Injury: From Psychopathology to Social Deviance." Journal of Contemporary Ethnology 36(2008): 537-570. AncalagonTB (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed - the title has been discussed before - I think the page was even moved at one point but I might be wrong. With regards to your points. (1) We might need to be more consistent on which term we use but this just illustrates the need for a copyedit. (2) I don't really get your second point. Self-injury and Self-Harm mean exactly the same thing. (3) Good point, the Infobox at the top of the article should be adjusted accordingly. (4) As Ancalagon says we need sources before we change the definition. The current definition comes from a number of reliable sources. Polyamorph (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I fixed the infobox - X60 to X84 ws already there only formatted incorrectly so only X84 was showing up. Polyamorph (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Since the article focuses on self-injury, I think it would be better to concentrate on this rather than bring in other methods, especially when it is unclear how related they are (I mean, smoking is a form of "self harm", but I think it wouldn't be helpful to combine smoking and deliberate self injury into the same article). If we use the term "self harm" in the article when "self injury" would be better, then I would agree that the term should be changed to say "self injury". We focus on non-suicide methods for similar reason - this is meant to be an article on self injury, not suicide. The fact that self injurer may commit suicide doesn't affect what the definition should be - it doesn't have to mean that committing suicide counted as self injury, it just means that someone can self injure, and also commit suicide. Now having said that, ideally any definitions should come from reliable sources, but even if self-injury was defined to not specify without suicide intent, I don't think it would be useful to expand this article to include suicide in general. We have other articles for that. Mdwh (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess my main concern is Wikipedia’s overall coverage of this topic. ‘Self-injury’ seems the only sensible entry. ‘Self harm’ redirects here, ‘attempted suicide’ redirects to ‘suicide’ and the entry for ‘self-inflicted would’ just seems a little dubious. I would like to suggest three things:

1. “This article focuses on repetitive self-injury, not on severe self-injury inflicted during psychosis.” be replaced with something like: “This article fouses on injury arising from self harm”

2. “Self-injury (SI), self-harm (SH) or deliberate self-harm (DSH) is deliberate infliction of tissue damage or alteration to oneself without suicidal intent.” be replaced with “Self-injury is infliction of tissue damage arising from deliberate self harm.

3. If the focus of this entry is to remain on self-injury then the overall topic may be better served by another Wikipedia entry to cover the wider aspects of self harm.

Here are my reasons for the first two points

1 A lot of research around self harm, including many of the references quoted, do not seem to be restricted to repetitive self harm as mentioned in the introduction. Also the boundary between self injury and attempted suicide is too blurred to assume such cases have been excluded from the refereces. Although most self harm is not immediately life threatening the link between self harm and suicide is too strong to ignore for example.

(a) According to the Oxford Centre for Suicide Research “There is a very strong relationship between deliberate self harm (DSH) and suicide in that between 40% and 60% of people who die by suicide have a history of at least one episode of DSH, and DSH is the strongest risk factor for suicide.” (see http://cebmh.warne.ox.ac.uk/csr/reslongterm.html).

(b) “Suicide after deliberate self-harm: a 4-year cohort study” (2005Cooper et al.) identified a 30 fold increase in suicide risk of 7,968 patients attending accident departments for self harm reasons (see http://www.medicine.manchester.ac.uk/research/pubdetails/?ID=21287)


2. The existing definition (like some of my own statements (:-)) is not referenced and seems forced to fit in with the restrictions of the article. In any case it is incorrect to equate deliberate self harm and self injury. For example hanging, self strangulation and overdoses do not necessarily involve tissue damage. Presumably the two appear linked because information is more readily available on self harm requiring treatment i.e. self harm involving actual treatable injury. ICD10: X60-X84 Intentional self harm infers a definition arising from specific external causes. I the definition includes self poisoning, hanging etc.. I suspect there is a need to define a number of terms here and not just self-injury but given the variation in research approaches a satsfactory list of definitions has yet to emerge.

Declutter (talk) 08:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

1. There may well be a link between self injury and suicide and this should be mentioned in the article - if you have reliable sources add it yourself - but the definition should not be changed as self injury is different to suicide or attempted suicide. However, the statement in the article The person who self-injures is not usually seeking to end his or her own life; it has been suggested instead that he or she is using self-injury as a coping mechanism to relieve emotional pain or discomfort. and other is cited as are other statements relating to the definition. The first sentence in the lead does indeed need a citation but that would not be hard to find.
2.Harm and injury are synonyms - so I cannot see why the two cannot be equated. You are talking about two different definitions which is different to having two seperate words which mean the same thing. There is no reason why self injury cannot include the methods that you list - however this article does not attempt to list all the possible ways someone may harm themselves - it certainly doesn't rule out self strangulation or self-poisoning and states: A common form of self-injury involves making cuts in the skin of the arms, legs, abdomen, inner thighs, etc. However, the number of self-injury methods are only limited by an individual's inventiveness and their determination to harm themselves; this includes, but is not limited to compulsive skin picking (dermatillomania), hair pulling (trichotillomania), burning, stabbing, poisoning, alcohol abuse and forms of self harm related to anorexia and bulimia. Polyamorph (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Just to make it clear, in case it got missed, injury and harm are synonyms. Any sentence along the lines of self injury arises from self harm (as in your suggested changes) just would not make any sense whatsoever. We could be more consistent with which term we choose to use throughout the article but this will simply be a convention. Self injury and self harm mean exactly the same thing. Polyamorph (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Good argument on the synonyms. You have convinced me. However I still think the 'tissue damage' is too limiting as it follows from the synonym argument that 'injury' does not necessarily imply tissue damage.

Accepting for a moment that you can distinguish between attempted sucide and self-injury (which not everyone would agree with) do you think a seperate Wikipedia entry on Attempted Suicde would help clarify matters? Declutter (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

1. I see your point that perhaps the article should not restrict itself to repetitive self-injury. However, I think we still need to specify that this article isn't about "severe self-injury inflicted during psychosis". Also from a grammatical point of view, I don't like the wording of "injury arising from harm" - injury doesn't arise from harm, rather, injury is a form of harm.
2.But DSH is a term used to refer to self-injury (cutting and so on) as discussed in this article. And whilst self-harm may be more vague (in that it could include things such as drug abuse), it's still sometimes used to mean self-injury.
The main point we are trying to make is that this article doesn't include any form of harm, such as smoking (which we have other articles for, and which seems to differ in terms of people motives), but at the same time, there is no real reason to necessarily restrict this article to only particular types such as cutting. When referencing sources, we need to be careful what sort of "self-injury" or "self-harm" is being referred to, but I'm not sure that restricting the article to one particular method will help. Mdwh (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I will defer to you on any linguiustic matters. I absolutely agree that the entry should not drift into any form of harm and, as mentioned above, an extra entry covering more serious self harm/injury/attempted sucide might help clarify matters. Declutter (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The article suicide does not do a brilliant job at covering this. I would say a new section in suicide would be the best cause of action but if there is enough content then I don't see any reason why it couldn't have its own article. Polyamorph (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

More definition problems: The definition that is given in the article is very vague, and much too broad. It specifically says alcohol abuse, anorexia and bulimia are all forms of self injury, in the definition section. I believe this is incorrect for a few reasons:

1: It's much too broad. Self-destructive behavior is such a wide topic, it can never be covered.

2: It is not the common usage of the term self injury. This is mostly obvious.

3: It is not the medical/academic usage of the term, either. Sure, there are a few sources that use the broader term (including eating disorders and drug problems), however, the sources are contradictory. And since most of the sources cited later in the article do not include these other things, neither should the definition.

4: It is not what the article is about, as written. The article is clearly focusing on cutting/burning/etc. (which is good). The definition should reflect this.

So, what to do? I recommend changing the definition to something like "...is the deliberate, non lethal injury of oneself, where the injury itself is the primary motivation." This excludes anorexia and smoking, as well as self inflicted wounds, yet still includes things that self poisoning which are not necessarily "tissue damage".

Also, please keep the definition in the introductory paragraph to a single sentence. The first two paragraphs are terrible to read, and the reason is they discuss the finer points of the definition (does suicide count? how about bulimia?). "Some scholars use more technical definitions related to specific aspects of this behaviour." Why anyone would think this is a good choice for the third sentence in the article is beyond me. All of this discussion is fine, but it should clearly be in the definition section, not the intro. Don't muddle up the introduction with the fine points. Something like

"Self injury has only been treated and studied in very recent years, because of this, the current sources are vague, and contradict each other. While this article refers to (explained in the first paragraph of the section), many academics/doctors use the term differently. Eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia are perhaps the most controversial, and some sources include drug abuse as well. Suicide is almost never included as self-injury. Other sources are more specific, focusing exclusively on cutting." (cite a whole bunch of sources that use these definitions).

That's it, mention it once that there are a lot of definitions, but make it clear what the article itself is about.

It would also be nice if the sources (particularly statistical sources) cited here used a similar definition to the one I'm proposing. For example, from "demographics"

"About 10% of admissions to medical wards in the UK are as a result of self-harm, the majority of which are drug overdoses."

This is completely unnecessary, and confuses the issue. This article is obviously focused on cutting/burning/etc., not on drug overdoses. It should be removed. Ideally, all the sources should be checked to see what their definitions are, but that's a much grander re-working than just a change to the intro and definition sections. 24.5.174.153 (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should probably drop "alcohol abuse, anorexia and bulimia" from the list - it goes against our own definition of "deliberate infliction of tissue damage or alteration to oneself", anyway. And whilst they might be considered under a broader term of "self harm", I wouldn't think it accurate to call them injury. Any objections to them being removed, anyone?
I've no objections to us dropping that 10% reference, as it is a bit vague - it's not clear whether it means intentional overdosing, or drug abuse in general. The BBC article no longer seems to mention it anyway (another reference is [1], but that's equally vague, and no source is given - chances are they are just quoting the same BBC article, or indeed they might even be quoting us!) Mdwh (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
"While people may do a variety of almost unimaginable things to themselves, such as selfamputating, drilling holes into their skulls, intentionally making themselves ill (Munchausen syndrome), and piercing, tattooing, or decorating their bodies in extremely radical ways, these behaviors fall outside of those clinically associated with the specific syndrome known best at the turn of the twenty-first century as self-injury. We therefore restrict our focus to these practices not arbitrarily but because they have been traditionally associated together in the medical literature and because they are performed by a consistent group of people. In other words, people who intentionally make themselves ill or who cut off their limbs are not the same people who cut or burn themselves, and people who undergo “body modification” to get tattooed or scarified come from a dramatically different etiology than people who self-injure, despite the fact that members of both groups may carve words or designs into themselves. These are different phenomena practiced by different people."
This is from the notes index in the same source as the one I cited earlier. I think we should approach this article in much the same way, and should incorporate their definition into our article: "Although a range of behaviors may be considered self-injurious, including eating disorders, excessive laxative use, and extreme body modification, among others, we focus here on those specific behaviors that have been identified by the psychiatric and medical communities as falling into this specific syndrome: self-cutting, burning, branding, scratching, picking at skin or reopening wounds, biting, head banging, hair pulling (trichotillomania), hitting (with a hammer or other object), and bone breaking". I might leave out bone breaking as it may simply serve to confuse people. Another possible definition (These are being pulled from my journal database): "Self-injury is the intentional destruction of body tissue without suicidal intent and for purposes not socially sanctioned." I personally think this is the definition that should be used in the opening sentence of the article. AncalagonTB (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


I would just like to say that as an injurer myself I believe that the definitions are also a wee bit out of whack. It depends on what side of self injury you are going for. Side related to psychosis or a side related to coping? As they are not one and the same thing. Self harm is indeed a larger umbrella which SI falls beneath. SH being the act of causing harm to oneself, and self injury being the deliberate act of causing injury. Nail biting hair pulling banging head against a wall, vomiting, starvation would be considered harm, where as cutting, burning, scratching breaking bones would constitute SI. Obviously the more out of whack for lack of better words that ones mental state the worse their actions become to the point of such injury as amputation. Self mutilation is offensive and derogatory and I personally dislike the use of it to discuss the issue. Body modification is if you want to get very technical and petty over hte whole thign a form of self injury however it should not be considered self injury in a clinical context as it is not done for the same reasons as actions such as cutting and burning. I have tattoos and piercings and I have not gained either for the same reasons as i harm. No real references here jsut a harmers view on the topic. Bekkabop (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is more about self injury (cutting, burning, self poisoning, ect.) than self harm (everything listed for self injury plus eating disorders, drug and alcohol abuse. The definition is alright to me. You could include that a historic name that has fallen into disuse is self mutilation (SM) because some of the best books on the subject use that term. --Guerillero (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Check the History section. The definition has been evolving and maybe it still is. Certainly older usages/ideas are still in the public mind and get debated in here regularly. Alatari (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok thanks --Guerillero (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

More external links

A user recently added some more external links, I have since removed them and they are given below:

I'm not sure if www.harmless.org.uk is a suitable reliable source particular since the leading section of the websites states that it is a "user led organisation".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdrewitt (talk • contribs) 15:03, October 22, 2009

Article Title

I still don't understand why people think there is a distinction between the terms "self harm" and "self injury". I have said this before BUT the words "harm" and "injury" are synonyms. Their definitions are identical. Hence the terms "self harm" and "self injury" mean precisely the same thing. In all the academic articles that I have read on the subject both "self harm" and "self injury" are used interchanagably and have precisely the same meaning. This is exactly why we only have one article on the topic. Self harm redirects to self injury because they are exactly the same phenomenon. Please do not make the mistake of thinking the terms refer to different methods or severities. Polyamorph (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
In the self Injuring "community" I have seen a distinction between the terms. --Guerillero (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you have examples? The term most commonly employed in academic texts cited in this article is "deliberate self harm". This term includes self-poisoning and other forms of injury. Polyamorph (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Self harm is what the WHO uses. It get 1517 pubmed hits as opposed to 844 with Self injury. Therefore the literature seems to lead towards the usage of self harm.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) this ref says the main forms of deliberate self harm are self injury and self poisoning. Self harm is therefore slightly more inclusive. [2] Currently under classification we say that self harm includes poisoning but the above ref indicates that it does not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

what is self harm? and Classifying self-harm and refer to it as self harm --Guerillero (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes but none of these comes close to the World Health Organization with respect to WP:RS.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the article was originally moved form 'self-harm' to 'self-injury' in an attempt to be more specific and match the title to the main discussion of the article, as it was suggested that self harm would include all harmful behaviours such as alcohol abuse and drug use and the title of self harm would cover all of them. original discussion The key point being, that while the terms are frequently used interchangeably, they are not identical, so the incidence of the terms use (and who uses them) is not definitive unless you also check on how the term is used. --Natet/c 23:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Which ever one we pick we need to keep it the same through out the article. It switches at some points.--Guerillero (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review

Have started a review to address a number of concerns I see with this article Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Self-harm/2. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note this article was previously reviewed in 2008, here. I'll take a look at your points, hopefully others will too. Polyamorph (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I will also --Guerillero (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

History section

All the other articles I've seen are: 1)Definition 2)Etymology (if the section is used) 3) History 4)Modern usage and further article. So why the move of the history section to the end? Alatari (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted another users edits that changed some of the titles which I didn't think were appropriate for this article. But in reverting those edits I also moved the history section back to the beginning. I had no problem with the history section being at the end and so decided to put it back at the end. Feel free to put it wherever you like though as I have no real preference. Best wishes, Polyamorph (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but I have moved the history section back to the end of the article per WP:MEDMOS and as part of the current Good article Review process. Polyamorph (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

NP, it's best to stick with style manuals. Thanks for the link on style for medical articles. Alatari (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

On another topic in the History section; I'm looking for a source for the first sentence other than the grad students paper. I emailed her but got no answer to that source.

  • (left open for further sources) Alatari (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS

There were three sections (maybe another one or two) that follow history:

  • Society and culture (e.g., stigma, economics, religious aspects, awareness, legal issues)
    • This has material already in the article (ie, prison populations) and what about gathering these paragraphs under this section? Would the elderly, other nations, prison sections be expanded under Society and Culture?
  • Research directions
    • Interesting...
  • In other animals
    • Very interesting (to me). Do other animals self-harm? I've seen Amazon and African parrots (reliable source?) pulling out all their feathers (and were treated with psych drugs, I think clomipramine, my a V.S. Kerstein in Chesterfield, MO.), I've heard of horses gnawing on rails till their gums bleed and other primates with trichotillomania. Alatari (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There is the consideration of the length of the article and would any more additions necessitate moving material into sub-articles. Alatari (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.twloha.com/

Someone added info about TWLOHA but this website is selfpromoting some other off topic endeavor. Is this a legitimate notable event? Alatari (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

While they do focus on self injury adding them would open a door for every related charity to try to add their link. And wikipedia is not a list of links. They were on warped tour and thaey have a page here so they might be noteable but I think its best to keep the link off the page. --Guerillero (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Lesch-Nyhan syndrome

Well Lesch-Nyhan syndrome does not belong on a section regarding diet it definitely belongs in this article. Have read a number of interesting papers on how many have self harm tendencies ( bitting nail, pulling at own hair ) a few are involved in more such as cutting, well people with this condition will but off their own fingers and gouge out their eye. None of these are suicidal attempts but have been theorized to form a spectrum of disease.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I'm not an expert in medical matters. Its in the history, we can put it back somewhere more suitable. Polyamorph (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Under the cause section we need a section on genetics. That would be the subheading were this would fall. The psychological stuff should be moved to a section on pathophysiology and a psychiatric conditions subsection should begin the causes section. IMO Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I see you have made these changes, it looks good! Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Eating Disorders

Should eating disorders be mentioned under the psycological causes section since it is mentioned in the introduction? --Guerillero (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessarily caused by the eating disorder but could be symptoms of the same root cause. Alatari (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Self injury or self harm

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We have talked about this and for the reassessment we need to resolve the naming dispute. The WHO calls it self harm. So should this article be renamed so it is inline with those guidelines? (If that happens self injury would redirect to self harm)--Guerillero (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Related discussions: Discussion resulting in the move to Self injury, Definition discussion (above), Discussion on Title (above).

  • Strong support move to self harmDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support move to Self harm. A new article Self poisoning should be created if the scope is expanded too much. Polyamorph (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too broad a scope Self-Harm needs to be a separate article refereeing to this and others. --Natet/c 11:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The definitions are different and should not be viewed as inter-changeable, when originally moved it was specificity to provide a narrower focus, the article currently stands at 48kb, so any significant addition of material to cover the broader area would necessitate splitting anyway, the most sensible solution would seem to be creating a second article which covers the broader definition, and could act as a grouping article for the related issues. To cover (non-lethal) self-poisoning would mean needing to cover alcoholism and drug abuse, self harm would also reasonably cover Self-inflicted wounds and potentially body modification etc. not a small scope. I think having a separate article called self-harm that discussed all these in summary style, and directed to the relevant articles, would split out some of the definition material from the SI article and would allow the inclusion of any overlap as relevant, rather than having to exclude it entirely of include a great detail of information that is only related tangentially. --Natet/c 11:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
We do not even have a page on self poisoning and actually this article already covers self poisoning so how does renaming self harm broaden the scope? Alcoholism and drug use does not as far as I am aware fall under self poisoning. Not to be crass but some people take 10 to 20 acetaminophen than call all their freinds and post it on face book. Than act surprised when the police arrive. This is self poisoning. Drug abuse is something different as is someone who takes 500 acetaminophen in combination with every other drug they have lying around ( this falls under suicide even if they live ). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
If you read the discussion at the same time as the rename, Alcoholism and drug abuse was exactly what some users felt was covered by the broader definition, as it is voluntarily poisoning oneself, the key difference is the motivation/intent. --Natet/c 10:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I just re-read the second part and am annoyed by the characterisation contained, as it is not related to the article but is simply derogatory, having been one of the friends who was only called when they were trying not to take/do anything. I have seen the other type of behaviour too and it is not related to self harm, but to attention seeking and is a different area that is closer related to people flash a scar and tell every one about their 'suicide attempt'. Most people who actually intend it tell no-one before and very few or none, after. --Natet/c 10:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I do understand your concerns about article length. However, I still think a page move is required. If the article needs splitting at a later date if it becomes to large then that is something that should be considered then, not now because we don't really have a major problem with the length right now.
Strictly concerning the title of the article only, from what I can tell from the discussion in the talk archives (Discussion resulting in the move to Self injury) the article was originally changed from "self harm" to "self injury" because it was deemed that "self-injury" was the most commonly used term. I don't think this was actually the case and hence the original page move should not have happened. From reviewing the vast majority of the literature cited in this article it is clear that the term "self harm" is most commonly used to describe, as per our definition, "deliberate infliction of tissue damage or alteration to oneself without suicidal intent". Polyamorph (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The most commonly used term to describe the set of behaviours discussed as self harm covers the broader spectrum.
I know I started the extended discussion but rather than us three with repeat our view points should we wait for more views rather then scare people off as TL:DR?--Natet/c 10:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're right of course, comments from other editors would be welcome, it just seems like it is going to be a bit more complicated than a simple page move. Polyamorph (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Sure a fourth opinion sounds good. --Guerillero (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support page move to self harm. I recommend that if article is moved to self harm that the phrase "also referred to as self injury" and bolding the term self injury is done. Alcohol and drug abuse is harmful but it is not is what is meant by psychiatrists and doctors when they use the term self harm. We need to go along with official classification, i.e. a medical/psychiatric classification, not a literal interpretation of the english words per the oxford dictionary which is what I think this naming dispute is about. See also WP:COMMONNAME.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment My brief survey of sources suggests that the terms are mostly considered interchangeable (read: it makes no difference what you call this page). However, there are a few sources that define self-harm as the superset of deliberate overdoses plus self-injury, so if the page is moved to self-harm, it should definitely include poisoning. Also, the "alteration" wording in the opening sentence is a source of confusion; some readers will believe you mean to say that piercing your own ears is a risk factor for suicide. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I support the move to self-harm. Self-injury seems to be more specific than self-harm. Other than that, there is not much of a difference between the two. Tyrol5 [Talk] 22:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support move to self harm. This is the currently accepted WHO and ICD nomenclature (?and DSM as well?), and since Wikipedia strongly influences the global lay usage of medical terminology, I think its best for us to be consistent here with terminology that is widely accepted in the medical community. --Mattopaedia Have a yarn 10:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
In DSM Self Injury/Self Harm is a symptom of Borderline personality disorder--Guerillero (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - We name pages by the scientific term, which is determined by WHO and ICD (and DSM apparently). If self harm is the term used in those contexts, it's probably suited for this use too. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  15:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - self harm is more widely used. And does include intentional overdoses. Two less syllables too, which is always a good thing :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
It looks like there is consensus for a move. Will post.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I see a consensus too. I move the page. I am all for a page split if this gets too big. I am also closing this.--Guerillero (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Japan cf. England

A psycological comparison of historic and modern; Japan and england.

in japan self harm is less previalant than in the uk or other englsh speking or european cultures.

this predomianted by the grater propesitiy towards the honnor task of earning ones partner. the route of geisha.

whair this pralell in western cultures and as a penomenon also present in japanise cuture The Arts of Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Whair the axiom of consideration is the class devide within both cultures, expressed in this argument and relivant to curent socio dynamic changes, whair the west of a politicla empire and thus considered domiant, the most common disposition is to avoid cultural trial or to misconsture the nature of such self imposed trial. and in the east, whair the trial prone to humble inefectitude. whair the further disposition of the married arts dependent on the indeviduals satisfaction.


please place aproprately and reference japan wikis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.216.142 (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking us to include. There may well be differences in prevalence between different countries around the world. However, it may also be the case that each country has the same prevalence of self harm. This should be discussed in the article but we cannot add any information to the article unless it is backed up by reliable sources. Polyamorph (talk) 10:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, the Japanese version of this page is here. You can find the link at the bottom left of the article page. Polyamorph (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive

I think its time for an archive, would it be a good idea to get the MiszaBot I to archive automatically as there is quite a lot of activity on this page? Polyamorph (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Very good uidea, I use it on my talk page and it is so much easier! I'd sudggest a long lag time (2 months?) as articles often have slower burning discussions. --Natet/c 10:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good, since you have experiencing setting this up would you be happy to do this? I could do but don't want to make a mistake. Polyamorph (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Me and my big mouth... I'll give it a try but it recommends a consensus to use it on article from what I recall so I'll leave it till tomorrow at least. --Natet/c 16:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I support its use. Go ahead and add it if anyone complains than a discussion can ensue :-) .Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Well there is no rush, since its a bot we should first see if anyone has any objections to its use, I would say give it a day or two. If you don't want to do it Nate then I don't mind giving it a go, it looks like its just a matter of using the template correctly. Polyamorph (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I am 100% ok with this. --Guerillero (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I have set up the automatic archiving for posts that are more than 60 days old keeping at least the 4 most recent posts. Nate, please could you check the template incase I have made any mistakes. Best wishes, Polyamorph (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so MiszaBot seems to have correctly archived some older threads, the only thing it hasn't done it update the archive box. Does anyone know how to make it do this? Polyamorph (talk) 08:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC) P.S. Happy New Year!
Maybe you just have to manually do it. Happy New Year to you too --Guerillero (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, managed to get the archive box to update automatically now using auto=long which functions for < 36 archive pages. auto=yes can be used for >36 archive pages. Polyamorph (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

pictures

Why was the picture of words cut into a person's removed from the artice? --Guerillero (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I still see it. I can't see it having been removed in the history. Refresh your browser maybe? 15:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh you mean this edit. It was quickly changed back but neither users provided an adequate edit summary. Regards, Polyamorph (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Map of self inflicted injuries

This is based on WHO data. The reference associated with it gives further details.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The image is not explained in the article or adequately in the image legend. Please could you add some more text to describe exactly what the map shows. i.e. how were the results obtained, from medical records etc.? Is it a true representation of the prevalence of self-injury worldwide? Is it limited to a certain type of self-injury? Without this explanation the map is meaningless (to me anyway). Thanks, Polyamorph (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I will remove this image from the article if this information isn't added soon. I cannot tell what the image is trying to show. Is it showing prevalence of self-harm in various countries around the world or is it a measure of severity? Or is it trying to show to what extent self-harm leads to a premature death in various countries around the world? It doesn't matter how verifiable content is, if it doesn't make sense or is not sufficiently explained then it should not be included. Polyamorph (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Just because the additional information you request is not currently there is not a sufficient reason to remove the map. Therefore replaced it. The reference describes how the data was generated BTW.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Please will you explain what the map shows because I don't have a bloody clue. Is it showing prevalence of self-harm worldwide? If so why is the prevalence so high in some countries compared to others and therefore is the data accurate. I think not. Adding the map back in is not constructive, you should have discussed it here FIRST as I have tried to. I would NOT have removed the map if you had replied to my discussion above and addressed the concerns. But the concerns were not and still have not been addressed. IMHO the map is a useless addition and completely meaningless without explanation. Referencing it without giving explanation is not good enough, you have to explain it so that users of WIKIPEDIA can understand it and not expect someone to find out the information for themselves. So I won't remove the map (for now) because I'm not interested in having an edit war with you but please will you address the concerns I have raised above. I am being reasonable here and have given you time to explain the map but you have refused to, I am left wondering why. Polyamorph (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Also from what I can tell the WHO data is based on mortality data. So how is this anything to do with self-harm? People don't die of self-harm, well maybe some do accidently but generally death by self-harm is considered suicide. Of course I might be wrong because as I have said before I don't actually understand what the map is showing and it is not sufficiently explained. It needs to be explained to be included in wikipedia. Polyamorph (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
DALYs are not the same as prevalence. Will write something further when I have time. Was away the last 2 and a half weeks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
This needs to be explained in the image caption because it is not obvious to the reader what the map shows. And is it based on mortality data because if so it is not appropriate for this article. I'm happy for the map to be included if it is explained and adds useful information to the article but at present I can't tell, if I can't tell then the general lay wikipedia user won't be able to either. Polyamorph (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
No it is not mortality data either it is DALYs. This page will discuss it further.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too fond of that map. If the WHO had a map of true prevalence (cases per 100,000 inhabitants)Then it would fit wonderfuly in with the section of the article. (Mostly because thats what the statistics quoted are in percents) But its in DALYs. --Guerillero (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not keen on the use of DALYs either, I would prefer a map that is meaningful to the layman. A map of true prevalence would be excellent if it exists. Polyamorph (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Have not seen data on prevalence but will look.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that is unlikely that you will find one as the data and current research with regards to prevalence is very limited, especially worldwide. So although it sounds like a good idea I'm not sure if its going to be possible (I would very much like to be proved wrong). In the meantime what are we going to do about the use of DALYs, two regular editors have expressed they are not happy with the map so what shall we do. I think if it can be explained sufficiently then it can stay (until a better alternative comes to light). But I stil feel strongly that explanation should be given in the figure caption and it should not be left to the reader to research the terms and units used. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Leave it until further people can comment. Or at least give me a week to look into it. Or you could go ahead and write some text to go with it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
No, its not my job to provide an explantion to an image that I don't even think should be included. Also it is not wise for me to explain something that I don't understand! Polyamorph (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
No replies at wikiproject medicine, perhaps you could propose a sentence that would explain the map to the lay person. Or you could give a longer explanation here and we could work together to summarise it. I think for now I've calmed down a bit. Until something similar comes to light which gives accurate statistics into e.g. worldwide prevalence (which I think will be some time i.e. years) then its the best we have. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
For example would "World-map showing the disability-adjusted life year, which is a measure of each country's disease burden, for self inflicted injuries per 100,000 inhabitants in 2004.[53]" be ok? Polyamorph (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes I think that conveys the material well.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Cool, I've added the caption. Polyamorph (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-harm/Archive_4&oldid=1049143576"