Commons:Deletion requests/File:Suicide-bag.png

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Suicide-bag.png

[edit]

The images in question:

Some users like User:Jacklee (not me) support deletion of this content on the grounds that it "poses a danger to human life." I am moving the discussion here from Commons:Village pump to associate this discussion with the images and archive it properly. Original discussion follows, but "deletion requestified". Dcoetzee (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete A while ago while fighting vandalism on Wikipedia, I came across the first image and found it potentially inappropriate. The whole diagram/how-to nature of it is what raised a flag in my head. I didn't know what to do, so I went to the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel to ask. The general consensus was of uncertainty and during the conversation, the second image was brought up.
So that leaves me to ask here, are these images appropriate enough to remain here or should they be deleted? I'll leave my opinion here: I think they should be deleted. They are too strong and descriptive, they pass beyond informative/educational, and I'm afraid they might encourage suicide or that someone will use the images to help them commit suicide using the methods in the images. The first image is way too informative because of all the measurements and labels and whatnot. The second image is just ... disturbing, in my opinion (I'm aware that it's probably fake).
The first image is not as big of a deal because it's not used anywhere currently. It was originally used on this Wikipedia page but I removed it for the time being because of my belief that it is inappropriate. Additionally, I'm not the only one who thinks that because it has been removed in the past, then later added back again until I finally removed it (look at the history).
The second image is more of a problem because it is used on several other Wikimedia projects. Uhai (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC) (Wikipedia: Uhai (talk)[reply]
  •  Delete I realize that the Commons is not censored, but these images do make me very uncomfortable. I would support a policy that distinguishes between adult material (in scope), and material that poses a danger to human life (how to commit murder or suicide, how to make a bomb, and so on – out of project scope). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete (Edit conflict). I too think these should be deleted, and a policy created... Rehman 09:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I believe these pictures should kept. Like it or not suicide is part of the world we live in and we can not just ignore an issue as important as suicide. The ways people tend to commit suicide are also a very important piece of knowledge about ourselves that should not be ignored on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Uhai, you say that these pictures should be deleted because and I quote "The first image is way too informative because of all the measurements and labels and whatnot. The second image is just ... disturbing, in my opinion".
About the first picture: your point is that because of all the measurements (the diagram is BTW not to scale as indicated on the picture) someone can use this picture to construct a suicide bag and kill himself/herself. I am sorry to bring this to you but there are so many ways to commit suicide and so many places to learn them removing this will not have any effect on the suicide rates around the world. In fact I would argue that they could increase were this picture to deleted because than people who are not the one planning to commit suicide probably will not immediately recognize a suicide bag when they see one before it is too late. Say for example that you are a relative or a friend of someone who is planning to commit suicide (and you are not aware of this person's plan). Now imagine if by accident you find in that person's room something that resembles a suicide bag and let's say that it was because of the diagram or picture on Wikipedia that you know how a suicide bag looks like. As you can tell this is a vital piece of information that can mean the difference between having someone commit suicide and being stopped before it is too late. This is just an example of course there are also other situations in which knowing what a suicide bag looks like can allow you to save someone's life.
About the second picture: Your argument in case of this picture is flawed because, well you could say the same thing about many other pictures on Wikimedia Commons. I for example would say that some of the historic and religious imagery on Wikipedia Commons is pretty disturbing as well but we keep it because they are a very important part of who we are and the world around us. The same goes for media concerning suicide.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I don't like the drawing or the photo and it also makes me feel uncomfortable. Main problem I see is that some countries (like Australia) class both the drawing and photograph as illegal for anyone, depending on the law in the country they are in, to even look at it! Bidgee (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete If we kept those kind of pictures, we should not wonder when there will be pictures about raping and other snuff videos. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep If we delete these pictures because they make some people feel uncomfortable or because someone thinks these pictures are disturbing we also should delete all pictures showing death, content with sexual connotations because some might not like that, pictures of firearms, etc. etc.
As you can see this is a very slippery slope. Also if someone feels that looking at imagery related to suicide makes them feel uncomfortable why is this someone looking for it and watching it? We have free will and we should use that free will to filter what we look for on the Internet. If someone is interested in the subject of suicide (and let's assume that someone can be interested in it and not plan to actually commit suicide) I do not see why we should remove such an important piece of information as the one provided by these pictures.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The first image has no conceivable educational use. Yes, it could "educate" someone in how to better commit suicide, but such "how-to" content is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and I have a hunch Wikibooks would not be interested in a "how to commit suicide" book. Since the content is not appropriate for any of our projects, it can and should be deleted from Commons.
I am also reluctant to keep the second image for exhibitionist reasons -- similar reasoning to why we don't keep random pictures of genitalia. Powers (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep These images will not motivate anybody to commit suicide and not having them will not stop anybody from committing suicide.
Wikibooks probably doesn't want to host a "how to" wikibook on suicide but they perhaps want to create a wikibook that explains for what reasons people try to commit suicide, the methods they employ and how other people can detect their plans before they carry them out or how to react properly if you discover a person who tried to commit suicide. This wikibook could use the images above so people are prepared to take the right measures to rescue a person that used a suicide bag. --Slomox (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Removing stuff simply because it makes you uncomfortable and don't like it is pretty much the definition of censorship. If simply publishing this image violates U.S. law there would be an issue, but we would need examples of the law and convictions. While the first one does make me uncomfortable as well, I'm not sure we should remove it. I guess it comes down to if we feel it is advocating a crime (suicide); that may step beyond the bounds, but I'm not sure it does -- that is more a matter of context, not the image itself. As for "not encyclopedic", we support more than encyclopedias. In this case, particularly, b:en:Suicide (a Wikibook). This images can certainly be useful in an educational discussion of suicide. Just because it's a controversial and uncomfortable topic does not mean we should shy away from discussing it altogether, which is what removal of the images amounts to. The second one, other than the name I guess, could almost be used to demonstrate the dangers of plastic bags -- without looking at the image name, there is nothing to indicate the situation was intentional. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I believe both images serve a legitimate educational purpose. In addition to the arguments outlined above (that they could assist in preventing suicides, illustrate dangers of plastic bags, etc.), suicide bags are also promoted as a means of self-euthanasia by euthanasia advocates in regions in which euthanasia is illegal; although I'm not taking a position in the political debate here, these advocates would argue that making information available on self-euthanasia methods is essential for empowering terminal patients with free choice. @LtPowers: Calling the second image "exhibitionistic" is ludicrous - it is not depicting erotic asphyxiation nor is it intended to do so. @Bidgee: If we believe it's illegal in some nations we could tag it appropriately to help warn reusers in those nations. @Jacklee: Although protecting human life is important, I think many of the topics you describe (media describing "how to make a bomb") also serve a legitimate educational purpose (learning about chemistry, training munitions workers, etc). We should, of course, avoid media that directly advocates imminent illegal action, but such media is rarely encountered. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: fair enough. (Anyway, it looks like there is no consensus for deletion.) I would agree that at the very least material that poses a clear and present danger to human life should be out of the project scope, though (as indicated earlier) I am inclined to think that we might not want certain types of files that may not meet that strict standard. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well, if it's "ludicrous", you must be right. In truth, though, I did not intend for the word to be taken sexually. My concern is that the individual in the photo took it with the intention of having the image of his face disseminated on Wikimedia wikis. Powers (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this secondary meaning didn't occur to me. I won't speculate on the uploader's intention - I think drawing attention would be more of an issue if they were going around replacing an alternative higher-quality image with their own, which would be problematic, but this image has no alternative at the moment. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep copyright seems ok, (possible) usage: check -> in scope. Multichill (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Regarding "I have a hunch Wikibooks would not be interested in a 'how to commit suicide' book". Well, I think you have not checked usage for File:Suicide bag.jpg, which has been use at en:b:Suicide/Suffocation since May 2010. Therefore it's in scope. Nominate that book for deletion at Wikibooks if you feel otherwise, or find a replacement image that would serve the same purpose. – Adrignola talk 19:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To quote from that book: "This book aims to be a scholarly discussion of philosophy and not a debate or guide." I stand by my reasoning that a suicide instruction manual is not in Wikibooks' scope, and that's the only conceivable use for an instructional diagram (which is the image I was referring to, not the one you point out as being in use). Powers (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The suicide bag is a well known concept. They are sold in several countries. The wikipedia page on the w:suicide bag used to feature this image until someone unlinked it. It should be relinked. The photo of the child in the bag is a prank photo, and may be deleted, although I see no strong case for or against on that one. Oceankeys (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment It was removed by me because of the whole "how-to" nature of it. A photograph or drawing of an actual suicide bag (sans the labels and measurements) would be more appropriate than that image. If the phrasing and general tone of the image were changed, I can see it being more appropriate. If it's added back to that Wikipedia page, I will remove it again, and if I am disagreed with then it can be discussed over at W:AN/I or somewhere else. As already said, it has no educational use other than helping someone better commit suicide. It's a schematic. Are schematics of torture devices or pipe bombs available on Wikimedia projects? No, they aren't. Also it's irrelevant whether it's to scale or not - it still has the measurements. - Uhai (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have strong feelings about this image, for whatever reason. Comparing a diagram of a suicide bag to a torture device or bomb betrays a degree of emotional involvement incongruous in an encyclopaedic setting, imo. If you cannot be dispassionate, it may be best to recuse yourself from the discussion. Just a suggestion. Your assertion that this has "no purpose other than to help people commit suicide" is a highly subjective view, arguable at best. If you object to dimensions being shown, why not edit them out and re-upload? Oceankeys (talk)
You're distorting what I have said - perhaps you should reread it. I was stating that there are no schematics for torture devices or bombs on Wikimedia, therefore why should there be a schematic for a suicide device on Wikimedia? They are easily in the same category: they kill (well not the torture devices so much but they're just as bad). Next thing you know Wikimedia will be sued by a suicide victim's family for providing detailed information on suicide methods. Now instead of sticking brainlessly to the policy that Wikimedia isn't censored, why don't we apply some common sense here? Where does the line get drawn? Also my "assertion" was actually originally stated above by Powers. - Uhai (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I'm done with this. Keep the image, if you want. I'm not going to try to edit it because I don't know how to upload it as a revision. If I do see this image on Wikipedia again, there will be a thorough discussion about it over there, rest assured. - Uhai (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep discussion here about whether the image should be kept on Commons rather than whether it should be used in the English Wikipedia article. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll edit it if you like, but give me a few days. I'll change the text to make it less "instructional" and more descriptive; I think that's probably appropriate. In general, we need to avoid making value judgements about information. This diagram may be dangerous in some hands, but useful, or even essential, in others. Editors are not moral guardians on controversial topics like euthanasia, where there are widely differing opinions in society. I suggest this be closed as a keep pending changes I suggest above. Oceankeys (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair. - Uhai (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. This deletion request can be closed now. Oceankeys (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Although the contents at Commons:Village pump says the discussion has been moved here, only some of the comments that were voiced at the Village Pump were moved here. I am not suggesting that the suppression of comments from there were obfuscated in an act of bad faith. But this "move" of the discussion was not done with enough care. I found Carl Lindberg's comments there particularly convincing. I recommend interested parties read the last version before the excision there, as found at this link. Geo Swan (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not remove any of the comments during the move, as far as I know, only flatted the threading and added the keep/delete templates. Carl Lindberg's comments ("Removing stuff simply because...") are copied above. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If you ignore the name the second image, File:Suicide bag.jpg, could be illustrating the practice of auto-erotic asphysication -- where individuals starve their brains of oxygen, while masturbating, on the theory they will have more intense orgasms. It is a dangerous practice. Some practioners do die. But when they do it is an accident, not suicide.

    I know there are some contributors who would argue for deletion on the grounds they want to prune from the commons any image that has an association with human sexuality. The other extreme from that view is that commons should be wide=open to all images with an association with human sexuality. I believe, most of us agree that some images associated with human sexuality belong, provided an argument can be made that the image has educational value, and provided it is duplicative of earlier sexuality related images. Geo Swan (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep File:Suicide-bag.png -- The death, by suicide, of an otherwise healthy individual who is suffering from a temporary mental imbalance is sad, regretable. However, many of us do not regard the death, by suicide, of those facing a lingering, painful, less dignified death, due to a terminal disease as any kind of a tragedy at all. My father died of cancer. He had been a long time believer in the right for those with terminal diseases to pick their moment of departure. But when he was diagnosed with terminal cancer none of his medications were potentially fatal. He was forced to live through additional months of painful, and undignified life, when he and everyone who loved him knew he would have chosen his moment, if only he had known a relatively painless method to pick his moment. So far as I am concerned images like File:Suicide-bag.png are educational, and are a valuable public service. Geo Swan (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep these images disturb me, but so do many others here, that they are disturbing is not a valid reason for their removal. Given that we are not censored I wish there was someway of letting a would be viewer know what to expect before being confronted with the images.--KTo288 (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Copyright's OK. Clearly an informative, educational diagram, and thus in scope. This could easily be used legitimately on a number of different Wikimedia articles. Buddy431 (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The png-image appears as a manual on how to commit suicide, which is highly inappropriate.
Moreover, the content is also ridiculous. Every little detail is described meticulously, while this is unnecessary: Why does it have to be an "oven" bag? Why is a cord lock needed? I could go on with almost everything that is described in the figure. Any plastic bag that is somehow fastened tight around ones neck will suffice. This image brags with professionalism that is neither required nor appropriate. Tomeasy (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. We understand you don't like the image. But could you please make a good faith effort to explain why you consider it "highly inappropriate"? Do you think the image is out of scope? If so how is out of scope?

    With regard to your concerns over the level of detail, can you cite a policy that says this level of detail is inappropriate? If the intended audience for this drawing are individuals like my father who were diagnosed with a terminal disease and can only look forward to months of increasingly painful, and debiltating symptoms, increasing weakness, possible dementia, who would prefer to pick their moment, then details are not "ridiculous", they are appropriate. Geo Swan (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The jpeg-image is nothing that I would add to an article, but I would not censor this one. It is neither a manual for suicide nor does the other criticism apply that I raised above. Tomeasy (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep We cannot censor pictures only because they are disturbing. Wikipedia already contains pictures that are even more disturbing than this one because they show people dying violent deaths: example one; example two. Viewer discomfort is an inadmissable criterion for censorship. Odea 19:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that is not a reason to delete these images. My concerns are scope (instructional content) and propriety (exhibitionism). Powers 16:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      1. From their initial comment it seems that LtPowers's position is that there can be no legitimate reason for good faith readers to require instruction of a suicide bag. In my keep I explained why I thought there was a legitimate reason for instructios for a suicide bag. Good faith contributors can take differing positions on this question. This could be seen as essentiall a political question. But, from LtPowers comments here he or she seems to think they can treat this as a non-question, that it is obvious, and does not require explanation why we should not offer instruction on suicide bags.
      2. LtPowers, with regard to "propriety" and exhibitionism. I've uploaded about five thousand images. I believe some contributors have uploaded an order or magnitude more images, with a very low error rate. But would anyone argue, "Joe Bloggs has uploaded 30,000 good images, so we should allow this image to remain, even if some contributors have voiced some meaningful concerns about this one"? Do I know for s certain fact that the second image wasn't uploaded with an exhibitionist intent? No, I don't. But, just as we don't keep images just because a long-term, valued contributor, whose judgment is usually reliable, uploaded a questionable image with good faith, we shouldn't delete an image evem of we (somehow) knew it was uploaded for exhibitionism, if it actually is useful and in scope. It is the value the image holds for the project that counts, not the uploader's intent. Geo Swan (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I appreciate the principle that we shouldn't censor images, but this policy, like any, can be superseded by consensus. I also agree that the file is "not realistically useful for an educational purpose".-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 18:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: the first, Deleted. the second, first is informative and in use in articles, second is disturbing and could be dangerous Jcb (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Suicide-bag.png&oldid=54063269"