Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/The term committed suicide

< Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Should we use the term "committed suicide"?

edit

Many times this has been brought up, but no consensus has been found. Even in a Wikipedia article, it has been acknowledged that the term "committed suicide" can stigmatizing and offensive (and outdated). Related: MOS:SUICIDE, MOS 2014, WTW 2016, MOSBIO 2017, MOS 2017, VPPOL 2018, VPPOL 2017, WTW 2018, CAT 2019, VPPOL 2021, VPPOL 2023. {{Sam S|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 19:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As someone affected by suicide, I find "died by suicide" and other artificial attempts to avoid saying either "committed suicide" or "killed themself" offensive and patronising at best. DuncanHill (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eschew Obfuscation. Circumlocutions just add clutter. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stigmatizing as the term can be to some, in this case I think it's justified and not outdated. A lot of people who use the phrases "committed suicide" or "killed themself" do not mean harm or offense, even though it may not come off that way. If you as an editor feel that an article could be better worded using other phrases though, then I say go ahead so long as it doesn't violate consensus. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 20:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Washington Redskins wasn't meant to be offensive either, but it's not professional is it?. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's different. Washington Redskins was the name of a billion-dollar football team, not text in a Wikipedia article. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 20:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning it's even more absurd that we can't keep up with the times? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of. The thing is, people still use those terms for someone ending their own life. Most people today use the word Commanders to talk about the football team, except to discuss the naming controversy. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 21:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People use colloquialisms in common speech, that doesn't mean it's professional. Commit suicide is a colloquialism. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fixed phrase. I am not persuaded that it's a colloquialism. --Trovatore (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that fixed phrases cannot be colloquialisms? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course not. I'm saying I'm not persuaded that this one is a colloquialism. --Trovatore (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would persuade you? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't know. Thus far you've adduced no evidence for the claim. Maybe see what you can find and I'll see if I think it's convincing. --Trovatore (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But what evidence do you have that "commit suicide" is professional? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed it was a colloquialism; you back it up. --Trovatore (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have a very large RFC on this some years ago that I inotiated, where the consensus is to follow what the sources say, and not force away the language, though if there's a choice, avoided "commited" is fine. Most modern sources avoid the term but older sources likely will used "committed suicide" so it probably will be used in describing deaths before ~2000 — Masem (t) 19:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a misinterpretation of the close which states that we should determine what phrasing is best practice by following trends, not using language from old sources: Perhaps the best idea is to see what the cited sources in each article say and follow their formulation. This will naturally cause us to track whatever trend exists in society.[1] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is likely we will find consensus on this. Perhaps it is best to consider this a MOS:STYLEVAR type issue for the moment and to allow article writers to choose freely how to report suicides and then to respect their choice. —Kusma (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Sam recently made this change to Carlo Michelstaedter, an article that I had originally translated from the Italian. It rubs me the wrong way and I have considered undoing the edit, and still may. But of course I certainly don't want to make it more likely that a reader will commit suicide.
What specifically rubs me the wrong way about "died by suicide" is that it removes agency from the person, like it's something that just happened. I don't have the same objection to "killed himself". I might change the Michelstaedter article to use that. --Trovatore (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I rather suspect that removing the implication of agency and autonomy is not considered a downside to the experts that promote this change. People who kill themselves as a result of deliberate, considered plans have agency and autonomy. For example, hospice programs in the US support people voluntarily stopping eating and drinking ("VSED"), and this involves agency and autonomy. People also kill themselves during psychotic breaks, or because their culture demands suicide to save face. This does not involve so much agency and autonomy. It is not unreasonable to say that someone was "killed by mental illness" or "murdered by military orders", or to otherwise minimize the implication of autonomy and agency. Because reality varies, IMO we need to have the full range of language available to us.
Maybe I'll throw something together at WP:Committed suicide, so we can have an explanation in one place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If your first sentence is true, then to me that means that these experts are in deep moral and philosophical error. There is nothing more degrading than to lose one's free will. Free will is the sine qua non of humanity. To imply that these persons have lost it is very insulting indeed. --Trovatore (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think actually happens to a person who is experiencing a psychotic break? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think they still have free will. Their choices may be based on an incorrect assessment of reality, and be made using invalid cognition or in a state of panic, but they are still choices; they are not some external thing. --Trovatore (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If someone genuinely believes that they have wings and can safely fly, and they are surprised to discover themselves plummeting to the ground, were they really choosing to kill themselves? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They were choosing to attempt to fly. Didn't work out, but it was still their act, not something that happened to them. --Trovatore (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Normally – if we had the necessary information – we would not call this suicide at all. Suicide requires an intention to die. In the absence of that necessary intention, I think it would be fair to say that the person "killed themselves", but they did not "commit suicide". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the case where the person genuinely did not recognize that the action came with a serious risk of death is vanishingly rare. I wouldn't put much weight on this sort of outlier. That said, I generally think "killed themselves" is fine. --Trovatore (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC) I expect there are also borderline cases, where someone is killed half-accidentally after deliberately engaging in reckless conduct. I'm currently re-reading The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul, where Adams describes an individual who [...] died of a lethal overdose of brick wall, taken while under the influence of a Ferrari and a bottle of tequila. But we may be drifting from the topic at hand... --Trovatore (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Hello @Trovatore, I’d like to offer a little more context on why health professionals have migrated away from “committed”. In attempting to reduce suicide, we see it as important to acknowledge the degraded decision-making capability associated with diseases like major depression. Dw31415 (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well, I think that's a very serious moral and philosophical error. --Trovatore (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It could be that someone's making a very serious moral error, but it could also be that someone else is making a very serious factual error. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Died by suicide" = "died by killing themself". All potential agency is retained. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "died by suicide" is grammatically correct; consider: "Although he died by self-slaughter, in a criminal's cell...." (1851, [2]) "If it appears that he died by self-murder, Finding in the inquisition shall conclude...." (1894, [3]) Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The initial post is a rather one-sided presentation of views - some people regard it as "offensive" and/or "outdated", but that is far from the universal view, even among those closest to it. I'm not one of those closely affected, but I find constructions like "died by suicide" and similar to be clumsy and inferior to active language like "committed suicide" or "killed themselves". The last discussion on this matter I recall came to a consensus that articles should not be edited to change one style to the other without explicit prior consensus on the talk page, and I see no reason to change that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another RFC will lead to the same outcome. There's a bunch of people out there that try to be offended by as many things as possible. This is one of them. While it is their right to be offended by it, they are nowhere near the majority of people. I'm personally repulsed by this sort of bowlderization. If sources say someone comitted suicide, so should we. The phrase is neutral. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Two people close to me have died in this way, and I don't care whether it is called committing suicide (a neutral term) or killing themselves. What is more important is to explain to people that it is not the only solution to their problems. "Died by suicide" is both an offense against the English language and denies people agency. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See i see it the other way around - died by suicide - shows some respect for the depth of mental illness required to kill someone - much as death by cancer, or died in an accident show for their causation. "committed suicide" has way too many "took the easy way out" or "poor thing was always a bit fragile" overtones - or at least for my generation it does. (acknowledging that word use and semantics changes by generation) An Old History Geek (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are differences by generation.
As a side note, it's important not to assume that every suicide attempt or death involves mental illness. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Phil Bridger, I’m sorry for your loss. I’d like to offer that people suffering from major depression might not be fully capable of responding to rational explanations and may not be able to think clearly in terms of problems and solutions. That said your comment is a good reminder that, for those grieving the loss of a loved one, this discussion offers little or no comfort. Dw31415 (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ngram data shows that "died by suicide" is barely a blip compared to the normal phrasing "committed suicide". The phrasing is not offensive or harmful, and I find the idea that people who suffer from depression are strongly affected by the exact phrasing to be a bit farfetched and reductive. Keep as-is, unless the sources use a particular term. We don't need an RFC for this BugGhost 🦗👻 21:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When someone says that ____ is offensive to them, we should believe them. We should not tell them that they were mistaken, and the thing that upsets them isn't upsetting at all. It actually is offensive – to some. It actually does seem outdated – to some. It actually is upsetting and distressing – to some. It actually does contribute to the stigmatization of mental illness and survivors – a little. It's not necessary to share these views to recognize that these views exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Believing them is fine, as long as that does not mean that article content is altered to make someone feelings be soothed. This is an encyclopedia where we freely share information; it is not a therapy couch. Zaathras (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, so we should use an encyclopedic tone. That sometimes means leaning away from language that, in the specific context, will be perceived by some readers – even if it's just a minority of them – as needlessly judgmental and offensive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: But you're happy to use "died by suicide" when you know it is perceived by some readers as needlessly offensive? DuncanHill (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen no sources claiming that "died by suicide" results in people feeling offended. I have only seen aesthetic complaints (it's clunky, it's not traditional...), but it being unaesthetic is not the same thing as it being offensive.
That said, I don't happen to prefer that phrase myself, so if I'm writing the article, you are much more likely to see blunt, simple phrases like "killed himself". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have at least two editors in this discussion who have said they find "died by suicide" offensive. Using your words, we should believe them. Some1 (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I do believe them. As I said here, I've seen "no sources" claiming this. I do see two editors reporting this, and I'm both curious about and supportive of their views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a diagnosis of depression and I find "died by suicide" offensive. I hope you believe me. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you Phil, I am in much the same position. DuncanHill (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether people who dislike the lack-of-agency implications of that clunky phrase (though not a neologism; it's been in print for ~200 years) feel the same about a phrase like "died by forced suicide", where the point is that the person did not have an ordinary amount of choice.
On the other side, "committed suicide by cop" sounds wrong to me, even though it involves committing an actual crime. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usually the opposite of stigmatizing is normalizing. I would actually rather we use stigmatizing language than normalizing language with regard to suicide, which should definitely not be normalized. I hope most survivors and their loved ones don't really want us to use language that might lessen our readers' good and healthy inhibition about suicide, out of fear that it might pair with an aversion to suicide survivors.
But there's no need to use "commit" which is still a bit religious in tone despite being very widespread. I guess the main objection to "killed themself" is it's too casual? IMO it's fine. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although your intentions are good, stigmatizing something is a double-edged sword, as the stigma not only attaches to the act itself, but can also make it harder for people to talk about, whether that be someone talking about their own suicidal ideation (and it's important that they be able to talk about it, as opening up to a family member or friend or hotline about the depth of what they are struggling with can help someone avoid acting on that ideation), or talking about a loved one struggling with suicidal ideation or having killed themself (and it's important that people be able to talk about their worries and grief). FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I think it is very much worth stigmatizing the act itself, despite potential costs. In many times and places suicide has been normalized. The stigma which we have built here and now is important and good and not to be taken for granted. To the extent that we can protect bystanders from distress, we should—but I place an absolute priority on maintaining societal non-acceptance of the act itself, which prevents more suicides than any treatment norm ever could.
Is there some objection to "Killed themself"?
BTW I came to this discussion because a fellow editor changed language at Chaim Walder to "Walder died by suicide". I see that Adolf Hitler suffered the same edit. Hitler in particular belonged to a society which elevated suicide as the correct response to failure; he had previously ordered many underlings to kill themselves. He did not "die by" an external force. And re both Walder and Hitler, the idea of intentionally softening our description of these acts of terrible evil cowardice, which were sins intentionally "committed" in the truest sense, is revolting. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Occasionally, someone will say that "killed himself" is too blunt or harsh. However, this is not a common response, and editors usually ignore such comments. There are alternatives that I think editors should consider if a certain amount of delicacy is wanted; for example, "His death was reported as a suicide", or you could work it into another sentence, e.g., "He lived there until his suicide on [date]".
In some cases, I think "committed suicide" is appropriate language. For example, historical ritual suicides should IMO not be described the same way as a frightened cancer patient, nor the same way as the death of an impulsive teenager. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
THIS^^ TOTALLY THIS! - suicide should have as much context in its reporting as is possible. Ritual Suicide, Honor system suicides. political/religious suicides are more death by social contract. A poor kid looking to end their suffering rather then seek help (which may or may not ever be there) - should not be spoken of in the same terms. A Veteran who commits "suicide by cop" deserves better then "committed suicide" - if anything death by mental illness. death by suicide makes it clear that this was a tragedy without a cause, a statement or anything more then a cry for help. An Old History Geek (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The suicide prevention organizations have gone off the "cry for help" language. I guess some kids misunderstood that as "here's a good way to ask for help". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it the issue with “death was reported as a suicide” is that it could create a sense of ambiguity in situations where that isn’t warranted — it might make sense for an article like Jeffrey Epstein but not, say, Kurt Cobain. I don’t have a strong opinion on “died by” vs “committed”; I’m not super educated on the debate but as a reader, either seems okay to use in articles. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly my point above. Sometimes a slight sense of ambiguity if warranted. Sometimes it's not. One-size-fits-all rules are not good in this subject area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that "societal non-acceptance of the act itself ... prevents more suicides than any treatment norm ever could." In my experience (admittedly not a random sample), societal non-acceptance is not a factor in people's decisions to kill themselves or not. There's a significant difference between not stigmatizing something (which I advocate here) and elevating it (which I do not advocate). FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I doubt "committing suicide" is stigmatizing, as it is often used in official documents, and in fact, I have a friend who did attempt to commit suicide and he does use that term.(FYI He is getting better and is fine with his life at school)
Using other terms like "Died by suicide" and "Killed themselves" are very informal and are, In my personal opinion, even more offensive. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of anti-LGBT laws, which are official documents, use stigmatizing language for LGBT people. Obviously, there's no correlation between something being used in official documents and it not being stigmatizing. JJPMaster (she/they) 13:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "being stigmatizing" is an actual argument here, as I believe that anything on earth can be called stigmatizing at this point. And I would also rather Wikipedia be professional and use official sources anyways.
Even for stigma, I believe "committed suicide" is the most non-stigmatizing way to describe it. If I said my friend "attempted to kill himself", I would get in trouble at my school for being offensive, and he would probably be quite offended honestly, while if I used "attempted to commit suicide", that wouldn't offend him, I would still get in trouble(My school actively tries to cover up things that do not paint them in a positive light) but for different reasons.
Nothing can completely avoid stigma, but using "Committing suicide" is arguably the most common, professional and polite term available already. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does your school speak English as the main/only language? The polite words to use differ depending on language you're speaking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FOO, this is a bit off topic, but Gordon is not completely wrong. It's likely that social stigma directly prevents some suicides while indirectly causing others. Many suicide factors are beyond the individual's control. For example, suicide risks are higher in an individualistic culture (e.g., Scandinavia) and in shame cultures (e.g., Japan). Some social stigma for suicide itself, at the whole-society level, seems to have a mild preventive tendency. However, if that stigma means people don't seek the help they need, then you also end up with preventable deaths among people with serious mental health problems. It's not as simple as saying "Let's save lives by having some social stigma" or "Let's save lives by having no social stigma". It's more like "We have this much and kind of social stigma, which means we have fewer suicides in this situation but more suicides in that context". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should not tell them that they were mistaken, and the thing that upsets them isn't upsetting at all - I very much agree to the principal - but so far in this discussion I only see the opposite: those that have been affected by suicide in their personal lives (including myself) are being told by others that they are offended by the term "committed suicide", when in fact they aren't. This is very similar to the manufactured "Latinx" term that is overwhelmingly disliked by the group it is meant to represent. BugGhost 🦗👻 23:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not true. Editors are being told that some people are offended by the term "committed suicide". Editors are not being told what their own opinions are. They are being told that an unspecified fraction of people-who-are-not-editors hold this opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Insisting that we stop saying something because some people find it offensive is linguistic fascism and an obstacle to truth. It might be offensive to Richard Speck 's family to refer to him as a murderer, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't. Using a euphemism for committed suicide trivializes it and dehumanizes the victim. I had a cousin ז״ל who committed suicide, and it was a tragedy, not something to be minimized as, e.g., unalived. He mattered. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "died by suicide" is patronizing and offensive. DoubleCross (‡) 01:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should stick to natural language and avoid prescription. Changes like this are often well-intentioned but typically lead to reader confusion, a drop in accessibility, and even instill a sense of distrust. The notorious latinx is a good example. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it currently is. Wikipedia is not censored. In fact, "died of suicide" or others just sounds even weirder. "Committed suicide" is NOT stigmatizing/offensive, and I believe we should keep things simple. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Use “killed him/herself”. “Committed suicide” strongly implies commission of a criminal offence, as suicide (or at least attempting it) once was one in many jurisdictions. It remains highly stigmatised in many countries. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Committing suicide requires a lot of… commitment. The word does not necessarily imply wrong doing. Consider: “As we commit his body to the grave, led by a priest who has committed himself to a life of prayer, let us hope that the general will stop committing so many troops to battle.” Blueboar (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Um, none of those three uses are the usage in "commited suicide", which is a synonym of "perpetrate". In your example, the first is a synonym of "transfer", the second and third are synonyms of "pledged". Black Kite (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to stress that a lot of the arguments above are re-treading the well-attended RFC from 2021, (see VPPOL 2021 that was already linked in opening statement). While consensus can change, there's not much new being added here to suggest that the area around that RFC has changed, more specifically, that there isn't any evidence from things like style guides that suggest we should be pushing away from that terms. Instead, this seems more rehashing on "the term seems unsensitive", which was already dismissed per NOTCENSORED. Masem (t) 13:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow what the sources say. Modern sources (Anglophone ones, at least) tend not to use the phrase "committed suicide", so we should not be using it if the majority of sources don't. Having said that, I'm going to have a rant about NOTCENSORED. It is not a get-out clause for being unnecessarily offensive when we don't need to be and people saying "well, I don't care what you think, I'm going to use this unnecessary phrase anyway because NOTCENSORED, haha!" really does make me think they are the exact people who should probably not be editing biographies. Black Kite (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Does historical context provide enough reason for the use of "committed"? The act may have been considered much more serious when it was deemed to be a sin and/or a crime. Or does the entire encyclopaedia need to written so as not to upset modern sensibilities? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is suicide no longer deemed a sin? I know churches differ greatly in their interpretation, but I know that at the time Graham Greene wrote Brighton Rock the Catholic Church considered it to be a mortal sin. Has that changed now? I'm not up to date with Catholic doctrine. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On WP:NOTCENSORED, I do not think this should be an excuse to be deliberately offensive just to be offensive, However I believe that there are other, more important things to take into consideration than "Does one person find this offensive"; In that case, biographies would be very one sided, and there would be no controversy section. If this were the case, Wikipedia would become more censored than North Korea. I get that my phrasing was, not necessarily the best, however I believe that whether people find something offensive should not prevent us from using more professional terms, or terms that are less offensive and a minority believe they are, as in this case. Update: I accidentally used WP:NOTCENSORED Instead of MOS:EUPHThehistorianisaac (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a strong feeling one way or another on this, but there's no evidence I've seen that Modern sources (Anglophone ones, at least) tend not to use the phrase "committed suicide". Rather, looking at Google ngrams it looks like committed is still a degree of magnitude ahead. Google news search shows 2.3 million responses for "committed suicide" in the past year, with "died by suicide" around 175k, so again a degree of magnitude. I know ngrams aren't the end-all-be-all, and Google news search isn't what it used to be, but it doesn't look like the language has caught on yet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet, when I looked at UK news sources last time this came up, the language was all over the place. I thought "let's have a look at the Daily Mail - if any paper's going to use the wording it will be them". However ... this search seems to suggest that "killed him/her/themself" is the most common, followed by "took his/her own life", as well as "died by suicide" and "committed suicide". There does seem to be some move to avoid it, so you have stuff like "He made a suicide leap from a cliff" or "he died after hanging himself deliberately". Black Kite (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about this ngrams result showing a massive drop-off of "committed suicide"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zooming in to just the current century, it looks like that phrase disappeared during the pandemic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: So actually it looks like both lines go to exactly zero starting sometime in 2020. My guess is that this is related less to covid than to the fact that you've chosen the corpus English (2019), whatever that means exactly. If you change the corpus to just English, "committed" still has nearly a 10x advantage on "died by" all the way to the end of the graph in 2022. --Trovatore (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for figuring out the source of those astonishing results! I thought that it was on the 2022 dataset, but I didn't double check. The relevant dataset shows "committed" becoming less popular around the pandemic, but still being more common. This link is better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember where the 2019 corpus came from, but if you search
newspapers.com hits per year:
Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Those are interesting numbers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for compiling, interesting to note. Nisingh.8 (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that these only appear to be British newspapers, and that "killed himself" numbers must be supplemented with "killed herself", "killed themselves" and perhaps others. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, noted they are not gender-neutral but even with just one phrase, the numbers indeed look similar or more than "commit suicide" which will only augment with other search phrases. Not a recommendation either way - just interesting notes Nisingh.8 (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ultimately, i oppose this, if mostly over the nitty gritty of mos:euph. saying that someone "died by suicide" implies the suicide happened to them (yes, i stole this from hbomberguy, sue me). similarly, expressions like "passed away", "passed on", and "was a side character in a grimdark story" are unclear, unfitting of the extremely plain wording used in articles, and generally just come off as trying to skirt around Just Saying The Thing™. "died", "was killed", and "committed suicide" are way easier to get. no opinion on "killed themself", aside from a slight preference towards "committed suicide", since it could probably make the wording of any given paragraph a little clunkier
also, i was gonna say wikipedia generally doesn't conform to a style on the sole or predominant basis that it'll offend the least people, but as it seems, people who have struggled with suicide seem to prefer just referring to it as that, so i guess this point would be kind of redundant here consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 14:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; "committed suicide" not only follows MOS:EUPH(thank you so much for helping me remember the name of this policy. I accidentally used "WP:NOTCENSORED" instead), I believe that it is also less disrespectful Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, in comparison to other terms like "took their own life", "committed suicide" is not a euphemism, it had wide common usage to describe acts of suicide, and until recent use of terms like "died by suicide", had no alternate non-euphemism phrasing. Masem (t) 14:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Euphemism treadmill. Anomie⚔ 15:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing, in time, it may be that something like "died by suicide" is the accepted wording that is not considered a euphemism, and "committed suicide" is, but we would need a clear consensus from a majority of style guides that "died by suicide" (or another phrase) is far more preferred to make that switch - we do not lead but follow changes in language. Masem (t) 17:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "committed suicide" is not a euphemism, but "killed himself" is also not a euphemism. Therefore, there clearly was at least one alternate non-euphemism phrasing available before the advent of "died by suicide". Which, by the way, appeared in print no later than 1787, so that so-called "new" phrase, died by suicide, is about 250 years old.
"Killed himself" is the oldest option, largely because the word suicide itself only dates back to 1643.[4] The reason the word suicide doesn't appear in Shakespeare's works is because the word hadn't been invented back then.
In the Victorian era, the blunt "killed himself" appears to have become less common, and the formal "committed suicide" began to rise in use. The decline in popularity for "killed himself" might be due the Victorian era's preference for euphemisms, formality, and softening/distancing language over rough and ready language choices. If I were looking for non-euphemisms, I would not generally recommend starting with Victorian-era preferences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Consarn, “killed themselves” is preferred to “committed” from a medical perspective if that’s more comfortable for you in your writing. Dw31415 (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wondering whether the objection is to the word “committed” or to using the word “suicide” itself? Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the objection is to "committed". The argument is that this is generally used for crimes - "committed murder" - or sins - "committed adultery" - and therefore is unhelpful and pejorative way to use in the context of suicide. (It is probably worth noting that, historically, suicide has been considered both a crime and a sin - people who killed themselves could not be buried in Roman Catholic cemeteries until the 1980s, and suicide is still a felony in at least one US state.)
    While I'd agree with this objection in principle, I believe "committed" also remains the most common way to refer to the act of suicide in common English, which tends to be Wikipedia's guide for usage. (And, along similar lines to the etymological fallacy, it is not always fair to assume that because a phrasing is likely to have a particular origin, it still necessarily carries all the same implications.)
    My inclination is that MOS:SUICIDE currently sets roughly the right balance, in not outright banning "committed", but suggesting caution, and providing other phrasings that may be more appropriate. But I wouldn't object to a stronger discouragement if others felt it necessary. TSP (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the objection is to "committed". Public health experts want people to talk about suicide, and to use the word suicide. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was leaning one way but Googled and found an NPR article title Outdated language that changed my mind. It states:

    The Associated Press Stylebook guides journalists to "avoid using the phrase committed suicide. Alternate phrases include killed himself, took her own life or died by suicide. The verb commit with suicide can imply a criminal act. Laws against suicide have been repealed in the United States and many other places."

    I see no reason not to use this logic in my wording and will attempt to change my language surrounding the topic. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should use the term committed. They chose to commit the act and successfully killed themselves. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which completely misses the point of the general usage of the word "committed" in this context (see the comment immediately above yours). Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems weird to me that "died by suicide" isn't being seen as a neutral term. It's a simple statement that they died and the cause of death was suicide. If there's more to say, we can say it. "After a long battle with worsening schitzophrenia, he died by suicide."; "He applied for and received euthanasia on December 2012."; "After killing his wife and child, he killed himself, in what has been described as a 'typical murder-suicide'."; or, for a practical example from Ludwig Boltzmann, "In May 1906, Boltzmann's deteriorating mental condition (described in a letter by the Dean as "a serious form of neurasthenia") forced him to resign his position. His symptoms indicate he experienced what might today be diagnosed as bipolar disorder. Four months later he died by suicide on 5 September 1906, by hanging himself while on vacation with his wife and daughter in Duino, near Trieste (then Austria)."

I don't see how using "committed" in any of these examples would add anything. We're not adding some subtle variation of meaning; you need more words than either "died by" or "committed" to have any real nuance of meaning. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 22:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, I think that sometimes editors prefer the disapproval inherent in "committed". One book calls it "a whiff of criminality", and talks about the transition from society disapproving of suicide because it's a sin to society disapproving of suicide because it's a sign of "insanity". There are several comments above about "died by" seeming too passive, whereas "committed" means the person made intentional choices. I think sometimes we want to blame the dead person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WAID is, politely and circumspectly, referring to me; she knows that I think we should try to choose language that deters suicide.—S Marshall T/C 00:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think she's referring only to you.
To the extent that she may be referring to me, I'd like to clarify that, for me, it is not about blame. The person made a choice. Perhaps I'd have preferred a different choice, but this is fact-dependent. In any case I was not in a position to make the decision; that person was, and made it. This is entirely separate from "blame", which assumes at the very least that the choice was wrong, a fact not in evidence. --Trovatore (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here might not be neutrality, but the way language correlates to other descriptions of deaths. "Died by X" implies a specific means, but "suicide" is a manner of death. "Died by homicide" for example is sometimes used, but to me it reads similarly strangely. I suspect there will be a lot of personal variation around what language sounds natural. CMD (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, suicide is a specific means. "died from being stabbed", "died by heart attack", "died by suicide". Again, though, I don't understand the argument that "committed" is neutral, but "died by" is somehow a non-neutral term. It would seem to be the exact reverse. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 12:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suicide is not a specific means. It is a word that identifies the relationship between the person responsible for the death and the person who died, much like other -cide words. CMD (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't say "committed homicide" to indicate they died by homicide, though. I'm not seeing any sort of valid argument as to why "died by suicide" shouldn't be considered a neutral, default wording, nor any real argument in favour of "committed". There are cases where we could perhaps avoid either version, e.g. "He hung himself, a suicide", but it feels like "died by suicide" usually flows better with other details. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 18:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Committed homicide" is a very common phrase? Why wouldn't someone say it? CMD (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Mary died of homicide, you wouldn't say "Mary committed homicide." If John died of fratricide, you wouldn't say "John committed fratricide." 22:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC) Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 22:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But you would say that "John committed homicide when he killed Mary". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because homicide is generally considered a crime. People don't use "committed" with "-cide" words that are not crimes - "The cleaner went into the bathroom and committed germicide", "the farmer committed pesticide", "the condom committed spermicide". TSP (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If someone were to use any of those -cide words with a meaning of "the act of killing X" rather than "a substance for killing X", I'd expect "committed" would be likely to be used. Google does return results for these "commit" phrases, although many at first glance seem like people being humorous rather than serious use (likely because "the act of killing X" isn't common English usage for any of these words in the first place). Anomie⚔ 12:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because pesticides and germicides are substances, unlike homocide and suicide which are actions. The term 'committed feticide' is used, even in relation to animals: [5] Traumnovelle (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break - !voting

edit
  • Absolutely no "Committed" Per S Marshall, while most people no longer know this, it originally implied "committed the sin of suicide". In 2025, Christians and RSes agree that the suicidal are primarily sufferers of organic medical conditions, not 'committing a sin'. As an aside, it's a very good sign that we've reached an era where people can even debate whether "committing suicide" is a stigmatizing phrase. It always was. Feoffer (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't there was also the legal aspect, i.e. committing the crime of suicide? I'm not sure I've seen any evidence that all Christian denominations have agreed that. Also, many RSs still use "committed"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, the civil law aspect of it was a big deal too. But "committed" is certainly archaic, outdated language. Feoffer (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The NYT was still using it in 2021 and the BBC in 2012? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Committing imply neither of those things. I highly doubt the catholic church gives much of a fuck when someone commits code to GitHub. Here it simply means 'to carry out', i.e. to have done. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're using the wrong definition of commit. Maybe the etymology will help: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/committo#Latin Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That definition is not reliable or complete. I do not see anything there that would explain how I might have committed something to memory. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 03:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the second meaning of commit, which is more or less 'to pledge'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, right. Well, so much for me helping your case. 😂 Also, it was somewhere around the fifth meaning of commit where I finally clicked on it, but thank you for the heads up regardless. 👍 Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 06:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add, I make this mistake all the time, writing "committed" instead of "died by". But I'm always happy when other editors correct me, so please, keep it up. Feoffer (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    while most people no longer know this - so why is it an issue? It's not stigmatic if it's not actually associated that way. The phrase "press someone for information" comes from the act of squishing someone to death with rocks until they enter a plea, but that doesn't mean that the current phrase has the same archaic connotations today. BugGhost 🦗👻 15:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with BugGhost here, I would argue that people no longer associate it with the above argument and that, overall it is a less stigmatizing phrase then any other term. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not enthusiastic about the use of the word "committed", would still go with what the balance of sourcing says tho since that's what we usually try and do.Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Commit" is a neutral verb. What you commit makes it good or bad or something in between. Yes, you can commit a crime or a sin, but you can also commit a good deed. That is the same usage of the verb "commit". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, I think he committed a good deed sounds pretty odd. It's not one of the usual meanings of "commit".
      That said, I don't hear this implication of nefariousness that others do in "commit suicide". It's a fixed phrase; the notion of sin or crime has been lost, at least to my ear. --Trovatore (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "He committed a good deed" sounds perfectly natural to me. Maybe the difference is geographical or generational - I am English and in my sixties. I certainly agree with the rest of your statement. The notion of sin or crime has been lost, if it was ever there. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I linked an article above that states the Associated Press Stylebook states "The verb commit with suicide can imply a criminal act." It is safe to say it isn't considered purely neutral. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Phil, I am American but of a similar age bracket… and “He committed a good deed” is normal for me. So not national, but perhaps generational. Blueboar (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I put "committed a good deed" (exact quoted phrase) into Google, and it gave me just 50 hits (counted by clicking through the search results pages) on the web and about half that in Google Books (counted by looking for the phrase in the search result snippet). That is not apparently a common phrase. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In my experience "commit a good deed" is a unique and ironic use. From a journal article: Commit seems to have an overwhelming bias for unpleasant collocates; however, a Google search for “commit a good deed” returned more than 30,000 hits. On the other hand, the 400-million-word Corpus of Contemporary American English returned no hits for this, suggesting that the hits on the web may reflect non-native use or “experimental” use...? (footnote on page 167) [6] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I found that the ghits listed at the top of the page had a very insignificant relationship to the number of actual results offered on the page. The estimate of 30,000 ghits turned out to be almost exactly 50 actual pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you must count Google hits then that is not the way to do it. If I type "Donald Trump" into Google and click though the results I get 299 pages. Do you really believe that "Donald Trump" has only been mentioned 299 times on the Internet? Google truncates its results to 1000 and then eliminates duplicates, so you will never see more than 1000 results and the number is only an indication of how many duplicates there are in the first 1000 hits, nothing connected to the total number of hits. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Truncating results at 1,000 would not affect a search that returns only 5% of that limit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are completely misunderstanding the results. I said truncating at 1000 and then eliminating duplicates. Google estimates that there are about 30,000 hits, truncates this at 1000, and then elimates 950 of them as duplicates. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So 95% of the hits are duplicates? If applied to 30K ghits, that would suggest just 1,500 real sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All this shows is that counting Google hits is an absurd way of making any decision. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Committed" does have some criminal connotations in some situations. Died by suicide is passive in a way that flows very badly. A better alternative is simply "killed him/her/themself" but for some people that seems too informal. I prefer the latter personally. But probably all can be used, it should be judged case by case. My main gripe is when people try to apply the avoidance of the committed suicide phrase to criminal cases, where people will sometimes try to replace it with the more passive phrasing. So you will get an article that says someone murdered 7 people and then died by suicide - extremely jarring when it involves murder-suicides. And at that point the criminal implication is not really wrong. But that is probably niche. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think that case-by-case judgment is the best approach.
    Also: I oppose edit warring to keep disputed language in any article. This should not be a controversial position. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that some verbiage needs to be in the article to convey the information. In most edit wars, all variants are disputed yet one of them has to be there, if only as an interim. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In most edit wars, only committed and died by are disputed. In my experience, if you show up to a dispute like that and suggest any third option, everyone is open to that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The slight variant died of is also frequently disputed, but either way most is not all, hence the difficulty. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But probably all can be used, it should be judged case by case. Agreed. Died by suicide sounds better in some cases (e.g. According to Police Headquarters 11,095 people died by suicide in Bangladesh in 2017), while committed suicide sounds better in others (e.g. In order to avoid being captured alive, Mir Jafar committed suicide by drinking poison.) Some1 (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The term "commit suicide" implies tha an offense was committed, i.e., suicide. Per neutrality, Wikipedia should not determine whether or not suicide is an offense. In Canada for example only attempted suicide is an offense. Notice that no one says that articles should say that someone committed homicide, since homicide is not always an offense. Let's follow what reliable sources say and ignore the anti-woke extremist criticism. TFD (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The term "commit" implies that a negative action happened. Nothing more, and nothing less really. I sympathize with those who are saying that the term "commit suicide" is "negative" - because it is negative. But to try and say that "commit" implies a crime.. that's absurd to me - I agree with Phil in this thread. It's not "anti woke extremist" to use the actual definition of words. Sure, Wiktionary isn't a reliable source, but per definition 4 of the verb: "(transitive) To do (something bad); to perpetrate, as a crime, sin, or fault" (bolding mine). Notice that it even gives an example beyond "crime" or "sin" of "fault" - or are we saying it's completely normal, fine, and good/neutral to commit suicide? As someone who has had mental health problems in the past (and still does, to an extent, though I'm in a much better place now than if you asked me years ago), I find this sort of trying to rewrite the English language to be at best virtue signalling, and at worst akin to whitewashing. Bluntly, if people read the phrase "commit suicide" (in any form) and feel a negative connotation to it, good. Suicide is not a positive thing, and it should not be treated as a positive/neutral thing - especially not by changing away from a word with a negative connotation. There are many other ways to help those who have mental health problems rather than trying to prevent them from feeling like suicide has a negative connotation - and in fact, trying to diminish the negative connotation with committing suicide hurts. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suicide was traditionally considered a sin in Christianity and was illegal in most English-speaking countries until the 20th century. That's the origin of the phrase "commit suicide" in English. It's also what I assume most people here are referring to when they talk its negative connotations, rather than just the general sense of death being a sad thing (which is of course preserved in the phrase "killed themselves"). – Joe (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that the suicide prevention experts are concerned that "suicide is bad" leads directly to "so I won't seek help for my suicidal thoughts, because I don't want people to think I'm bad". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm woke and.... At first I wrote "proud" there, but then I realised that not going through life fast asleep is not really something to be particularly proud of. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely no "Committed". As someone affected by suicide, I find it highly offensive to ignore the reality of how precipitously and demonstrably "committed suicide" has become universally disapproved of by style guides and RS over the past ten years. In 2015 the Associated Press states in part:

Suicide stories, when written, should not go into detail on methods used. Avoid using committed suicide except in direct quotations from authorities. Alternate phrases include killed himself, took her own life or died by suicide..."Committed in that context suggests possibly an illegal act, but in fact, laws against suicide have been repealed in the US, at least in certain states, and many other places".

Columbia Journalism Review The American Heritage Dictionary also advises against "committed".[7] The dictionary definition of "commit" in this sense clearly has negative connotations, in violation of WP:NPOV, which "cannot be superseded by editor consensus." Also per MOS:MED#Careful language, "Choose appropriate words when describing medical conditions and their effects on people". Appropriate means medically accurate and not expressing negative/disparaging attitudes. Lastly, we have our own style guidelines; we do not use the style of the RS which we happen to cite, per Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy (reliable sources style fallacy). Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You state The dictionary definition of "commit" in this sense clearly has negative connotations, in violation of WP:NPOV, which "cannot be superseded by editor consensus." Are you claiming that killing yourself is not something that should have a "negative connotation[]"? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The negative connotations are specific:
  1. Cambridge Dictionary: "to do something illegal or something that is considered wrong", for example: "She tried to commit suicide by slashing her wrists." [8]
  2. Lexico: "Perpetrate or carry out (a mistake, crime, or immoral act)", for example: "he committed an uncharacteristic error". [9]
  3. American Heritage Dictionary: "To do, perform, or perpetrate", for example: "commit a murder". [10]
  4. Wiktionary: "To do (something bad); to perpetrate, as a crime, sin, or fault", for example: "to commit murder". [11]
  5. Chambers Dictionary: "to carry out or perpetrate (a crime, offence, error, etc)." [12]
Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. "or something that is considered wrong" - are you saying it is not "considered wrong" to kill one's self?
2. "Perpetrate or carry out (a mistake...)" Are you saying it is not a mistake to kill one's self?
3. Doesn't even implicate it as wrong, so I'm not going to respond to this.
4. I already responded to this in my response.
5. "error" - again, are you claiming it's not an error to kill one's self?
This is abhorrent. You're making the argument that it's not wrong to kill one's self. And sure, it may be okay in very specific, limited circumstances (such as if one has an uncurable, terminal illness), but the vast majority of circumstances it is still a negative thing. If anything, your sources show that it is not a word that means "a crime", but merely "anything bad". So to argue that "commit" is inappropriate, you are arguing that committing suicide is not bad at all, ever.
And that is something that I, as someone who has suffered from mental illness and has actually attempted suicide before, cannot stand behind. To try and tell me, who fortunately failed to commit suicide the two times I tried to do so, that it was not negative for me to try that... I'm going to stop now, because I don't have a response to this that is civil. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suicidal people's feelings on this are not monolithic, and you do not know my story. But the negative connotations are very specific in this case; The verb commit is associated with crime (in the justice system) and sin (in religion).[13] Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm taking from this conversation is that most of us would prefer language that deters suicide, but there's dispute about whether "commit" is the most effective deterring word. It seems to me that "commit" is more likely to deter those who are worried about crime or sin, and less likely to deter a secular person who isn't concerned about the law because they don't intend to survive.
I think this is a very serious problem that would benefit from a lot more thought.
Rather than focusing on this one word "commit", can we instead discuss more broadly how we describe suicide in Wikipedia articles? I've begun thinking about this at User:S Marshall/Essay3 and would welcome more input.—S Marshall T/C 09:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @S Marshall, I just made some contributions to the essay started at Wikipedia:Committed suicide. Please take a look at that too. Dw31415 (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I am reading it correct, I think the argument is not to actively deter suicide but to make it less stigmatic - ie. there is a claim that there is a determent in the phrase "committed suicide" due to the word "comitted", and it makes those who feel suicidal feel alienated and othered. I disagree with this line of reasoning, but I think this is the argument. BugGhost 🦗👻 15:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an easy topic area to discuss - for those of us with personal histories with the subject, it can be incredibly difficult. Speaking to nobody in particular, let's try to WP:AGF here and not accuse people who disagree with you of advocating suicide, or trying to make people who attempt suicide seem like bad people. Let's also not assume what the other person's experiences with the subject matter might be - once you do that, then it puts the other person in the awkward position where they either can't engage further, or they have to disclose something sensitive in a very public and permanent way. If anybody feels like they can't do that, then it's their responsibility to disengage and let others carry on the conversation. I say that without any judgement, as that's what I've been doing and will continue to do for these types of conversations. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 09:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for politely pointing this out. I read this shortly after you posted it. I have avoided commenting here again because I didn't want to inflame things more. I would like to apologize if anyone felt I was attacking them - I wasn't trying to. It's just as someone who has been personally affected by suicide (myself, and close friends) I have strong opinions on this sort of change that people seem to think does something big but doesn't actually. I have stepped back away from this conversation, and am only responding to thank User:GreenLipstickLesbian for their polite "calling out" of me for my comments here. If anyone has any specific questions for me on this matter, please ping me directly and I'll try my best to respond if I can do so without becoming emotional - but otherwise, I don't intend to respond to this topic further as I don't think I'll be helpful.
Just to be clear, I do not have any ill will towards anyone here - I do believe everyone is contributing in good faith. And yes, GLL, I know you weren't responding to me alone/directly, but I wanted to apologize to everyone here for how emotional I got in the responses I made. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to echo this: this sort of change that people seem to think does something big but doesn't. If you are making a choice between "He committed suicide" vs a blow-by-blow description of everything that happened during the last hour of his life, then the latter is much more damaging. WP:NOTHOWTO is extremely important. By comparison, avoiding "commit" language is a nice-to-have. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So to argue that "commit" is inappropriate, you are arguing that committing suicide is not bad at all, ever: Perhaps use neutral language that does not indiscriminately pass judgement. —Bagumba (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that neutral, non-indiscriminately-judgmental language would mean usually avoiding the "commit" wording, but not in every situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very odd that someone can find "killed themselves" better than "committed suicide". I can very easily imagine an alternate reality where people are pushing to remove the phrase "killed themselves" because it implies the subject is a "killer", which has blatently obvious negative connotations, and replace it with the more formal and neutral "committed suicide".
"Committed suicide" may have etymology based in religion or law, but languages evolve and those connotations no longer exist day-to-day, except to those who navel gaze about style guides. People don't consider committing code, comitting resources, committing to a task, committing yourself to something, comitting good deeds, etc etc to be sins or crimes just due to the word commit.
Either way, like I said above, we should just stick to whatever the sources say in a case by case basis. BugGhost 🦗👻 11:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's some suggestion above that the "alternate reality" is our own past, noting that "killed himself" dropped in popularity in favor of "committed suicide" back in Victorian times. Now we have people taking offense at the verb "commit" in what has become a somewhat fixed phrase. Every once in a while one such person finds their way here to try to advocate for language change, there's a lot of argument, and in the end if there's any conclusion it's "follow the sources" because there aren't enough on the advocacy side to override our existing policies that say that. Anomie⚔ 13:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the policy basis for following the style of the sources? Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None whatsoever. Our articles have to mean what the sources mean; but they don't have to say what the sources say, and they shouldn't. Our job is to summarize the reliable sources in WP:OUROWNWORDS.—S Marshall T/C 17:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can just go with suicided then, dictionaries seem to accept as verb. Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suicided is used colloquially to mean that someone was murdered and their death was made to look like a suicide; see the first three entries of 'suicided' on the Urban Dictionary [14]. Some1 (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft no - We should strive for clear, non-euphemistic language. "Committed suicide" is euphemistic, "killed [himself/herself/themselves]" is a more straightforward, less linguistically clunky description of the act. Similar reasoning as "passed away" vs. "died." Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But if I jump off a building thinking I could fly, then I have killed myself but have not committed suicide, which includes intent. The difference matters. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a family member who, during the COVID lockdown, killed themselves during a dementia-induced incident in a very similar fashion to what you're describing. They did not have intent, but it was ruled a suicide regardless. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, I am sorry to hear about those tragic circumstances.
    Having said that, not only our article on suicide, but all the dictionaries I quickly find (including M-W, American Heritage, law.com, The Law Dictionary speak to intent in the primary definition. NIMH, CDC, and WHO agree. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Applying "theory" (like definitions) to complex circumstances can be quite difficult, especially since the coroner/official can't actually know what was going on in the person's mind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Nat's is the main argument against "killed himself" sorry, I can't bring myself to write themself, and themselves doesn't seem quite right. And it does have some merit.
      But it's a fairly fine distinction. "Committed suicide" definitely denotes intention; "killed himself" almost denotes intention. If I ski down a run that's too hard for me and fall off a cliff, have I killed myself? It isn't the way you'd usually put it.
      I think if we use "killed himself" it will usually be clear from context that it wasn't an accident. --Trovatore (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It depends on context doesn't it? And we need different words to describe different kinds of context. Sometimes it will be appropriate and others it won't. An outright ban censoring certain words just because they don't work in the wrong context seems quite absurd to me. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 21:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear, I'm not arguing for a ban on anything. I'm just saying that I find the argument that "killed himself" allows the possibility of accident to be — of some merit, but not very much.
      ("Killed himself" can also be awkward grammatically in more complex constructions, because of the way anaphora works in English. I found this out when I tried to fix the language in Carlo Michelstaedter. It now says One of his friends from Florence, a Russian woman, had also killed herself, as had a brother who lived in America, which I find a little clunky because of the interaction between "herself" and "a brother". But this doesn't seem like a terribly serious problem either.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I understood this. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 22:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I quite like the idea of bundling this into an essay/guideline on writing about death (if we don't already have one) – "strive for clear, non-euphemistic language" could be the nutshell. Talking about terminal illness as a "battle", "struggle", etc. could be added to the list of language to avoid. – Joe (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I loathe the "battle" language for serious illness. See also MOS:CLICHE for the general case and especially (in this context) MOS:SUICIDE for any article saying something like "lost his battle with depression". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is something that we can agree on. The use of such language implies that those who didn't "battle bravely" against cancer or whatever are somehow at fault. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We would never say that someone "committed assisted suicide", would we? As with the recent news about Daniel Kahneman, we'd say "died by assisted suicide". Which kind of begs the question why not also "died by suicide"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been discussed; see the 2021 RFC mentioned at MOS:SUICIDE. There is no reason to change the wording from "committed suicide". The person has made a commitment to carry out a specific act of their intent. As one editor said in the aforementioned RFC, "This (committed suicide) is a standard phrase in most varieties of English, and it's not the job of Wikipedia to enforce a particular form of language" or add unnecessary verbiage. Also see the RFC: "Committed suicide" language, here on Village pump from January 2021. As stated in the summary of the conclusions reached, "The result is to not change policy, which allows 'commit suicide', therefore no change is needed". There is no need for a passive euphemism. Kierzek (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Died by is passive and indicates it was an outside force enacting the action, which is true for assisted suicide, but misleading when it comes to suicide proper. The passivity is also just extremely poor writing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Died by" is not the Passive voice in English, nor is it a euphemism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant passive not in the grammatical sense but in the sense of being subject to another's actions, in that it creates something of an oxymoron, because died by indicates an outside force acting on an individual, something that happens to someone, when suicide is someone deciding to do something to themself. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been reading that some surviving family members latch on to the concept of choice as a way of comforting themselves: "I'm sad that he chose suicide, but at least it was his choice, and he was still in control".
    In the case of serious mental illness, most experts reject their POV. The expert POV is closer to "Suicide is a fatal complication/outcome of depression combined with alcohol overuse. It is actually fairer and more accurate to say that this person was killed by the disease of depression and alcohol use disorder, and not through their own free-will choice".
    In the minority of cases unrelated to frank mental illness (e.g., a terminally ill patient following the physician-assisted suicide process), there is certainly a significant element of choice. But I would caution editors against assuming that this element is always significant. To say that we know that suicide deaths are never primarily "something that happens to someone" is essentially to say that Wikipedia editors' personal opinions are more important and more accurate than the reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of how much agency suicide is the action of taking one’s own life, and so however you may interpret the general sequence of events leading to it as influenced by one’s psychological state describing it as something done to you is oxymoronic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not arguing for never using it but I’m trying to illustrate why it is my most disliked option personally. “Killed himself”, in contrast, is straightforward. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's your personal opinion. The reliable sources disagree with you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that "died by assisted suicide" was considered in that 2021 RFC? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides the linguistic ambiguity noted above, people tend to prefer died by suicide in the cases where they want to avoid committed suicide, but I think that is worse. I suppose “killed himself/herself” is seen as direct to the point of offensiveness. I think it’s probably the best for cases where a criminal implication would be inappropriate (e.g not in the course of crimes) even if it’s ambiguous PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many ways to write about suicide attempts and deaths, and our tendency to reduce it to just two (committed/died by) or just three (committed/died by/killed self) is a mental trap we need to avoid.
    You could, for example, write "He died in Smallville on [date]" (just like you would for any other manner of death), and then add "The cause of death was suicide" (just like we have written "The cause of death was cancer" or whatever in over a thousand articles, including a few dozen for suicide deaths). MOS:SUICIDE offers a handful of suggestions, but there are dozens or hundreds of possibilities here. Don't get stuck on just two or three of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if you decide to write it an overly drawn out manner you can dodge the issue, but your example as given just seems clumsy to me whether in the suicide context or not.
    And saying it as the cause equates it with the physical cause of death, e.g. poisoning shooting drowning. Suicide is not the cause, it is the action of dying by one's own hand. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are ways to say it that aren't "overly drawn out". "Killed themself" is briefest, but for example "took their own life" is still shorter and fewer syllables than "committed suicide", and uses simpler words too.—S Marshall T/C 10:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    “Took their own life” is definitely euphemistic, much as passed away is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which still leaves the problem of things like infoboxes where we need a 2 or 3 word phrase for a cause of death. Masem (t) 11:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Suicide" or "suicide by hanging" for the infobox. In the body it could say "his death was a suicide". Actual method of suicide is discouraged unless it is noteworthy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Kolya. First, consider not putting it in the infobox at all, unless it's a significant part of the person's life story. It is normal and officially preferred (see Template:Infobox person/doc) to omit |death_cause= from the infobox unless the death is part of the person's notability (e.g., a "Murder of ____" article, or a cancer activist). Second, if you do need to include it in the infobox, then just write |death_cause =Suicide. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Suicide is a relatively rare cause of death.This 2002 source suggests that in "... Christian countries (e.g. Italy), the total suicide rate is around 10 per 100,000". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    this is where i think wp:notcensored comes in. if something needs to be less direct just to be less offensive to some people, i don't think we should cater to them, especially if it comes at the expense of grammar. this applies to unfortunate cases like death just as much as it does to petty cases of someone's favorite character being known for porn (gardevoir, twilight sparkle, sidon, the onceler...), and everything in between. this is why i think that if a consensus is to be reached to use clunky wording like "died by..." or "the cause of death was...", there needs to be a way better argument than appealing to feelings that ultimately might not even be widespread enough to warrant a wiki-wide change
    this is why i don't oppose (exact words, since i'm not in much of a rush to actively support it either) the use of "commit", because... it's functionally just a synonym of "do", regardless of whether or not it's associated with sin (whatever that is this week) or crime
    yes, i know this is just the "facts don't care about feelings" argument but lazily repackaged, shush consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 11:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    it's functionally just a synonym of "do" - it's not, though? It's not used like that in any other context. "I'm just going to commit some shopping," "I committed a five mile run this morning", "he went into the garden to commit pesticide"?
    This seems like the opposite of "facts don't care about feelings". "Died by suicide" or "killed themselves" has all the facts. "Committed" adds feelings.
    "Not censored" means we don't hide the facts; it doesn't mean we add judgement to them. It's like putting "[Politician], a complete idiot" at the top of their article then complaining it's censorship if someone removes it. TSP (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    However, the other side of the coin is that WP does not lead shifts in the use of language, we must follow the broader trends. And the issue at play is that while newer style guides have suggested moving away from "committed", there's no broad trend that all style guides have moved from that, and in practical use "committed suicide" is still seen as the neutral term. Masem (t) 12:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a stronger argument, yes; but if it's already being suggested by at least some major style guides, Wikipedia is hardly leading the shift if it does the same. We can balance both arguments - we should aim for neutral, encyclopedic phrasing, while also not inventing neologisms not found elsewhere or adopting obscure phrasings.
    In this case, is "died by" more neutral than "committed"? Yes, as shown by other uses of "committed". Is "died by" an unacceptably obscure neologism? No, it's already being suggested in other style guides.
    We don't have to show that it's more neutral AND that it's the majority usage. It's sufficient to show that it's more neutral, and is a mainstream usage. TSP (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are you seeing "commit suicide" in professional writing in the last two years to suggest it is still not discouraged by any style guides? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masem, if memory serves, every time we have this discussion, you make these two claims:
    • That Wikipedia should follow, not lead, language trends.
    • That some unspecified style guide somewhere still prefers the older version.
    Garner's Modern English Usage, which is one of the style guides that the WP:MOS is based on, directly says that the "committed" language has been discouraged by style guides since 2000. Accepting that advice a quarter century(!) later cannot be described as "leading the shift in the use of language" with a straight face. Let's focus on that date: twenty-five years. We have many editors for whom this is literally their entire lives. This is not an example of "leading" change.
    Also: I echo Kolya's question. What style guides actually support this outdated language? Can you find anything in, say, the last decade? I've read a lot of style guides, and I'm not finding support for this language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    a little late to note, but... does it really add feelings? it at best only implies that it wasn't something done on the side or by accident, like stubbing your toe on your way to the bathroom or buying salami to go with your cheese, but something someone actively focused on doing (which i really doubt wouldn't be case, ever). you could argue that it can be used in emotionally charged ways (specifically to imply bad law stuff or bad religion stuff)... but "can be" pretty much reduces the possibility of determining an "is" to a case by case basis, and even then, it might still be subject to different interpretations. there certainly are good arguments that can be used against this wording (see whatamidoing's just above me :flushed:), i just don't think this is one of them consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 18:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You say "can be". In what non-crime, non-sin contexts is this phrasing used?
    The relevant OED definition is II.9.a. 1445– transitive. To carry out (a reprehensible act); to perpetrate (a crime, sin, offence, etc.). Cf. to commit suicide
    This is not the same as, for example, to commit to something. As far as I, and the OED, know, "commit [action]" is only used in the context of crimes and sins (or in humorous pretence of it); or in reference to suicide (which was historically considered both of these). TSP (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    as ironic as this may sound, in the latter case. regardless of its previous associations, "commit" is indeed used to refer to suicide. this is ideally where this reasoning begins and ends consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 20:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've thought about it, and it seems to me that there is a grammatical reason for this that is incidental: the class of nouns that CAN be combined with commit: i.e., nouns that describe an act or action, that are uncountable - tend to be restricted to offences of various kinds, and to suicide. I cannot think of any nouns that are uncountable, and are actions/acts, that are not a type off offence, other than, nowadays, suicide.

    Which I think, if anything, any implication is a result of suicide's noun class than the function word "commit" that's only purpose is a function word that must be used with that class of nouns. So the meaning isn't in the word connor, it is just that the nouns that fall into the class of nouns that get paired with commit just HAPPEN to almost all be offences. 73.48.233.128 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What about: “He committed a good deed” or “She committed an act of kindness”? Sure, almost all are offenses… but that almost means that there are exceptions. That is important. Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a new and ironic use. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I've ever heard that said - there was a suggestion upthread that it was a solely American usage? - but nevertheless, as WhatamIdoing says, even if it is said, that's not quite the same grammatical structure. Committed murder, committed adultery, committed suicide. A counter-example would be something like "He committed driving", "He committed authorship".
    This possibility is actually covered in the Oxford English Dictionary - while definition II.9.a. is transitive. To carry out (a reprehensible act); to perpetrate (a crime, sin, offence, etc.). Cf. to commit suicide, definition II.11. is transitive. humorous and ironic. To do (something likened by the speaker to a crime or offence). Cf. perpetrate v. 3. - e.g. The saint once..imprudently committed a miracle (from Gibbons' The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire).
    The construction is so distinctive that it can be used with non-crime actions, to humorously suggest that they were considered to be crimes.
    And to answer Consarn, the entire point of this argument is that the only things this phrasing is used for, apart from suicide, are crimes and sins; therefore to use it for suicide is to put it into that group. Suicide itself can't be your counter-example. TSP (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, “She committed an act of kindness” or “He committed a good deed” shows that it isn’t only for crimes and sins. Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said elsewhere, I don't think I've ever heard that terminology, but I do see some Google hits for it.
    However, that is not quite the same piece of grammar. (I realise this also goes for "committed a miracle" above, so maybe that wasn't the best example.) "Committed a X" is not entirely the same as "Committed X". TSP (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One can commit a poem to memory? Not sure that's particularly negative. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Involuntary commitment. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, "commit", like many common English words, has lots of meanings and can be used in many different ways - you can commit to a course of action, you can commit some code to a source repository, you can commit something or someone to someone's care, you can commit someone to prison or to psychiatric care, you can commit something to memory, you can commit troops to a military action. OED lists sixteen distinct ways the word "commit" can be used.
    But the specific usage here, as I cited above, is II.9.a To carry out (a reprehensible act); to perpetrate (a crime, sin, offence, etc.). Cf. to commit suicide - and as far as I can see is the only "commit [act]" usage, and is only used for crimes, sins, and suicide. TSP (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Committing a poem" – committing any countable noun, or committing any object – is a different grammatical construction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Uncountable nouns that represent acts include aggression, perambulation, and speech. One can "commit aggression", but it's an offense.
    Also, most gerunds (driving, walking, speaking...) could be used grammatically, but we'd normally change the grammar: "He committed the act of driving", rather than "He committed driving". Also, you'd expect that sentence to end with something indicating that this was a problem, such as "even though the judge revoked his driver's license last month". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a crime, or at least a protocrime? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. As the OED points out, "commit [action]" implies that the action is a bad thing, and carries this implication so strongly that it can be used ironically. The literary power in the phrase "commit random acts of kindness and senseless acts of beauty" exists because the "commit" wording implies that there is something radical and deviant about being kind and creating beauty. If the author had exhorted us merely to "perform random acts of kindness and senseless acts of beauty", nobody would have remembered the phrase. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unless one had committed it to memory, perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! I hadn't realised that - I had been curious that some people had been citing "commit an act of kindness" as a counter-example, and I could find examples of that online, but it didn't seem to fit any of the OED definitions and I couldn't work out why it existed.
    The phrase WhatamIdoing quotes puts it in context. It was originally OED definition II.11. transitive. humorous and ironic. To do (something likened by the speaker to a crime or offence). Cf. perpetrate v. 3 - "commit" was being used to humorously describe acts of kindness as if they were crimes - "random" and "senseless". It seems like it has since been taken out of context and become a minor usage in a non-ironic sense. TSP (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like we already have MOS:SUICIDE (a guideline and not an essay), which does a fine job of discussing the language around suicide. Currently, it says:

    The phrase committed suicide is not banned on the English Wikipedia,[6] although some external style guides discourage it as being potentially stigmatising and offensive to some people. There are many other appropriate, common, and encyclopaedic ways to describe a suicide, including: died as a result of suicide, died by suicide, died from suicide, killed themselves, The cause of death was suicide.

    If people here aren't satisfied with that and are looking to completely ban the usage of the phrase "commit[ted] suicide", then please start an RfC, because all of this bickering is getting pretty unproductive. Some1 (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i'd say give it until this discussion has been going on for at least a week consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 20:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An essay, Wikipedia:Committed suicide, was created so that’s a productive step. I don’t see anyone calling for an outright ban so I don’t expect to see an RfC on this. I’d also like to see this discussion wrap up, but naturally so. As a reminder to the broader group, this shouldn’t be a general discussion forum so it would be best if any remaining discussion had a proposal or venue question to it. For any editors struggling with thoughts of self harm, I’d offer that there are many resources to help such as Crisis Text Line in the US[15] and many caring professionals willing to help. Dw31415 (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    m:Mental health resources has the global list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Committed suicide" should be banned outside of quotes. Every time I see that in an article I feel like I'm reading World Book Encyclopedia 1999. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be stressed that language came out of the 2021 RFC, and while CCC happens, 4 years seems far too soon, particularly as no new evidence related to style guides has been brought up here, at least not in terms of evidence of why we should be revisiting it. We should not simply be revisiting this just because of the concerns of feelings (as the links in the OP statement point out, the situation from this point of view has been addressed ad nauseum and we shouldn't be reiterating on that). Masem (t) 00:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    no new evidence related to style guides, would this qualify: Preventing suicide: A resource for media professionals, Update 2023, World Health Organization

    The phrase “committed suicide” implies criminality (suicide was historically criminalized in many countries and remains a criminal offence in some countries today) and unnecessarily increases the stigma experienced by those who have lost a person to suicide. It is better to say/write “died by suicide” or “took one’s life”.

    [16] Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Same advice appears in the 2017 update of the same document [17], so that isn't a changed factor. Masem (t) 02:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment was about "new evidence" related to style guides. If WHO's guide wasn't referenced in previous discussions then this is new evidence. By your logic, if every single style guide bans "committed suicide" but they were published before previous discussions, then there is no way to meet your criteria. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What the various style guides had said were considered in both 2019 and 2021 discussions are this, at minimum, so we know where WHO, NIH, AP, etc. all sit already as of those dates, and that factor was considered in those discussions. It still seems to be the case that moving away from "commit suicide" is not yet universal across style guides or going by mainstream usage, and since WP should not be trying to lead in terms of common language use but only follow, it doesn't seem that there's been any significant change in the style guide positions since 2019/2021 to make that shift (specifically to eliminate "commit suicide"). Its important to know that style guides do give alternatives like "die by suicide" that we can use. Masem (t) 12:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're saying that in the 2019 and 2021 discussions we considered NIH, AMA, and WHO style guides which we did not know about nor discuss? Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that so far in this discussion, no new points of evidence or argument have been added compared to the 2019 or 2021 discussions, the only change is the slice of editors partipating. While consensus can change, I'd expect a far greater weight on new evidence or other need to argue we need to override the result of a discussion from just for years ago. Style guides have been reviewed in the previous RFCs so it's not like we are ignoring them, just that's evidence we already know exists and which has been factored into the previous RFCs. — Masem (t) 15:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still waiting for you to provide a single reliable source that encourages the use of "commit suicide". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that so far in this discussion, no new points of evidence or argument have been added compared to the 2019 or 2021 discussions, Yes I know, and I'm telling you I don't see that these three style guides were ever discussed. Starting with NIH Style Guide, is there any evidence that that has been mentioned in any of the discussions on writing about suicide? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    US National Institutes of Health's Style Guide adopts the AP Stylebook's recommendations:

    Use died by suicide or attempted suicide instead of committed suicide.

    [18] Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    American Medical Association Manual of Style

    suicide—Avoid the phrase committed suicide because it implies criminality or moral failing.

    Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Social media and suicide, there is considerable concern that some Internet sites encourage young people to commit suicide, as this is a leading cause of death for this age group. It would not be prudent to give people the idea that Wikipedia is one of those sites by requiring that suicide be presented here only in a positive way. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus, this is like a regurgitation the "suicide panic" of the 80s. Straight out of Heathers. Zaathras (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing the relevance of fictional comedy predating the Internet. I'm referring to the reality of cases like Molly Russell which have resulted in the Online Safety Act 2023. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualified Yes Wikipedia is not censored and we generally try to avoid euphemisms. "Committed suicide" remains one of the most common forms of communicating death by one's own hand. That said, editors should use some common sense and avoid using terms that are not employed by the sources covering the subject's death. Broad discretion coupled with good taste should be the rule of thumb here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: When somebody dies from suicide it is nearly always terribly sad, tragic and devastating – apart from in a small minority of cases such as when evil serial killers like Harold Shipman and Fred West have died from suicide – where I don't think anybody would have shed tears for them. But in the vast majority of cases, suicide is terribly sad and my heart goes out to the bereaved. However, I also feel that WP:NOTCENSORED should apply. If a reliable source states that somebody has committed suicide, then I don't think it's the job of Wikipedians to censor a word that some people may deem to be offensive. We don't censor other potentially offensive words for reasons of sensitivity. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes since it seems we're voting now. Not Censored and Not Therapy grounds. Zaathras (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who's fussed over this, I see two choices as equally viable – given my own understanding of formal English as presently written, both personally and at-large. Either we proscribe some terminology as unduly criminological or moralizing, following like recommendations in major style guides, or we avoid policing such terminology across disparate articles for its own sake. Having made good-faith efforts to perceive these connotations as inherent to the term commit suicide, I admit I personally cannot – but I fully support either of these outcomes. Remsense ‥ 论 05:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but is it really even a negative inference? If one committed suicide, they were at least committed to something. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Commit to" is a different phrase. The OED definition we're talking about here is II.9.a. transitive. To carry out (a reprehensible act); to perpetrate (a crime, sin, offence, etc.). Cf. to commit suicide at Phrases P.6.. As far as I can see - and no-one has yet presented a counterexample - the structure "to commit [action]" is only used for crimes, sins, and suicide (or in an ironic usage to suggest something should be considered a crime or sin - e.g. the horribility of "committing" puns - Benjamin Disraeli). TSP (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is a different phrase, so shouldn't be used here. But there is nothing ironic about committing a good deed or committing an act of kindness, unless you make a circular argument by dismissing anything positive, so counterexamples have been given. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I've ever heard that phrase, and OED doesn't seem to know of it, but I do see there are online hits for it. However, that's still a slightly different piece of grammar - "committing a/an X" is not quite the same as "committing X". "Committing X" or "commit X" still seems to be only for crimes (commit murder), sins (commit adultery) and suicide. TSP (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can one perform suicide? Or is that only for harakiri? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a natural phrase in English. In the more technical literature, they write about "completing" suicide.
    In other languages, suicide may be treated as a verb (Spanish does the literal equivalent of "he suicided himself). German has the same "commit" problem ("begehen", a verb associated with crimes, but with a literal translation closer to going through/trespassing; alternatively, in German, people can "practice" suicide, using the same verb that you would use in a statement like "I need to practice my German verb conjugation before the test"). I would expect other languages to use words in the do/make range ("He made suicide" or "He did suicide"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that Minamoto no Tametomo committed seppuku (in 1170, the first it seems). I haven't checked all the others at Seppuku#Notable cases, but I expect that many are the same. I see that Isao Inokuma "died by suicide by seppuku in 2001". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would expect that any "perform" language is oriented towards ritual suicide. People "commit suicide (and other 'bad' actions)" and they "perform ritual suicide (and other rituals)". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there might be a few performers in that list. I guess one can commit or perform a suicide attack, such as with kamikaze. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You could say he committed a senseless act of ________ and then insert any one of perhaps dozens of things which are not crimes nor sins. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 17:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's some useful extra context higher up in the conversation - it looks like "commit" for acts of kindness may have originated in a quote, attributed to Anne Herbert: "commit random acts of kindness and senseless acts of beauty" - based on the phrase "random acts of violence and senseless acts of cruelty".
    If so, commit was a deliberate choice to humorously liken acts of kindness to crimes, casting them as radical and subversive. It seems like it has since gone into the wild somewhat as a positive meaning independent of the ironic sense, but it looks like it originated as OED II.11. transitive. humorous and ironic. To do (something likened by the speaker to a crime or offence). Cf. perpetrate v. 3.. TSP (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any form of censorship to words based on fear or being offended and don't understand why some people are insisting why there just absolutely must be only crime or sin associated with "committed" or "commit" when people can do something socially unacceptable to someone which is neither a crime nor a sin and it could still be described as something they "committed" against society or another person. Does this now mean we should eliminate words from other articles also simply because of them being socially unacceptable in that context? Where do we draw the line? Intelligent and rational people can reason out what context words should belong in and the appropriate style they should have without being restricted by censorship. Thanks. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 17:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an unhelpful strawperson characterization. Your notion that, with term X there absolutely must be some connotation of Y is not what anyone is actually arguing. We make language choices based on aggregate public senses of words—that X does not connote Y to you (it doesn't to me, remember) is really beside the point. It is really not an attack on your sense of self or belonging, but that seems to border on how you are taking it. Remsense ‥ 论 17:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    the way i see it, it's more like what i said before. it's an opposition of a specific reason to do it. there certainly are other terms that could be used and arguments to use them... it just happens that appealing to feelings is not a very good one 'round these parts consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 17:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a false dichotomy—all words have connotations and emotional potential which cannot be perfectly wedged apart from their dictionary definitions. This is a dimension we sometimes have to consider beyond what words to watch mean to us personally. I am willing to take others' word for it, even if I don't get it. Remsense ‥ 论 17:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Remsense, and you can see that in this discussion. We have several editors arguing against died by because it makes them feel(!) like the person's autonomy is being disrespected. If "feelings" aren't a good argument, then this argument against "died by" is invalid.
    Instead, I think that the connotations of our word choices are valid things for us to consider. Sometimes a "feeling" of passivity is really not appropriate. Sometimes a "feeling" of criminal action is entirely appropriate. Editors IMO should use the full range of the English language, taking into account the need to avoid invoking an inappropriate "feeling". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your notion that, with term X there absolutely must be some connotation of Y is not what anyone is actually arguing. See: Special:Diff/1282264387. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 17:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, let's see that diff. Let's see that diff and focus on the word "or", as in:
    • only used for crimes, sins, and suicide or
    • in an ironic usage.
    The word "or" means "not absolutely only the first one". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the correct interpretation, not what they argued. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 18:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what they argued. They have posted multiple comments in this discussion about the ironic use. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because they said the ironic use was still indicative of a crime or sin. Please read the last part of the diff again because whatever they might have previously posted on the irony of the term, this is what they landed on. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 18:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps my use of "should be considered" was a little imprecise, but I think your reading requires ignoring the meaning of the word "ironic". If I say, ironically, "I am committing senseless acts of beauty" am I genuinely saying I think beauty is a crime, sin, or other reprehensible act? No, that would not be employing irony. Am I comparing acts of beauty to a crime, sin, or other reprehensible act? Yes.
    Anyway, I'm right here - you could have tagged me - so if you're asking "am I claiming that people ironically using terms like 'committing senseless acts of beauty' genuinely believe those acts to be either sins or crimes?", I can easily answer "of course not". TSP (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clearing that up. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 19:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I was just a little confused by what your argument actually was because you stressed it even more later on at Special:Diff/1282287279 about how there really just isn't any other associations other than crime, sin and suicide so it kinda made me think maybe you really might think the ironic uses were still only associated with crime or sin, but just not in a "negative" way. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 19:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mea culpa. The core point is that doesn't have to be true and it's better not to argue as such. Remsense ‥ 论 17:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Does your view that we should Oppose any form of censorship to words based on fear or being offended also apply to racial slurs? Those are "words" we don't normally use "based on fear of [readers] being offended", precisely because they're "socially unacceptable in that context". Or is this not actually a general rule, and you just don't care if you offend or upset people in this particular context?
    BTW, occasionally, "this particular context" is going to be a parent sitting in a hospital and trying to learn something about suicide while waiting to learn whether their child is going to live or die. I think it would be decent of us to put down our "Nyah nyah nyah you can't censor me!" attitudes and try to be both factual and humane. And I say that as someone whose been accused of "destroying hope" by labeling fatal congenital diseases as being fatal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would also be decent for someone not to imply that someone else has childish attitudes just because they they prefer the unrestricted free-flow of information and ideas between consenting adults who are rational and intelligent enough to sort things out between themselves in spite of differing viewpoints. I like to think I haven't committed tit-for-tat offenses against anyone in this thread so far so I feel like my views are just fine thank you very much. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 18:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We're writing an encyclopedia for literally everyone on Earth, not just your "rational adults". Remsense ‥ 论 18:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    According to policy and current Wikipedia practice only rational people are currently allowed to edit Wikipedia. Nobody gives a crap about literally everyone on Earth nor should they. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 18:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reason is something humans brandish, not something they breathe. Remsense ‥ 论 19:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I can't argue with that. :) Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 19:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Our word choices in articles are not about editors. We're Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia for its readers, not for its editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I wonder how people feel if they happen to have a mental health problem and see you writing that "only rational people" belong in our community.
    I once estimated the number of Wikipedia editors with certain mental health problems. You can see the numbers at User:WhatamIdoing/Editors are people. I didn't include certain conditions (e.g., autism) because they're known to be over-represented in the community, but some of these others are probably over-represented as well. It would be fair to assume therefore that this is the minimum number of editors with each of these diagnoses. We're talking about tens of thousands of editors who are living with the stigma of other people casually deriding them as crazy, and we really don't need someone saying that "only rational people are currently allowed". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Gosh, I wonder how they will feel having you suggest they are not rational? Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 22:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Huggums537, I understand you are frustrated but every other reply of yours is clearly, when viewed in isolation, meant purely as a barb in seemingly bad faith. No one's really rational is what I was getting at below, and the arguments about what is self-censorship versus writing a tonally neutral reference work for many different kinds of people seems pretty set by now. Maybe take a break for a bit? Remsense ‥ 论 22:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be very grateful if you would stop taking my comments out of context for the purpose of putting them into isolation and making them seemingly intended purely as bad faith barbs. If you can't simply make your salient points about self-censorship versus writing a tonally neutral reference work without resorting to such tactics, then maybe you are the one who should take a break for a bit? Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 22:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't trying to vie for a better rhetorical position, I was speaking in a straightforward manner. I understand I'm totally off base though, so I'll duck out, sorry. Remsense ‥ 论 22:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you missed my point. Everything you linked to about building an encyclopedia is about editors working together not about what readers want and without us there is no encyclopedia. Building for the sake of literally everyone on Earth as opposed to building just for the sake of an encyclopedia is a monumental task that really isn't even possible or within the scope of what writing an article should be about since topics will inevitably cater to some and not others simultaneously. In other words, you just can't please everybody. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 22:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing, to answer your questions: Does your view that we should Oppose any form of censorship to words based on fear or being offended also apply to racial slurs? Those are "words" we don't normally use "based on fear of [readers] being offended", precisely because they're "socially unacceptable in that context". Or is this not actually a general rule, and you just don't care if you offend or upset people in this particular context? I actually do care quite a bit if I offend or upset people, but I resent the fact that I should have to so I hold my views about censorship (partially) for that reason. Asking me if this view extends to racial slurs is more personal than I am comfortable disclosing at this time and I'm not really sure what relevance any of this personal line of questioning has to do with anything anyway unless you just find me to be that interesting! :) Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 23:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I follow all this, but the consensus of RS say that "commit" in "commit suicide" is in the sense of a crime or sin. I can understand how it could feel like censorship to ban a phrase that is still used in common speech, but it just makes us look unprofessional, like reading "stewardess" in a newspaper from the 90s instead of "flight attendant". It is no longer standard in professional writing. There is an argument that it is appropriate in articles about a suicide in a country where it actually is a crime, and I think at this point it should be against our guidelines to use the phrase except possibly in those few instances. But "convicted of the crime of suicide" or something probably makes more sense. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If we seek to destigmatize suicide, it wouldn't be by removing "committed" but by destigmatizing the phrase, committed suicide, as a whole. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt anyone would ever get the death penalty just because they committed literary abuse for writing stewardess when they should have wrote flight attendant. If I could change one thing about Wikipedia it would be that we stopped being afraid to directly say things that are explicitly implied elsewhere. For example, WAID suggested we shouldn't be directly saying only rational editors are allowed, yet it is explicitly implied that if you persist in irrational editing behaviors it will be considered disruptive and you will be more or less politely shown to the door. It also amazes me how easy it is for people to assume that someone must believe in the death penalty just because their profession happens to be the Executioner or that everyone who believes in the death penalty either wants to be the Executioner or just like the Executioner themselves. Yet they have no problem believing a pro wrestler or an MMA fighter might also want to be a ballerina or figure skater. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 02:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrational people and irrational behaviors are different things. People with no mental illness regularly engage in irrational behaviors. People with mental illness may be 100% helpful and non-disruptive on wiki.
    About your comment above: We have multiple reputable, reliable sources saying that some people are offended by the 'committed' phrase. Nobody's offended by its absence, or even notices its absence (though if you pick an awkward or inappropriate alternative, some will notice the presence of a problematic alternative). Yes, it's occasionally irritating that other humans are allowed to form their own opinions based on our word choice. But this one is really easy: if you care about not needlessly upsetting or offending anyone, then just don't use this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just feel like I will have committed a betrayal of my own values if I don't stand for free speech even though I will be choosing not to use the words "committed suicide" unless it is appropriate. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 15:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Back in, sorry, but this is important. No one is standing against any coherent notion of free speech, in part because it's beside the point. As I'm sure you know, Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech. Other editors here are trying to decide what site guidance should be, and it is counterproductive to redirect efforts to the end of soothing one's own conscience. Remsense ‥ 论 16:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Many here have voiced concerns about censorship, which is one of the most basic stands against free speech as it can get. Your refusal or inability to get the point does not mean that it's beside the point, and just because Wikipedia is not a soapbox for free speech does not mean people cannot act on their conscience regarding free speech. BTW, I have a really big problem with the hypocrisy of you busting my balls about how counterproductive it is for me to act on my conscience regarding free speech while you so freely act to soothe your own conscience over the tragedy of people committing suicide. Please get back on track and get off my ass. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 17:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the one who has insisted on making it about your ass (that is, your personal sense of what words mean, your conscience, your values) and my point is that others would rather discuss the issue at hand.
    This is conflating limitations on speech by individuals with those defining content suited for an encyclopedia—which is mystifying and counterproductive. Remsense ‥ 论 17:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    About the claim that "Many here have voiced concerns about censorship": I counted. It's you, one person who mentioned it but later said he'd named the wrong page, and five others, including someone who also cited Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy, which is an essay about not letting editors screw up Wikipedia just because their occupational therapist wanted them to get some typing practice in, and which has nothing to do with what we write in the mainspace or whether we should take advice from reliable sources. I therefore suspect that said editor doesn't know what they're talking about and just made some (wrong) guesses based on the WP:UPPERCASE.
    There are 58 editors in this discussion so far. Therefore, this alleged "many here" is about 10%, and their assertions have been challenged or contradicted by several other editors. This does not sound like a winning argument to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. I'm not sure I'm picking up what you're putting down, or smelling what you're stepping in, but I didn't claim it was a winning argument only that it was shared by others. What's this all about anyway? Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 17:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With all things being relatively equal as to the most popular term in the sources meaning that whatever is "trendy" is fairly meaningless to me. I would like to see some sources showing some conclusive evidence that the language has actually been harmful to anyone because this is the type of rigor that should be required before we remove something or someone from Wikipedia for being harmful not maybe what somebody or something might possibly do to cause harm. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 16:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Potential harm of the term is only one consideration. We know that historically and currently suicide is a crime or viewed as a sin, and that's where the term comes from, and modern style guides consider it a loaded term and unprofessional. If we're ignoring readers' potential offense, is there more proof you would need for the other issues? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like when it comes to removing someone or something from Wikipedia, then the other issues are far less relevant and beside the point. I think harm is the far more important consideration than people being offended and I think that is why others are so concerned about censorship because we wouldn't normally censor Wikipedia just because people are offended, but we would remove someone or something if it is actually harmful. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 17:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So how would you define "harm"? Do you need a suicide note that says "I decided not to seek treatment for my depression because people keep talking about suicide like it's a crime or a sin, so instead I'm killing myself"?
    Or is it enough to have reliable sources saying "Yes, we did a survey, and people said this harmed them"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would certainly like to have more than conjecture to fully convince me. Does anyone have anything more than that? Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 17:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If I give you a reliable source saying that people have told them that it harmed them, are you going to dismiss that as "conjecture"? I want to agree on where those goalposts are in advance, so nobody can accuse you of moving them if the sources don't support your POV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It already sounds "here-sayish" before I've even seen it and probably not even close to the conclusive evidence I had asked for, but I would imagine it's probably still worth producing just for the sake of argument. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 18:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What would conclusive evidence look like? If I'm going to bother looking for sources, I might as well keep an eye out for your preferred form. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you of all people are asking little ol' lowly me advice on what conclusive evidence would look like and what form to use, then my words of great wisdom to you would be that the most effective thing to do is assess all your sources and produce the very strongest ones you think you have for your argument rather than just settling for giving the opposition whatever it is they say they are willing to accept. That would be the very best possible form of building your conclusive evidence. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 18:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That method seems like it would result in this pattern:
    • Me: Here's some sources.
    • You: Nah, I'm still not personally convinced.
    • Everyone else: No matter what evidence is produced, it'll never be good enough for him! His mind is already made up, and he doesn't care about facts! He's moving the goalposts!
    I'm aware of the cognitive problems with this; humans frequently don't respond logically to evidence that conflicts with their biases (or even their initial starting positions). But I'd like you to have a chance to define what you think would be convincing (to you), and then maybe we could prevent that third part of the pattern. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've invited you to set the goalpost as high as you possibly can. Otherwise, it sounds like your mind is already made up about me moving the goalpost. If you're being generous enough to allow me to be the one to define the parameters of the goalpost, then I say set it as high as you are able to and let's see the best you got because I really think this is a problem looking for a solution without any facts based data showing deaths attributed to the use of this language and that is about as close as this rat is going to get to setting my own trap with a goalpost. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 20:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you haven't invited me to set the goalposts. You've invited me to kick the ball as hard as I can, and indicated that after you know where the ball lands, you'll set the goalposts wherever suits you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I really hate that someone I've known and respected for so long keeps seeing this mirage of goalpost moving and the idea that your own thoughts might have committed a betrayal of disillusionment within you is distressing to me. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 04:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral (leaning no in practice, but permissively yes) on "committed suicide". Oppose use of "died by suicide". We have a perfectly good alternative that maintains the active voice and reads much more naturally "x killed him/herself". This is what we landed on when we had a good natured discussion on it at David Reimer. Style guides that argue against "committed" suggest this as a suitable alternative. There are a few times a formulation "died by suicide" might work on the sentence level, but generally it is an ugly passive construction that should be studiously avoided. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As a point of grammar, "he died" is active voice, and adding "by suicide" after that doesn't change the grammar. "He was killed" is an example of passive voice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll notice I did not say it was "passive voice". I said that it is a "passive construction". Passive because "died" here is intransitive (unlike "killed") and the addition of the prepositional phrase adds information that identifies the mode by which one died whilst failing to identify the actor. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Walk" and "run" are also intransitive verbs, but we don't consider those to be passive activities. I don't think that grammar is the way to make a successful argument.
    It might also interest you to know that hospice workers routinely talk about people "actively dying". Although it is outside of conscious control, it is not exactly a passive process. Perhaps what you mean is that it feels like the phrase does not ascribe a satisfactory amount of voluntary intention and willful control to the now-dead person. That's IMO a fair POV, but it's a POV. Another POV would say that someone "died of depression" (or even worse: "lost his battle with depression"). I don't think we should have a single POV about all deaths. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The lack-of-agency argument is baffling. "Died by his own hand" is the same construction and I don't think people would say it's passive (although it's not professional). Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I can imagine a story that someone might tell themselves: "I'm fighting so hard to survive. It would be so easy to just let myself die, but I am determined to live. People really ought to be committed to the outcome if they're going to kill themselves..." Feeling that they have control over this one thing, no matter what else their mental health problems may inflict on them, may be the only reason some people are still alive. I don't begrudge them that view at all. I just don't think we should elevate that POV over the other POVs. Sirfurboy's formulation of "leaning no in practice, but permissively yes" sounds like the right balance to me. I don't think that a one-size-fits-all solution is best. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps what you mean... What I mean is what I said. The phrase is passive in meaning, not in form. Which is why it was coined, presumably. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it was coined in the 1700s, I doubt it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite feeling more natural to me, it does seem that ngrams data suggests that other formulations are more appropriate. That having been said, "died by suicide" still seems like an unusual enough phrase to me that it immediately brings to mind Titus Andronicus reading off poetry by Abraham Lincoln at the beginning of A More Perfect Union. signed, Rosguill talk 20:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Four points:

  1. Killing oneself is certainly an act that is "committed"
  2. It's the common name (including in sources) for doing so
  3. The implicit question is "shall we make a rule up to forbid using the term "committed suicide"
  4. What is the poimt of trying to mandate terms for assigning less of a negative stigma to suicide? I won't elucidate the points that this obviously leads to.

With the implicit question being #3 the answer is "NO" North8000 (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the four points:
  1. What does that mean? By which definition?
  2. Citation needed
  3. Yes, outside direct quotes, like any other colloquialism
  4. It's not just about assigning less of a stigma. Using "committed suicide" makes our encyclopedia look out of date and unprofessional.
Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using committed suicide makes our encyclopedia look sane by using common language, rather than tortuous artificial alternatives. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with N8000 and HB. This argument that we need to remove language to reduce stigma attached to suicide is not doing victims any favors because there needs to be a healthy amount of "stigma" attached to it since it has been rightfully argued elsewhere that we want to make sure it isn't presented as a normal option. When you know you've done something wrong or made a mistake, then a normal amount of guilt, shame, or embarrassment are normal healthy reactions to keep us internally and emotionally guided. It's only when those responses are overwhelming that they're not normal or healthy. I don't believe I ever saw any sources for the claim that this phrase originated due to the ACT being a crime or a sin, but if there's any truth in it I can't think of a better way to let people know that suicide is not a normal option and as I've argued before I could care less about the style trends when sources are more or less equal. The important thing to focus on here is what causes harm to victims and what causes harm to my rights. I could care less what "looks professional" relative to those things. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 04:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The word suicide was promoted in the 1800s as an alternative to the original English self-murder because some people wanted to society to consider killing yourself as being less related to murder. Suicide is an attempt at de-stigmatizing killing yourself.
@Headbomb, what's "tortuous" or "artificial" about the phrase killing yourself? One of my ongoing frustrations with these discussions is that they usually devolve from "Um, guys, every suicide expert on the planet suggests avoiding that committed language" to "Ugh, I just hate this newfangled died by language. We must use committed because I hate died by and if we don't use committed then we'll have to use died by". English is a big language. There are lots of words. If we wanted to (and I don't) we could ban both committed and died by and still have many options left. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean to me it is just quite ridiculously absurd that anyone would first care more about whether a death is seen as a crime or sin than preventing a death in the first place. Let's get our priorities in order people. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 06:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shame around suicidal thoughts is more likely to prevent people from seeking help. This is what the sources say. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using language that is helpful and respectful encourages an environment free of stigma, where we can talk more openly and safely about suicide and its prevention. Words matter in a world where silence or insensitivity can make matters worse. The more we are open and safe in our communication, the more likely it is that people can offer or seek help.

SAFE LANGUAGE AND MESSAGES FOR SUICIDE PREVENTION
This pamphlet discourages "commit suicide". Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the only source I read that was an actual study was very clear they don't have enough information about the stigma around suicide to make any determinations and the best they could do is make inferences based on the data they gathered from mental illness. Furthermore, this type of inference based original research didn't suggest anything at all about shame or guilt, but rather other types of stigma associated with mental illness. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 14:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which source did you read? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was linked in one of these essays in this discussion, but I also could have found it in the guidance. I apologize that I had some difficulty finding it again for you, but if I come across it again I will produce it Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 20:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went back in my browser history and I think this was the source Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 21:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps more to the point: Why is a death the only form of harm that we should consider? Isn't "needlessly upsetting grieving family members" also a form of harm? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People bereaved by suicide have highlighted that the word “commit” is most commonly used in conjunction with a criminal act, resulting in a negative connotation of immorality, which is now inconsistent with the legal status of suicide in most countries globally.[9–12] Consequently, use of the phrase “commit suicide” in the media and in academia has been discouraged.

[1] Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, this is called looking for ways to be offended. Suicide is also associated with death, which evokes negative emotions in people. Therefore we now need to use self-unaliving to avoid the implication of death. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Unalive" is just used to circumvent being flagged by social media, not to spare anyone's feelings.[19] Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read the study. I was immediately concerned about sample selection, but the authors responsibly flag this. They say:

Secondly, in recent years there have been a number of publications and media guidelines advising against use of words such as “commit”, “successful” or “failed” in combination with “suicide”, including by authors of this paper and Samaritans.[13–15,25,26] To our knowledge, this advice has been based on anecdotal evidence regarding the views of people affected by suicide. The survey was developed following debate about whether these views were representative, and the potential implications of advising against use of one particular term. It is possible that such previous publications have influenced the findings, particularly since some recruitment took place through social media channels associated with the authors and Samaritans.

The authors note how geographical location skews results, and elsewhere they note that "committed suicide" is actually as acceptable as "died by suicide" by those whose experience of suicide is individual and the opposite view comes from those who only experience suicide through work or volunteering. As quoted above, that latter sample population was drawn primarily from the Samaritans, who have published guidelines on the matter. This is not telling you what you think it does. Its headline, btw, is that "took their own life" was, quantitatively, the most acceptable across all populations, with some making the point that it is "suicide" that is the problematic term. I also don't think you should be selectively quoting the comments from one part of the sample population as though that were a conclusion of the study - it was not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"since some recruitment took place through social media channels associated with the authors and Samaritans" ≠ "that latter sample population was drawn primarily from the Samaritans."
The outcome of the study:

Of phrases describing fatal suicidal behaviour, “took their own life” and “died by suicide” had the highest median acceptability scores. The scores for “commit suicide” were most variable and spanned the range of acceptability scores.

I quoted the introduction, but from the conclusion it is clear that "commit suicide" was controversial. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
≠ "that latter... It worries me that you think you know that. Not that it matters. The part "highlighted" refers to write in answers, and these are not quantified. It was by no means all the answers, just part of the range. You do see the problem here? The authors do. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of harm is complicated. If a relative has an incurable disease and is in intractable pain, I am traumatized. If he commits suicide, I am traumatized. If I prevent him, he is traumatized. In every case we both suffer harm. How do you decide which is worse? While in general I believe that it is right to prevent suicide, there are special cases where it is selfish to intervene. I hope to never be faced with making such a decision. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing, if upsetting the feelings of bereaved people were the only thing to take into consideration, then I would be more than happy to remove any phrasing anybody wants, but the reason I'm insisting on death being the most important consideration is because we are talking about real world life and death consequences for the changes we make not to mention the consequences it will have on the rights of people's freedom of speech or disruptive effects on people's ordinary day to day editing habits. But Huggums it's just one word we're not asking you to change much, and you are asking people to ignore how we feel. No, you are asking me to give up everything I care about, stand for and believe in which is every bit as deeply ingrained in me as much as anyone else has feelings ingrained in them you are asking me to change my deeply ingrained behavior which actually seeks out to prevent death and loss of personal freedoms just so that someone else can squalor in their grief. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 21:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that using the word committed will decrease suicide deaths? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's already been argued plenty that the stigma attached to it serves a useful purpose. My hope is that my arguments will somehow show the benefits far outweigh any perceived negatives. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 21:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But you said "the only source I read that was an actual study was very clear they don't have enough information about the stigma around suicide to make any determinations and the best they could do is make inferences". So I'm confused why you're making conclusions in the direction in favor of commit suicide if you don't think there is evidence either way. And the study you read found that Low suicide stigma was also associated with greater tendencies to seek help.[20] Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am also surprised by the claim that I think it's already been argued plenty that the stigma attached to it serves a useful purpose. Where does any source say that the stigma of the 'committed' language specifically serves any useful purpose?
Or are you speculating that since suicide stigma in general, measured at the overall society-wide level, has some (possibly small) preventive value against total deaths, that we should do anything we can to increase stigma? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WAID, I was just talking about what I thought some people were saying in this discussion and I'm glad you made the clear distinction of the differences between the stigma around the language of committed suicide and the stigma of suicide itself because I think the confusion Kolya has expressed revolves around this. The quote above about low suicide stigma has no correlation to the stigma of the word "committed", but rather the types of stigma that are also associated with mental health. When you separate out the two you see they are actually two different issues. Consider:
  1. I'm not happy to say I committed a senseless mercy killing to put the suffering animal out of its own misery.
  2. I tried to fool them, but I committed a betrayal of my own efforts when I just couldn't keep a straight face.
In both of these examples it could also be argued that "committed" is an outdated phrase implying crime and sin where no crime or sin has been committed, but it looks absurd and ridiculous to do that in these examples doesn't it? It just seems like a happy coincidence that suicide happens to have some other stigmas attached to it so people can make "committed" look more evil than it actually is by insinuating it's another "stigma" when it wouldn't be in any other circumstance. If you want sources showing proof that the committed language has useful purpose then look no further than our English language and the two examples I just gave you. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 01:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"A senseless mercy killing" is an oxymoron ("mercy" is the reason, or "sense"). Let's assume you meant "committed a mercy killing". A quick trip to Google Books indicates that that phrase is sometimes used when the author writes about murdering humans (fictional or otherwise), often with 'mercy killing' in scare quotes.
"To commit a betrayal" is not a common English phrase, but it, too, gets used, sometimes specifically for "committed a betrayal of confidence" or "of trust". Glancing through the search results, they're frequently about religion or moral philosophy, with what's probably a fair minority about adultery in the mix.
And here we should say: Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. It is possible for a sentence to be grammatically correct and not carry any sense at all. That doesn't mean that the usual sense of a word doesn't exist, and it especially doesn't mean that the usual sense of a word doesn't exist in the context where that usual sense has been identified as existing by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huggums, you said that stigma attached to [suicide] serves a useful purpose, correct? The sources say no.
I committed a betrayal of my own efforts is not encyclopedic writing. We would not write "So-and-so committed a betrayal of their efforts." That's non-neutral language. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"So-and-so committed a betrayal of their efforts" is also just bad writing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also wrote; "It just seems like a happy coincidence suicide happens...", to inspire thought in others and prove a point, but that is also just bad writing. You guys missed that one like you've missed the point. If the conversation has been reduced to nitpicking about the informal language I've used here which I would never use in an article, then I guess I'm done here. Thanks for the writing advice. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 18:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is an example of an encyclopedic use of the word "committed" which is not in the context of a crime or sin? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Computer Science, this term is used all over the place. A committed database is a database in which all changes have been saved. A journaling filesystem marks blocks committed in the journal when they are saved to disk. But your question is too broad. What you are really asking is whether the term "committed", when applying it to something someone does, always connotes some kind of offence. Recourse to the OED will disabuse you of that. Foster children are committed to the care of foster parents, troops may be committed to a charge, your boss may be committed to a course of action, Caesar committed to his when he crossed the Rubicon; Jesus committed his Spirit to God in the crucifxion accounts, the authority of the king was committed into the hands of the regent, etc. The OED has an extremely long entry on this word, with many different meanings. The act of carrying out a crime is one of then (ii.9.a) And you'll note that is a long way down the order. It is not the only meaning, and I am actually doubtful it is the first one that comes to mind when anyone (who has not been pre-primed) hears the term "committed suicide". You have spent a lot of words making your point, but maybe now is a good time to let some others speak. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I have to clarify. Using OED 1913, definition III,[21] "To perpetrate or perform (in a bad sense)", what is an example of an encyclopedic use of the word "committed" which is not in the context of a crime or sin...or other bad sense? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Your (very old) dictionary lists various other definitions. Why would you insist only on the third one? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link to a newer OED that is available? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commit:
I: To give in charge, entrust, consign.
II: To commission.
III: To perpetrate or perform (in a bad sense).
IV: To put together, join, engage, involve. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See [22]. You will need to login with your institution or through your library. If you can't access that work, you can get shorter entries by using Wikipedia Library's Oxford Reference subscription: [23] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a little late to note, but i thought the fact that the definition people have been debating for is specified to be about crime, sin, and suicide would have gone somewhere. as in suicide being the third option that is clumped together because it's already been stapled to the word, with it itself not necessarily being a crime or a sin. granted, that ship's sailed, so there's probably no point in this anyway consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 21:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary break

edit

The word commit has many meanings and is part of many phrases. One of the problems we have is that people keep trying to make grammar-type arguments, but they're using the wrong phrase. For example:

Various uses
Use Meaning Examples
Commit [something] to [something else] dedicate, entrust commit a child to someone's care, commit ourselves to justice, commit something to memory
Commit to [something] dedicate to commit [the organization] to a course of action, commit [ourselves] to an action
Commit [a thing] dedicate it commit money [to a particular purpose], commit computer code [to the database],
Commit [an action] perform, perpetrate commit murder, commit suicide, commit adultery

Yes, these involve the word commit, but, no, they do not involve the very specific phrase in question. The specific phrase is "commit [an action]", and that phrase does not have room for a "to", implied or otherwise. For example, foster parents do not "commit care"; they just "care". The KJV/Authorized version has "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (not commit at all), and other translations variously use commit, entrust, place, or put. But he's not committing an action; he's committing a thing [his spirit]. That's a different grammatical structure and is not relevant. The only uses of commit that are relevant for this discussion are actions that have been committed.

Or, to put it another way, if you want to argue that commit doesn't ever imply wrongdoing, then please provide an example involving the intransitive verb and an uncountable noun that represents an action, and does not need the word "to". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Folly consists not in committing folly, but in being incapable of concealing it.

- Baltasar Gracián
Again, maybe looking at what the OED entry actually says would be instructive. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a neutral encyclopedic phrase. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You hear that sound? That's the machinery digging out the goalposts and dragging them along the ground.

every seemingly ordinary person on this planet is capable of committing heroic acts.[24]

or, indeed, this parliamentary language:

Members of the Lords asked whether the bill would deter people thinking of committing heroic acts.[25]

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ironic of me to say this, but this entire discussion about finding instances of "commit" being used for good or at least neutral stuff seems like a red herring. suicide isn't exactly all sunshine and rainbows, so why would this have anything to do with it in the first place? consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 21:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Commiting a heroic act" is not neutral. This is also in the context of moralizing. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I asked my AI assistant some very specific questions to help me with this problem and this is the result it gave me:
Ah, I see exactly what you’re aiming for now, Huggums! You're exploring situations where someone might "commit" an action that’s offensive or controversial but doesn’t rise to the level of crime or sin—more of a breach of social etiquette, norms, or unspoken rules. Here are examples that might hit closer to the mark:
1. **Social Offense**:
- "He felt as if he had committed an unforgivable act by forgetting to thank his host, though it was merely an oversight and not truly a moral failure."
This shows how "committed" conveys the perceived seriousness of an action that’s socially unacceptable.
2. **Breaking Traditions**:
- "She committed the faux pas of wearing white to a wedding, drawing disapproving looks from some guests."
The act isn't illegal or sinful, but it violates societal expectations.
3. **Violating Unwritten Rules**:
- "They committed the error of speaking loudly in a library, disturbing the peace but breaking no laws."
This captures an act that’s socially irritating but not against formal rules.
4. **Missteps in Communication**:
- "He committed the awkward mistake of interrupting his boss in a meeting, causing tension but no lasting harm."
The action crosses interpersonal boundaries without constituting a crime or sin.
These examples illustrate "committed" being used in scenarios where the gravity of the word is somewhat exaggerated or rooted in subjective judgment. Do these resonate with the kind of usage you’re envisioning? I’d love to dive deeper if you'd like! Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 05:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perplexed at the question. We're looking for neutral, professional writing. The word commit always has negative connotations (or ironic positive connotations). Ask AI: "Is the term 'committed suicide' encyclopedic, neutral writing?" Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No! Again, this is clear WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. As above, the British House of Lords did not use the term in such a manner. You are simply ignoring the evidence you don't like and continually attempting to reframe the question. When you demand "encyclopedic, neutral writing" and ignore such evidence, it is apparent that you will only accept such writing as meets your conception of such writing, where you have already determined that the term can only be negatively framed. You have incorporated the conclusion of your argument into the premises. And it is all a rabbit hole. No one is going to wade through all your 46 contributions looking for the core of your argument. This is just dictionaries at dawn now. Time to lay it to rest. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't follow your accusations, but I think you're making this too complicated. WP:NPOV is a core policy. As I have argued consistently, "committed" is 99% of the time negative, and sometimes used in the nonstandard, opposite way, such as "committed a good deed". Are you arguing that "committing heroic acts" is neutral? That it is a standard use? It sounds like the word "committed" is again attached to moral acts. But I am just trying to be generous by engaging with your concerns, when every single RS which discusses the question says "commit suicide" is non-neutral. Here's one.[26] Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolya Butternut, if this is just a stylistic issue regarding good encyclopedic writing, then the current guidance we have covers all of it, and this whole discussion was just a big waste of time unless people want to continue to debate about the difference between what constitutes an "offense" or real harm. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 16:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a stylistic issue. Firstly, it violates NPOV. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

edit

I feel like this discussion will find no consensus just like the many discussions before it and I propose that rather than forbidding any language we just accept the current guidance based on the many discussions proving an inability to gain any consensus on the matter and we can lay this matter to rest by restricting any future rfc's on the matter to the talk pages of the relevant guidance about suicide so we won't take up so much community effort on going nowhere.

References

  1. ^ Padmanathan, Prianka; Biddle, Lucy; Hall, Katherine; Scowcroft, Elizabeth; Nielsen, Emma; Knipe, Duleeka (2019). "Language use and suicide: An online cross-sectional survey". PLOS ONE. 14 (6): e0217473. Bibcode:2019PLoSO..1417473P. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0217473. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 6563960. PMID 31194768.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/The_term_committed_suicide&oldid=1283647092"