Talk:Self-harm

Keeping this at GA; switch to sfns?

I'm trying to bring this article to a state where it could survive a good article review, as currently it's nowhere near GA standards. Due to the widespread use of low-quality webpages as sources here, it's gotten by so far without a citation style geared toward paginated sources. For a few I've just added, I've used {{rp}}s, but I find in this kind of article usually {{sfn}}s are the most straightforward to use to be clear about what verifies what. And switching to sfns is often a good way to visualize the citation structure of an article, and what issues it might have.

(Please note, I'm not criticizing anyone who's contributed to this article to date. GA standards have changed. Medical sourcing standards have changed. We just need to bring this article in sync with them.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Tamzin: your efforts to help bring this up to current GA standards are much appreciated. I don't see a problem switching to sfn. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

P.S. embarrassing looking back at my comments in the old GA reviews 😳 Polyamorph (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Todo

Some things I'm taking note of as I work on this, in no particular order

1. The first classification section should probably be merged with the signs and symptoms section, the second classification section, or both.
2. Self-harm in popular culture should exist. There's a number of existing articles it could draw from, I think. Replace the "Awareness" section with a summary of it. But that's a whole 'nother project and I doubt I have the bandwidth for both that and this. Pinging Elli as someone who recently mentioned to me she was looking for a project. If someone writes most of it, I can probably find time for any parts about tattoos, an intersecting interest of mine. (Side todo, Cover-up (tattoo) should also discuss SH cover-ups.)
3. We need a working definition, even if we acknowledge it's not the only definition. Based on what reviews I've read, I think we can justify something like the following, but I'd like to read more first: (ed. 06:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC))

   [Lede] Self-harm is, in the broadest sense, any deliberate harm of one's own body. When defined as distinct from suicide and suicide attempt, it generally encompasses non-suicidal self-injury and self-poisoning (including intentional drug overdose). A common form of self-injury is cutting, lacerating the skin with sharp objects; other common forms include burning, scratching, and hitting oneself.

   [Classification and terminology] The terminology used for self-harm has varied over time, across regions, and across medical authorities. Some sources, including most sources in the United Kingdom, use self-harm (SH) or deliberate self-harm (DSH) to refer to any intentional damage of the body, including suicide and attempted suicide. Others narrow the definition to non-suicidal acts; this is the definition used in this article. While self-harm is sometimes used interchangeably with self-injury (SI), many sources (and this article) define the latter as intentional tissue damage with physical objects, with self-harm also covering self-poisoning (including intentional drug overdose, IDO). Some sources (but not this article) also include as self-harm tissue damage that results from eating disorders or substance abuse. Self-harm and self-injury may be specified as non-suicidal (NSSH or NSSI) or emphasized as deliberate (DSH or DSI), although it may not always be feasible to infer the intent of someone who has self-harmed, and some object to DSH as judgmental.

   [And then stuff on less-used and related terms, with self-injurious behavior as most common. NICE's explicit standards also belong in here somewhere.]

4. I tagged the "History" section as synth because none of the sources used actually establish that these things could be called self-harm or at least are on a spectrum with it, but those sources absolutely do exist. More discussion of body modification, including tattoos and piercings, as a gray area between culturally normative practices and SH would also be useful. Favazza's Bodies Under Siege seems to have a lot of potential for bridging psychological and sociological aspects.
5. I get that there's consensus to only have one image of actual SH scars, but surely there's some images we can find that are related to SH without depicting it. (If the SH in popular culture article gets written, File:CSD Berlin 169.jpg might be an interesting one-SH-scar-image for that article; it's the only image I could find on Commons of someone with visible SH scars in a public setting.)

   I feel the current image could be better quality. I also think that showing healed SH scars look like is informative, but I'm open to suggestions for an alternative image instead. Re: the image for the pop. culture article, just don't zoom the image on the phone...! Polyamorph (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

6. I think I've tagged all pop-culture sources now, although some primary medical sources probably remain untagged. Most of these are probably substantially correct, although as we can see here, it's easy for overgeneralizations in such sources to turn into outright errors, which is why we need to shore these up.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

N.B.: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-injury in popular culture was a thing, but I do not think would be an obstacle to a well-referenced, prose-heavy article on the topic. The deleted article was all xkcd #446-type stuff, and I'm thinking something more like Che Guevara in popular culture. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Main picture is too "aestethic"

Maybe I'm being paranoid but the picture of this article might look too "cute" for such a serious topic, the pinkish tone and harmless appearance might look appealing to some people thinking of self harming themselves. There's people who self harm that do it for the aesthethic after all.

I think a drawing would be the best way to illustrate this topic. Mirad1000 (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussions about the image are relatively frequent. As yet, no one has provided a suitable public domain alternative. I favour a photograph over a drawing, but would be open to replacing the current photograph if a good quality alternative was identified. Polyamorph (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how a drawing would be better than an actual picture. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps someone can find a good drawing? I probably wouldn't even support a picture with 'bad' aesthetic, as it can potentially make the action more 'real' and thereby accessible. JoeJShmo^💌 01:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

These discussion are pointless when there is no alternative image provided. Polyamorph (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)