Talk:Altruistic suicide
Add topic | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | The content of Benevolent suicide was merged into Altruistic suicide on 5 June 2018. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
POV and inconsistent
[edit]Re:
[is treated] as heroism... and is always lauded, and is perceived as tragic death.
No. Suicide bombing fits this definition while most often it is condemned, not lauded. Zezen (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
It's poorly worded, but the article does go on to point out that it doesn't count if it's planned. To Western audiences, a kamikaze pilot wouldn't be seen as nearly as honorable as a pilot who, having been shot or having lost engine power, directed his plane into the enemy. Similarly, a suicide bomber would only be honorable if, for example, a kidnapped, cornered, or dying person used an explosive to take out their would-be captors (especially if done to protect the lives of others). On the other hand, the whole article is indeed woefully unsourced and restates itself at several points. 68.60.202.174 (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
RE: Third intro paragraph distinguishing social murder
[edit]Is it just me or is this paragraph extremely weird. I'm not sure why its even relevant to distinguish something like eugenics or governmental mass murder as the very concept of suicide already includes an assumption of voluntariness. But even if it were worthwhile to include the first sentence to make that distinction, I have no idea why it would be necessary to include euphemisms for eugenics alongside page links for the real terms and I definitely don't know why the next line would discuss portrayals of a topic which is only there to be distinguished. Worst of all they make it seem like the only portrayals of social murder are as an, impliedly, reasonable resolution to intractable social conflict or a dystopian caricature. It really reads like coy crypto-fascist waffling, but even if it isn't, it has no reason to be here.
Also the only cite for the whole paragraph is a broken link. Would anyone be terribly aggrieved if I removed it? Abilene, Not the City (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)