Talk:Online self-harm

	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Medicine Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I feel like this article is overly broad. Technically speaking things like the aerosol and ice challenges aren't "self-harm" in the way that cutting yourself is self-harm; it's just someone being being stupid and not realizing that they're going to be seriously injured by participating in childish activities.

Now, the self-harm/self-trolling as described is self-harm, and I think that should be the major focus of this article. There also seems to be a fair bit of research/studies about the subject. Just posting here to get thoughts from other editors before making any big changes.

@

Talk 19:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I was thinking more the second sentence of your first ref, It's usually a way of coping with or expressing overwhelming emotional distress. This is why I said it wasn't the same type of self-harm, compared to things like cutting or insulting yourself via online mechanism. I'm not denying that it's self-harm, but it's not due to emotional distress. This is why I'm concerned that either the article title is too vague, or alternately, needs to be defined better in the lead.

The lead currently reads [it] is the practice of intentionally self-harming and posting the results or process.... With (for example) the ice cube challenge, the goal is not "intentionally self-harming", it's "see how long you can do this painful thing". While the stories that make the news are the ones who went too far, not everyone comes away permanently scarred. This is why I'm not overly convinced such topics should be included with more serious psychological issues where the point is to damage oneself.

But, I'm just one person, which is why I thought a dialogue was best, and why I invited the Medical WikiProject in for their thoughts. Primefac (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

Talk 19:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• should be consistent w/ NIH[1]...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I wonder if it'd be better to merge this into Self-harm. OTOH, maybe the subject isn't actually "self-harm"; maybe the subject is "doing stupid or dangerous stuff to get attention", in which case, the proper merge target is attention seeking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, I think this particular article could get split in both directions. The "self-trolling"/Reddit-shaming could go as a section in self-harm, the ice cubes and stupid stuff going into attention seeking. Sound reasonable? Primefac (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds okay to me. If we decide later that we don't like it, then we could always try something else then.

I would particularly like to know what

User:Wiki-Coffee thinks of that idea, since Wiki-Coffee is the person who has spent the most time reading sources about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Talk 17:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I've been looking at a couple of these sources. Here's how one incident is described: "a permanent scar on her leg as a painful reminder of what she thought was "harmless fun". Doing something that you believe (rightly or wrongly) is harmless sounds to me like the opposite of "somebody intentionally damages or injures their body" (NHS Choices definition of self-harm).

I think it might be interesting to see if this is addressed in academic journals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk 18:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

TNT?

There are only two academic sources cited in this article and they don't use the phrase "online self-harm". It's not clear that crazes that can be physically dangerous should be lumped together with self-cyberbullying. I think the article needs radical overhaul. I suggest either reducing to a stump and focusing on self-cyberbullying (based on Englander, 2012), or just making a redirect to

I've reduced it to a stump, but what's left (two sentences) could easily be worked into the main article on self-harm. Redirect time? Primefac (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the sub-stub is necessarily an improvement. We're losing content and not sending readers to a useful page. What do you think about a disambiguation page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you'd dab (unless it was to self-harm and attention seeking, which seem like odd choices). I'd say a redir to self-harm would be better overall (merging the existing content somewhere into the article). Primefac (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those two, plus cyberbullying, if it ends up with a bit of information about self-cyber-bullying. The list would probably read something like "Attention seeking – some forms of attention seeking result in unintended injuries". It might also be possible to list some of the related pages, such as Salt and ice challenge or Internet meme. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yeah, with cyberbullying that could be a decent dab. Primefac (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a try; what do you two think of it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, looks good. Primefac (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think

Self harm. Bondegezou (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]