Jump to content

Talk:Suicide methods

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


‹ The template below (Copied) is being considered for merging with merged-from. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

Suicide Helplines

See also: Talk:Suicide_methods/Archive_1 § Village_pump_discussion:_to_disclaim_or_no

I know that wikipedia believes that people have the right to search everything and I am for that. However, I think it would be best to at least show at the top a suicide prevention hotline warning. People who are searching for this may be conspiring to end their lives and we should do the best we can to stop that. 177.18.225.191 (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please do this. I am in a dark place and this article is not helping. 172.92.9.6 (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed countless times before and the consensus was to not display the hotline on the article itself. However, the talk page contains various resources. It has also shown that most people arrive here through a search engine, which will most likely already contain hotlines/resources. -- ChamithN (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best to at least show at the top a suicide prevention hotline warning

Yes please do this. I am in a dark place and this article is not helping.

Agree with IPs 177 and 172. And I don’t think we should use old consensus to suppress / deny (the formation of) new consensus. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and added the resource to the page, per this discussion. aaronneallucas (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not how it works. More than just a couple of IP editors is needed to form consensus for a major policy change (which such a notice would entail.) wound theology◈ 02:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


If you feel you may physically harm yourself, or others: Click here for a list of crisis support resources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no help line provided

There should be a help line provided at top of this Wikipedia site 2003:C6:3F2A:ED00:5D7A:A8F0:A38B:1E8A (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link at the top of this page, where it says "The Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety team maintains a list of crisis support resources."
Additionally, it looks like 95% of people who arrive at this page are coming from web search engines, which means they have likely seen a message about their local crisis line(s) in the last few seconds. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they may have seen a message with one telephone number, but our list has much more detail and is more comprehensive. It offers more than one number for each place (and some numbers maybe specific for different people, e.g., youths, pregnant women, drug abusers, victims of violence, etc.). Further, a sad truth is that, in some places, the local crisis line returned by search engines is usually busy. It’s just a recording machine with no one answering the calls. It’s important to show people the other numbers. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC); 02:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, for those who have concerns about the 988 suicide crisis line, from this report: “Some advocates and people who had experiences with the mental health system took to social media to voice concerns about 988 and warn people not to call it”.
But that NPR report also found that:
  • 988 cannot geolocate callers
  • the person who authored the Instagram post calling 988 "not friendly" hadn't called the hotline herself.
  • ”Only when the caller cannot or will not collaborate on a safety plan and the counselor feels the caller will harm themselves imminently should emergency services be called, according to the hotline's policy.”
P.S. The WMF list of resources is missing information for some places. Also, I can’t see it showing up on the top (or is it just me?) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I see the WMF list of resources now. It’s hidden in the “sea of boxes”. And I thought you meant it’s on the top of the article too, but I misread.. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
988 -beefbaby182 (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a help line provided at top of this Wikipedia site

You are right. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typo on number of deaths

Under List > Pesticide, it says in US pesticides are used in about 12 suicides. Based on the cited source information, I believe 12 million was meant. 172.102.168.219 (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please elucidate. Suicide by pesticide is very rare in the US; it's far more common elsewhere. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 03:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There can't possibly be 12 million suicides by pesticide each year in the US; there are only 3.5 million deaths each year in the US, and only 0.05 million of them are any kind of suicide. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just stumbled across this comment and I must say I’m baffled by the assertion that more people than the population of New York City are deliberately killing themselves with pesticides. Dronebogus (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the United States, no. "Pesticide ingestion is one of the most common methods of suicide worldwide. It is responsible for an estimated 14 million deaths since the Green Revolution in the 1960s, when pesticides became widely used in small-scale farming." The Centre for Pesticide Suicide Prevention --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody else believes you but I do 172. If it was 12 million in 2023 its probably closer to 20 million in 2024 LOVECEL 🤍 16:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon what data? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought 172 was a medical statistician but I'm having trouble finding a reliable source, perhaps it should be removed? LOVECEL 🤍 18:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you think a one-time contributor making ridiculous claims would be a medical statistician? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 19:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a vision that 172 was a medical statistician and he told me things that only a medical statistician could know LOVECEL 🤍 20:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

The original:

A drug overdose involves taking a dose of a drug that exceeds safe levels. In the UK (England and Wales) until 2013, a drug overdose was the most common suicide method in females. In 2019 in males the percentage is 16%. Self-poisoning accounts for the highest number of non-fatal suicide attempts. In the United States about 60% of suicide attempts and 14% of suicide deaths involve drug overdoses. The risk of death in suicide attempts involving overdose is about 2%.[verification needed]


Edit: A drug overdose involves taking a dosage of a drug or drugs that exceeds safe levels. In the UK, in 2013, drug overdose was the most common suicide method among women. For men, as of 2019, the rate was 16%. In the United States, about 60% of suicide attempts and 14% of suicide deaths involve drug overdoses. Self-poisoning accounts for the highest number of non-fatal suicide attempts. The risk of death in an overdose related suicide attempt is around 2%.[verification needed]

There are a number of grammatical issues in the current edit. Dstryker120 (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this. I understand that dose, in its more technical use, is only how much of a drug ("500 mg"), and dosage includes how often it is given ("500 mg twice a day for two weeks"). See https://www.goodrx.com/drugs/medication-basics/pharmacy-medical-glossary#d
If memory serves, the UK source doesn't include Scotland or Northern Ireland. If my memory is correct, then we might need to mention that. It'd be better to find a more up to date source, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To go through each point,
You are not correct about the term "dose" or how you are using it. I provided this in medical terms, and they are the ones most qualified to define the usage of the terms. Any other phrasing would not meet the medical definition.
The UK includes: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, it wouldn't even matter in this context. No matter what is included, saying "in the UK" means, within the parameters of the UK. If the UK meant only the city of London, it's still the same meaning when saying "in the UK." It's like saying "in Asia" and you say, I don't know if Asia includes France, so maybe you should mention "in Asia, which doesn't include France," And again, yes, the UK includes: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Lastly, I used the sources I did because those were the most up-to-date ones from legitimate and medically based records. This has likely changed since the original edit. If you would like to change or add newer sources that have more recent numbers, I would support you going ahead to do that. Staying up to date is important. Dstryker120 (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize, the main changes you want to make are:
  • use men and women instead of males and females
  • change dose to dosage
  • remove England and Wales (i.e., imply that the numbers are the same for Scotland and Northern Ireland)
Is that correct? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect on your concept of grammar as well as your idea of the term dose in this context. No, that's not the medical term, nor the grammatical one. Standing next to a doctor at this second, even they are confused how you got there.
Second, yes, men and women is a far better way of phrasing it than male and female as this is about people, not animals. And while still seen in some fields of wiring, grammatically, it's falling out of fashion because of it's dehumanizing nature. Do not know why that change, or any of them, offends you so greatly.
Third, again, this is a matter of grammar. You need to work on a number of concepts, including presenting specific and accurate detail. This is true in literally all forms of writing, but most certainly in informative writing. You could say "in the Milky Way galaxy" to describe the street you live on, but it's not a good way to describe it. "GPS says I'm a mile a way, but I'm a little lost... where is the turn?" "Oh, it's on Earth. If you hit Venus, you've gone too far." That's a literally accurate description, but not a good one.
Lastly, you took old information, that was outdated even when you first used it, and I simply stated those numbers are not currently accurate. You even agree they aren't, so why are you so offended? Nothing about this was personal, and if you are incapable of someone correcting word usage like dose and dosage or stating, "numbers change" this may not be a great place for you. And the fact you claim you're reasoning for the numbers you chose was either you being unwilling to put in the effort or you're incapable of doing simple research in able to state as up-to-date information as you reasonably can in a piece of informative writing, is yet another reason you should work more on your informative writing skills. At least if you want to keep attempting to use them. Dstryker120 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's talk about dose/dosage. Here's a definition from StatPearls's Pharmacy Calculations:
"Dose refers to the amount of medication taken at a specific time, whereas the dosage of the drug refers to the administration of a frequency, amount, and the number of doses taken over a particular period of time."
Do you think that this definition is wrong? If you think that is wrong, can you link to a high-quality medical reference that gives a different definition of these two words? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mosby's Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing & Health Professions says:
  • dosage, the regimen governing the size, amount, frequency and number of doses of a therapeutic agent to be administered to a patient.
  • dose, the amount of drug or other substance to be administered at one time.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) regarding the use of suicide crisis telephone numbers. The thread is Suicide hotlines.  Thank you. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

The suicide and crisis lifeline for the North American Numbering Plan, which includes the United States, Canada, and other countries.

@Dustfreeworld put this image in the lead about two weeks ago. @Wound theology removed it today.

I wonder whether this article should have a lead image at all. I thought Dustfreeworld's placement of the firearm-specific Manet painting in the ===Shooting=== section was a good choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a suicide crisis line for N America is going to fly. A montage of crisis lines for several countries might work, but might still be problematic.
I don't mind the Manet painting in the lead. Bondegezou (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind the painting either way, but I'm thinking that if we have artwork depicting hanging in ===Hanging=== and drowining in ===Drowning===, then we should probably have shooting in ===Shooting=== instead of in the lead. Worldwide, shooting is not the most common method, so it doesn't make sense to me to elevate that one (I mean that literally: putting it "above" the rest of the article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back in the history of the page, I am not the first to remove it, many other users have reverted the crisis lifeline in the lead. It's clear that this is a work-around for the "have a suicide disclaimer on pages!" that has no consensus and is currently being debated. wound theology◈ 06:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right about the motivation. I think the images of the ads for the method-specific crisis lines in ===Jumping=== are very relevant to the article, but I'm not sure that a general line is relevant to any particular method. I think it could, however, be placed in Suicide methods#Media reporting, with a caption like "When when news organizations report on suicide-related events, media guidelines encourage them to provide information about local suicide crisis phone numbers, such as this number for North America." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing; “I'm not sure that a general line is relevant to any particular method”
You are right. That’s why it belongs to the lead. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of caption would you give it, to show a clear connection to suicide methods? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suicide_methods&diff=prev&oldid=1222207513 --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a combination of the text from 988 (telephone number) and the caption you proposed above. So thanks for posting that. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to placing the image in "Media reporting." Images are for illustration, not urging people who might be suicidal to seek help. wound theology◈ 10:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think the image I added is “urging people to seek help” as you said. Both the image and its caption aren’t. What you said is simply untrue. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to placing the image in "Mediareporting."

Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that it’s very clear that everyone in this discussion agree that we can have the suicide crisis line image in the Media reporting section, I’ve added that to the article (the page has a high page view that's almost 8000 per day. Their lives are precious and shouldn't face higher risk because of the time wasted here). Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is comments like these that make it obvious you are adding this image not for illustrative purposes, but in order to right great wrongs. We are an encyclopedia, not a repository of resources for at-risk people. wound theology◈ 18:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop commenting on my comments. It’s this kind of comments that ___. Also, please don’t comment on other editors, focus on content instead. Thanks.
It’s not “right great wrongs” as you said. It’s because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which is not supposed to “be evil” (“wrong great rights”) by providing people with readily available / easily accessible information on how to kill themselves while hiding helpful relevant information somewhere else. This article is far from “repository of resources” for at-risk people as you said. Instead, it’s lacking that crisis lines information (especially before my recent edits), and that information had been deliberately removed repeatedly by editors like you.
We aren’t “urging” them to seek help. How do you know that 100% of the people who come to the article 100% don’t want the information of suicide crisis helplines? Aside, I can tell you personally that long long time ago I’d tried searching for counselling hotlines but couldn’t find what I want at Wikipedia, but did find a lot of information about suicide/ suicide methods instead.
We aren’t “urging” them to seek help. We just show an option by providing the information, while at the same time following strictly to our core policies WP:NPOV, which states that:
“..a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views..”
That means, omitting the suicide crisis lines information *is* a violation of our policy. Not to mention that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.
As you said, “we are an encyclopaedia”, not a repository of information for killing oneself.
Further, the lead is a summary of the whole article, if you agree that a particular suicide method can have an image about the crisis lines specific to that method, you should also agree that the lead has an image of the general line. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s double standard that you don’t object to the left edit below (to the Media reporting section) while you strongly oppose to the edit on the right (to the lead):
  • When news organizations report on suicide-related events, media guidelines encourage them to provide information about local suicide crisis phone numbers, such as this number for North America.
    When news organizations report on suicide-related events, media guidelines encourage them to provide information about local suicide crisis phone numbers, such as this number for North America.
  • Most search engines return information about local suicidecrisis phone numbers, such as this number for North America, as the first result for searches related to suicide methods.
    Most search engines return information about local suicidecrisis phone numbers, such as this number for North America, as the first result for searches related to suicide methods.
While the caption on the right is adjusted based on text copied from 988 (telephone number), which obviously shows the relationship between suicide crisis lines and suicide methods, and that crisis line is one of the significant view related to suicide methods, and should be included to the lead per WP:NPOV. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First (and again,) you do not understand what a personal attack is according to Wikipedia policy. Second, WP:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. Third, the page is not a WP:HOWTO guide as it stands, and placing hotline information to "balance" the page would not actually solve the issue of the page being a HOWTO guide. Fourth, there is not "point of view" to even speak of here; it's a page about methods people use to off themselves, not a discussion of why suicide is good or bad. wound theology◈ 19:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t agree, but I don’t have time for the discussion now. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wound theology. “...many other users have reverted the crisis lifeline in the lead”
What does that mean? That means:
many users have *added* the crisis lifeline in the lead.
And I’m one of them; again. Please see my edit summaries. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mainly referring to being pinged here; there is a rough consensus among editors that a suicide hotline is out of place. wound theology◈ 10:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not asking what do *you* mean. I’m stating what you’ve actually implied. As I’ve said, “many users have *added* the crisis lifeline in the lead.” I don’t see any “out of place” “rough consensus” as you said. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for your edit summaries: WP:NOTHOWTO does not apply, because the page does not give instructions how to commit suicide. Even if it did, a suicide hotline would not solve the problem. Arguably, WP:NOTHOWTO is contradictory to such an image in the lede, because we aren't teaching people how to get help either -- not to mention WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We're not whitepages. wound theology◈ 10:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn’t response to my edit summary about moving the firearm-specific image back to its own section. As another user already mentioned, there are many other types of suicide methods, and prevalent ones are different for different places. I told you twice already in my edit summaries that the image is undue for the lead. IMO repeatedly putting it back to the lead is a violation of our core policy.
Let’s be honest. The whole page is about suicide methods, i.e., “how to commit suicide”. Without some balance, it will easily straying into that HOWTO territory. There’s why the article has been taken to AFD many times. Even you yourself said that “Even if it did”. If you think linking to a list of worldwide suicide hotlines won’t solve the problem, I don’t mind you bring the article to AFD again.
BTW, I really don’t think just an image with a neutral description is “teaching” people to seek help as you said.
I don’t think you cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY correctly. We are talking about adding one or two wikilink to an article, which in no way will turn it into a “directory”.--Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a firearm-specific image, it is one of the most famous depictions of suicide ever produced. You can say twice that it is "undue" for the lede, but that's wholly irrelevant here. It's for illustrative purposes.
You keep referencing HOWTO without clearly understanding what it means. Listing methods does not mean it is teaching people how to commit suicide -- it means listing the methods people use to commit suicide. With that being said, you can't argue on the one hand that this page is about how to commit suicide and it needs balance, while on the other hand stating that the hotline image is not how to get help (i.e., what would balance a HOWTO article on suicide.)
Lastly, stop using comments as you are. Listing a bunch of random policies, some of which don't even apply, and saying "do not remove this because policy says so!" is wholly inappropriate, especially for something like this which is controversial and currently under discussion. Leave the article as it is according to the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. wound theology◈ 04:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making the untrue claims. Also, I don’t think you have followed BRD. You removed the content that me and another user added (they changed the caption), which had stood for about two weeks, without starting any discussion beforehand or after being reverted. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Dustfreeworld's placement of the firearm-specific Manet painting in the Shooting section was a good choice.

Agree, of course. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we do have to be sensitive to Wikipedia guidance, like WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but I am also happier to WP:IAR here than practically anywhere else on Wikipedia given that we know information about suicide methods, depictions of suicide and provision of support for people feeling suicidal all have very real world impacts on people’s lives. I like WhatamIdoing’s thinking above. Bondegezou (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is something currently being discussed and there is no clear consensus yet. wound theology◈ 13:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you said “no consensus”, sometimes you said “rough consensus”, so that’s completely “at your discretion”. If you want to discuss the definition of consensus this doesn’t seem to be the right venue. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for adding the hotline image to the lede. There is a rough consensus, according to the edit history of the page, against doing so. wound theology◈ 04:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s your personal opinion only. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know this is something currently being. That was me contributing to the discussion! Bondegezou (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

we know information about suicide methods, depictions of suicide and provision of support for people feeling suicidal all have very real world impacts on people’s lives.

Totally agree. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to find an image that depicts a suicide method, but also depicts something being done to minimise suicide? I'm sure others can do better, but I found:

Suizidprävention_Graz_Don_Bosco

Golden_Gate_Bridge_suicide_prevention_sign

Suicide_nets_on_the_Pacific_side_of_the_Golden_Gate_Bridge Bondegezou (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any of these are fine. I'm not opposed to showing an image of suicide prevention signs for illustration purposes, I'm opposed to actually installing suicide prevention signs on the article. wound theology◈ 11:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bondegezou, I like what you’ve found and have added it to the article :-)
P.S. Wound theology, IMO you’re edit warring [1] because of this. I think my notes for editors are *very* appropriate. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring does not apply to flagrant violations of policy. Attempting to stop others from editing, or from removing something you think should be in the page, with comments that state they would be in violation of policy for doing so, is one such flagrant violation. This is why these comments are incredibly inappropriate: you do not get to decide what other editors cannot remove if they see fit. If you feel I am edit warring, then make a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. wound theology◈ 18:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My notes for editors is a reminder to others of our core policies. IMO your comment above “Attempting to stop others from editing, or from removing adding something you think should not be in the page.. you do not get to decide what other editors cannot remove add if they see fit”. Please stop commenting on other editors, focus on content instead. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the core policies here. None of what I said was a personal attack, and your comments remain inappropriate. wound theology◈ 08:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t agree, but I don’t have time for the discussion now. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we can move on from the distraction of the above dispute, I just wanted to say that I think the article is looking better now and would like to thank everyone who inputted into the discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think we've made some useful improvements. Thank you to everyone who helped get us there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A link should be added at the top of the article to Wikipedia's crisis resources in the hatnotes section. aaronneallucas (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In previous discussions, we have talked about adding more subtle hatnotes to direct people to resources, but I think a more explicit message would be worthwhile.
Consider the general idea of how the page looked when this resource was added here. (The exact nature of the hatnote is less important). This note does not technically add a content warning, and merely adds to the information available to users. It also appears to be the case that users did find this information relevant and critical. In the time frame when this notice was added to the article, which was one week, a clear spike can be seen in visits to Wikipedia's crisis resources list: see here, so much so that visits increased by a factor of 5.
Even if this is a rule violation, I think that this article is a rare edge case where it is fair to apply WP:IAR. It has a clear potential to be helpful and add information and value to the article, considering that many who visit the article, logically, are experiencing suicidal thoughts and would benefit from having the note placed in the article again. I know this is a touchy subject, and a big ask of the community, but there is a real chance that this note could do some real good for those that need it. aaronneallucas (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include I rarely edit or comment on subjects that I have a professional interest in (Wikipedia is a hobby, not work), but I cannot in good conscience ignore this discussion. I disagree with WP:SNOWBALL here. As editors of an encyclopedia, we are interested in passing on knowledge and should be guided by science and academia as much as we are by policies and guidelines. I appreciate content warnings can sometimes be considered a form of censorship, and share the belief that Wikipedia should not be censored. However, a hatnote directing people to mental health resources is not censorship in any way, nor is it a disclaimer. It is also socially and morally responsible. While discussing suicide in general does not appear to place a suicidal person at greater risk, there is a demonstrated correlation between articles which detail methods of suicide and increased rates of suicide and suicidality. [2], [3], [4] etc. Most governments, health agencies and support services advise against discussion of suicide methods, or where it is necessary, provide a link to a suicide prevention resource as a bare minimum.
Even if this did go against a current policy (and I dont believe it does), consensus can (and should) change over time to reflect increased understanding of a phenomena when supported by emerging research published in reliable sources. Policies and guidelines are developed through consensus and like bureaucracy, is inherently slow to adapt. But policies and guidelines don't override the fifth pillar of wikipedia. WP:IAR exists exactly for situations like this where rigid adherence defies empirical knowledge and WP:COMMON sense.Dfadden (talk)
  • Include. Dfadden puts it well. We can be pretty confident this would save lives. If that's not a good reason under WP:IAR, what is? Bondegezou (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you have strong evidence I, for one, am not pretty confident this would save lives. Matters of human psychology are very often not intuitive. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct that it is impossible to say for sure that it would save lives. However, there is plenty of evidence to suggest people contemplating suicide who read this article are more likely follow through on their plans (I've linked 3 studies that are just a few of many above that support this claim). A best-practice risk mitigation when publishing detailed descriptions of suicide methods is to include a link to support resources in a prominent position on the page. It would be irresponsible and potentially negligent not to include it. Dfadden (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Suicide is the extreme case. But do we need a disclaimer on every suicide-related article? Would that include Romeo and Juliet? Suicide Squad? What about all the other information most governments demand is somehow suppressed so vulnerable minds don’t accept get exposed to it? Wikipedia does not censor, sugar-coat, warn, or even try to help. It provides information, nothing more nor less. Dronebogus (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But that is my point. The hatnote is providing a link information, no more, no less. We are not forcing anyone to follow the link and it is not a warning, so I wouldnt even call it a disclaimer by wikipedia's own definition. But there is an evidence base that suggests its inclusion in this case may prevent actual harm. The difference with Romeo and Juliet or Suicide Sqaud is that multple independent, peer reviewed academic sources don't attribute these movies to suicidality in the same way as it does real life exposure, first hand stories, or web reference materials comparing different methods of suicide indexed by search engines (such as the world's most popular online enecyclopedia). Dfadden (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your arguments above are based on the notion that it is responsible to provide such resources, because [m]ost governments, health agencies and support services advise against discussion of suicide methods without provid[ing] a link to a suicide prevention resources. If it were providing information then it would belong under the "See also" heading, but of course the link in this case is not to a content page and thus unsuitable for linking, anyay. wound theology◈ 13:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone were to start an RfC about putting a disclaimer on the Romeo and Juliet article, I would oppose that. But no-one is proposing that. The proposal is for this article, so let's stick to discussing this article. We know people looking for information on suicide methods use Wikipedia articles, e.g. doi:10.1027/0227-5910/a000326, and concern has been raised about Wikipedia content's impact on people having suicidal thoughts, e.g. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2015.10.028. Bondegezou (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe people looking for how to build bombs use Wikipedia for information. Is that really our problem? Dronebogus (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe they do, but, again, the proposal is about this article, so let's focus on discussing this article. There is no proposal to introduce warnings all over the place. Bondegezou (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Until there is and this is what starts it. Never dance on slippery slopes. Dronebogus (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No thanks. I don't think we should start off a content page with directing encyclopedia readers to a non-content page. The prior compromise of linking to suicide prevention seems sufficient. — xaosflux Talk 10:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per WP:No disclaimers. Koshuri (グ) 10:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No WP:RGW, WP:TRIGGER, WP:No disclaimers, Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Content warnings, unencyclopedic, WP:NPOV, abusing WP:IAR (Wikipedia’s original sin) to ignore all of the above… Dronebogus (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a serious lack of understanding about what IAR actually entails -- it doesn't mean "ignore policy if I think there's a good reason"; it certainly doesn't mean that there is necessarily an exception to every rule (per WP:WIARM). Larry Sanger's original wording was that if rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely -- which is substantially different than overturning long-standing policy about content disclaimers, trigger warnings, censorship, and so on. The apparent "compromise" about the hatnote linking to suicide prevention only works because a a "suicide method" can plausibly conflated with a "suicide [prevention] method." wound theology◈ 12:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain why you believe the hatnote linking to a list of resources is either a disclaimer or a content warning? I concede it's unusual, but WP:DISCLAIM states For the purpose of this guideline, a disclaimer is some text or template within an article that editors may attempt to insert as a warning to readers. The proposed hatnote doesn't look anything like the examples provided in that policy. The perennial proposal regarding content warnings refers to statements that directly describe the content of the article and make recommendations about its suitabilty for particular audiences. In this case, the hatnote it is not directly warning about the content, nor does it directly describe the content or its suitablity to an audience. It simply provides a link to resources and states If you feel you may physically harm yourself, or others: Click here for a list of crisis support resources. I agree with your suggestion over at AN that a reworking of no disclaimers may be in order. The way I interpret no disclaimers, it doesn't explicitly rule this out therefore WP:IAR is moot. Dfadden (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hatnote implies that the content is unsuitable for certain groups, and the argumentation provided on this very talk page shows that the basic reasoning for it is that such content is triggering or detrimental to suicidal people. The reasoning you provide in your "Include" vote above is based on the idea that there is a demonstrated correlation between articles which detail methods of suicide and increased rates of suicide and suicidality. In other words...it's a content warning urging suicidal people to look at mental health resources. wound theology◈ 13:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IAR was an editor retention hail-mary back when nobody was sure Wikipedia would survive let alone be a massive success. More generously it’s “obeying the letter of the law should not come at the expense of actually improving content”. Now it’s just “rules don’t apply if you don’t like them”. It should be abolished or at least completely rewritten but it’s so firmly part of Wikimedia canon doing so is more unlikely than this proposal getting passed. Dronebogus (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note the French language article has something similar. The Japanese language article has a more traditional disclaimer. Bondegezou (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese Wp also has warnings on sex-related pages (including one with a picture of a couple having sex at the top, gee thanks for warning me). Different wikis play by different rules. Enwiki has a strong precedent against any kind of content warnings. Dronebogus (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, but only because I am not convinced that this would do more good than harm. We still haven't seen any source that states clearly that users of these services kill themselves less often than people in the same mental state who do not use them. It might give people a nice warm glow to do the same as most other information providers, but that may stop them from actually doing something effective in a crisis. I am not casting my opinion this way because of the "no disclaimers" policy. That policy was made by Wikipedia editors, and exceptions can be made by Wikipedia editors. The people who edited Wikipedia in its early years did not have any special wisdom that has been lost since, so current editors can change the way we do things if they so decide. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a full access article for you to consider that supports the effectiveness of these services in reducing suicide ideation at least in the short term (long term effectiveness is difficult to quantify as these services operate mosfly anonymouly, are intended as immediate crisis intervention, and opportunities to connect people to professional mental health support): [5], Dfadden (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suicide_methods&oldid=1282821311"