Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SSiy (WMF) (talk | contribs)
1 edit
→‎RFC: Hatnote at top: Closing RFC in favour of adding a hatnote. (DiscussionCloser v.1.7.1)
Line 176: Line 176:


== RFC: Hatnote at top ==
== RFC: Hatnote at top ==
{{closed rfc top
| status = Not available
| result = '''TL;DR: A consensus exists to add a hatnote to the article linking to [[Suicide prevention]]. Details are below.'''

Going to close this one too, as I closed the [[Special:PermaLink/917380648#Proposal_to_add_suicidal_disclaimer_at_Suicide|main Village Pump RFC]] where I found a consensus to add [[Suicide prevention]] to the main Suicide article hatnote, it likely makes sense for me to do this one as well.

Discussion here was not as extensive, nor were the numbers as clear as the Village Pump discussion, but the arguments were similar to the other discussion, with a key difference here, in that the main article already had a hatnote, where this currently has none. Another difference here is that [[WP:RELATED]] was not referenced, as far as I can see, in the Village Pump RFC.

I've considered this, among the other opposing arguments in my close, however weighing the discussion here and the rationales given (along with the broader RFC result at VPR), I do find a consensus here for inclusion of a hatnote linking to [[Suicide prevention]] (but not to [[List of suicide crisis lines]])

Now, onto implementation. Not all of those supporting an alternative hatnote have been specific in which version of the alternative hatnote should say. From my reading of the discussion in [[#Alternative hatnote]], the version "''For information on methods of suicide intervention, please see: [[Suicide prevention]]"'' appears to have the most support from the options given. So in this close, I will implement that option.

However, if further conversation here post-close determines that the hatnote should be differently worded, editors here are free to implement a proposed alternate version. <small>([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> <span style="font-family:Verdana">[[User:Steven Crossin|<span style="color:#078330">Steven</span>]] [[User talk:Steven Crossin|<span style="color:#27a">Crossin</span>]] <sup>[[WP:DRN/V|<span style="color:#d81">Help resolve disputes!</span>]]</sup></span> 16:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
}}


Should a neutrally worded hatnote directing users to [[List of suicide crisis lines]] be added to this page? &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times">[[User:MJL|<span style="color:black">MJL</span>]]&thinsp;[[User talk:MJL|‐'''Talk'''‐]]<sup>[[WP:WikiProject Connecticut|☖]]</sup></span> 18:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Should a neutrally worded hatnote directing users to [[List of suicide crisis lines]] be added to this page? &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times">[[User:MJL|<span style="color:black">MJL</span>]]&thinsp;[[User talk:MJL|‐'''Talk'''‐]]<sup>[[WP:WikiProject Connecticut|☖]]</sup></span> 18:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


Line 287: Line 303:
:I don't know that the decision of whether to post resources should depend entirely upon waiting for a series of comprehensive meta-studies. This strikes me as a case where we want to make a good, interim decision on the basis of suggestive, if incomplete, information. Doc James, you note that the [https://www.gamian.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Suicide-prevention-strategies-revisited.pdf/ Lancet meta-study] just doesn't indicate effectiveness one way or another--they didn't have enough studies to draw a conclusion, since out of the 1797 they initially looked at, and of the 144 they analyzed in the meta-study, only a few dealt with crisis hotlines. Those that did, like the [https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/34b1/ecdbf2ca16e91a6c53e75f20eae4f874756e.pdf/ Gould et al study.], suggest that the lines do in fact help. But beyond the question of what several future studies and eventual meta-studies might show in the next several years is what we want to do in the meantime. I'd think that the level of evidence currently present suggests that lines are in fact helpful, and if research shows evidence that they aren't a net benefit, that can be revisited and edits made to the page again.
:I don't know that the decision of whether to post resources should depend entirely upon waiting for a series of comprehensive meta-studies. This strikes me as a case where we want to make a good, interim decision on the basis of suggestive, if incomplete, information. Doc James, you note that the [https://www.gamian.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Suicide-prevention-strategies-revisited.pdf/ Lancet meta-study] just doesn't indicate effectiveness one way or another--they didn't have enough studies to draw a conclusion, since out of the 1797 they initially looked at, and of the 144 they analyzed in the meta-study, only a few dealt with crisis hotlines. Those that did, like the [https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/34b1/ecdbf2ca16e91a6c53e75f20eae4f874756e.pdf/ Gould et al study.], suggest that the lines do in fact help. But beyond the question of what several future studies and eventual meta-studies might show in the next several years is what we want to do in the meantime. I'd think that the level of evidence currently present suggests that lines are in fact helpful, and if research shows evidence that they aren't a net benefit, that can be revisited and edits made to the page again.
[[User:SSiy (WMF)|SSiy (WMF)]] ([[User talk:SSiy (WMF)|talk]]) 22:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
[[User:SSiy (WMF)|SSiy (WMF)]] ([[User talk:SSiy (WMF)|talk]]) 22:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
{{closed rfc bottom}}


== a missing method ==
== a missing method ==

Revision as of 16:39, 23 September 2019

Template:Vital article

New content

Thanks User:Everymorning for the edits, new content and studies cited. Greatly improved the sections covered by your contributions! Shabidoo | Talk 22:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information available on drug overdoses 😔 Leonie Dee (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a support group for family members who have suffered the loss of a family member or is it for support for ppl feeling like committing suicide? Leonie Dee (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Suicide methods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subject: Firearms; Paragraph 3, Sentence 5: “…circulation…suicide…” misspelled.

Subject: Firearms; Paragraph 3, Sentence 5: “…suicide…” misspelled as “…suicice…” and “…circulation…” misspelled as “…circulaton…”

full context: “The United States has both the highest number of suicides and firearms in _circulaton_ in a developed country and when gun ownership rises so too does _suicice_ involving the use of a firearm.[31]” — Preceding unsigned comment added by WTF Actual (talk • contribs) 22:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this America only? As I'm a Australian. Leonie Dee (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Leonie Dee (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a form missing

All these forms one thing in common, ending a life. One from of ending a life is missing; retire. A person wants to end their life and are willing to do it. A person has spent their life trying to end it and this is the last thing to do, nothing after retirement, death. Feeling that the hope of life is gone is retirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremyrunt (talk • contribs) 15:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While this may be the case per the motives of a limited number of old age suicides, this article is about methods of suicide, not motives. Shabidoo | Talk 22:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted

This encourages people to take kill themselves, the point of Wikipedia is to provide helpful, useful information not to tell them to commit suicide, so blame's on Wikipedia for 20% of the world's deaths!-- Template:Unsigned IP -->— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.177.210 (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our readers are not mindless infants who need to be protected or shielded from knowledge because of what they might do with it. We don't play kindergarten teacher and we don't censor objective, verifiable, reliable information presented in a neutral point of view...just because it makes some people uncomfortable or because they may use that information to make possibly questionable decisions. You have fundamentally misunderstood the "point" of wikipedia. Check out the five pillars of this project: WP:PILLARS Shabidoo | Talk 00:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The request is strangely worded (and misplaced), Shabidoo; but your response seems odd. First, I don't know why you are bringing up "mindless infants". Secondly, I checked out the five pillars and was struck by the possible relevance here of the fifth. -- Hoary (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Readers are not mindless infants. They can read the material provided and make their own conclusions about the topic and do what they want with it. Our role is not to protect people but to provide well sourced reliable information. We aren't kindergarten teachers censoring info deemed dangerous to the vulnerable.
As for the 5th pillar, I'm not at all sure what the 5th pillar has to do with censoring information. You ignore the rules to if they get in the way of making an article better. Not to align the article with an ideology or advocacy nor to deprive information from readers.Shabidoo | Talk 22:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On "mindless infants" (again!), "kindergarten teachers", and "an ideology or advocacy", Shabidoo, please see Straw man. Anyway, IP-who-posted-the-question, requests for deletion from Wikipedia are commonplace. They're ineffective if made on the article's talk page. If you want to have an article such as this one deleted, this is what you have to do. Note that the process is rather complex, that it requires persuasive reasoning and (normally) citation of policy, that for this article the process has been tried eight times already (here's the eighth), and that a ninth attempt will undoubtedly fail unless it cites facts and factors that haven't already been cited or is hugely more persuasive than any of the preceding eight. (Don't confuse "persuasive" with "impassioned": any sign of passion is likely to doom the attempt.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hory perhaps you should refer to the article Metaphor, might help you figure all this out. Shabidoo | Talk 23:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very possibly, Shabidoo, I am having trouble figuring all this out, whether because of incompetence in English, senility, retardation, or something else. In the meantime, rather than "metaphor", I'd venture "auxesis". -- Hoary (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we include consequences for ALL of the methods if someone fails to commit suicide as well as documented examples? OfficerAPC (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still shouldn't be up here, you still shouldn't assist suicide by giving someone a way to do it. I mean, come on. I personally have dealt with the urge and to be honest, I've asked multiple suicidal people and they agree that if they are told how, they would do it because it feels like ur telling them it's ok. Yes, they have a mind of their own but it dont work like normal, filled with sadness, hatred, despair, and death. Our mind is coruppte by what we are told. Think about that. NoReasontodie (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2018

Yes i want to 62.97.245.133 (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your request (if it is a request) is incomprehensible and therefore cannot be carried out. -- Hoary (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of this article?

What are you mad? What's the point of this article? To help people kill themselves? Do you also have articles on how to get away with murdee, become the dictator of the world, commit genocide, sell illegal drugs? I'm shocked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.37.115.243 (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point is to inform the inquisitive reader about the methods people use for killing themselves.
You are shocked, and you seem to want the article deleted. (Sometimes I do as well.) Neither expressing your shock nor asking rhetorical questions will do anything whatever toward having the article deleted. I repeat what I said a little way above on this very page: [R]equests for deletion from Wikipedia are commonplace. They're ineffective if made on the article's talk page. If you want to have an article such as this one deleted, this is what you have to do. Note that the process is rather complex, that it requires persuasive reasoning and (normally) citation of policy, that for this article the process has been tried eight times already (here's the eighth), and that a ninth attempt will undoubtedly fail unless it cites facts and factors that haven't already been cited or is hugely more persuasive than any of the preceding eight. (Don't confuse "persuasive" with "impassioned": any sign of passion is likely to doom the attempt.). -- Hoary (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An article that presents factual information is not the same as a how to guide. There is an article about drugs. No article about how to sell them. There is an article about genocide...no article about how to pull off a genocide. Similarly, this is an article documenting suicide methods from various angles...and there is no article on "how to commit suicide" because how to articles aren't done on wikipedia.
If the article was divided into "recommended methods of suicide" and "not recommended ones" and the pros and cons were given and a details instructions on how to take the right combination of pills and how not to implicate people who help you...then your analogy of this article with "how to become the dictator of the world" would be reasonable. However this article is not a how to commit suicide but an objective presentation of facts, useful for many reasons that have nothing to do with committing suicide. But it isn't a how to guide. Those aren't allowed on wikipedia and are questionable at best. Shabidoo | Talk 01:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merged

I think Self strangulation and Hanging should be merged.101.178.163.19 (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. Not all people who hang themselves die from suffocation, there are other kinds of bodily trauma that lead to death. Also the two acts can be quite different in preparation and difficulties in implementation as well as the rate of death. Shabidoo | Talk 22:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh.. I see. I believe that hanging people die from suffocation.. Unless they are shot while they are being hanged.101.178.163.19 (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but no. Hanging can involve the breaking of the neck with death so rapid you don't have time to suffocate. In these cases...there is no actual strangulation but the rapid termination of the nervous system. Yes...most self hanging is strangulation...but not all of it and even if it is a simple hanging with no fall or jerk, the victim can still die first from other physiological symptoms before there is time to suffocate such as the closing of the carteroid artery and other affects of a change in blood flow to the head/brain. And there other indirect causes of death other than a simple lack of oxygen. Hanging is a method of suicide which can include strangulation but definitely not limited to it. Shabidoo | Talk 23:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

King of summer

First of all, this article isn't going anywhere. There is next to no chance it will be deleted or censored as it doesn't break any policies and a massive encyclopedia covers all major topics. If you have a problem with wikipedia's policies, I suggest taking it up with the community. Your attempted edit doesn't contribute to the content of the article, doesn't provide information or improve it but instead is instead is a debate on the ethics of not censoring information deemed offensive and theoretically "dangerous"...all in the middle of an article. Article pages are for improving the article, not policy debate. In fact, even on talk pages, general policies aren't up for debate...but are there for improving the article. We've covered your claims numerous times in other discussions here and on every occasion we follow wikipedia policies which back up our counter arguments. The policies aren't perfect but they are there for good reasons, reasons you would approve of in other articles you would deem essential that shouldn't be censored even though it offends "others" or are considered dangerous by "others". Hopefully you can contribute to the article and help improve it. Every article can always be improved. The policies however aren't going away. This article stays and will not be censored. Shabidoo | Talk 00:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2018

extended description to the carbon monoxide section needed [redacted] Mruczusmialkon (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per WP:NOTHOWTO. While this article is not censored, there's no need to directly provide an instruction manual. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


This article IS censored. Every one has the right to leave this world if one needs to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mruczusmialkon (talk • contribs) 13:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mruczusmialkon: That is not relevant. This is an encyclopaedia article not a how-to guide. Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2019

suicide is not the answer stop it right now and get help 197.156.95.19 (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Balkywrest (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't kill yourself everyone loves you, please seek help call 116 123! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.189.153.153 (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a great informative article with plenty of reliable sources. Specifically covers suicide methods as mentioned in the title and addresses many ways people commit suicides with good statistics to add more content to the article. If I could improve this article I would possibly suggest a section for controversy with certain methods of suicide and how it can be prevented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwarchng (talk • contribs) 17:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every method of suicide listed in the article should include consequences for failed suicide attempts. 9March2019 (talk) 03:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2019

very inappropriate do not commit suicide call the help line Itsyaboi121 (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

while I agree with your views, there is no edit requested DannyS712 (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2019

Please apply the reference changes specified in the following diff: [1] 79.168.3.237 (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done NiciVampireHeart 09:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! 79.168.3.237 (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2019

Please remove the following line again: 

''If you or anyone you know needs help, you can [[List of suicide crisis lines|talk to someone on a crisis help line in your country by clicking here]].''

It is a non-encyclopedic PSA that has already been removed once. [2] 79.168.3.237 (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done DannyS712 (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! 79.168.3.237 (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2019

This article can help people to kill themselfs. Why don't you take this article down? I mean... people don't have to know everything....? 87.97.33.124 (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Wikipedia is not censored --DannyS712 (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since we cannot censor this article, let's include consequences for failed attempts at suicide for EVERY listed method. 9March2019 (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In theory there is nothing wrong with doing that but your post gives the impression that you want to make these edits because of frustrations about not limiting information. Please keep the language neutral and please avoid using a tone that beyrays advocacy or anti-suicide campaigning. If you can find good sources for each and every method per their consequences and keep the text in reasonable proportion to the length of the methods themselves, I'm sure it would improve the article. Conversely if there are methods which have little to no documented consequences, it would be reasonable to write that text as well. Shabidoo | Talk 07:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote posted by MJL

I don't know which talk page consensus you are referring to. The hatnote is reverted because it violates several wikipedia policies including WP:NOTADVOCATE. No discussion on this talk page will change that and whenever the hatnote is posted on this article, it will be reverted. If you want the hatnote to stay, then you'll have to take this up with the community and convince them to change wikipedia's policies. The best way to do that is to go to the policy talk page and discuss this. Your chances of success are extremely small but you are welcome to try. Please direct your efforts to changing policy and not posting hatnotes that violate those policies. Shabidoo | Talk 15:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shabidoo: [Thank you for the ping] what on Earth are you talking about? Hddty. reverted me citing consensus on Talk:Suicide, and I rightfully pointed out that this is a different article. Also, nothing within that hatnote violated WP:NOTADVOCATE. It's patently absurd to say someone looking for information on suicide methods would not be served by having a hat note leading to List of suicide crisis lines.
I don't need to change Wikipedia policies to get put a hatnote up. Hatnotes are navigational tools. Someone on this page might want info on another page on the same type of topic. You'd have a point if the hatnote said "please don't kill yourself." but it didn't. The hatnote said For information on suicide prevention and crises hotlines, please see List of suicide crisis lines. which is just a custom implementation of {{Further information}}. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. The hatnote is an unambigious attempt to steer readers towards anti-suicide advocacy (a list of hotline numbers...come on really?). It is not a "hey by the way you might be interested in this info" it's a very badly veiled message of "hey if you are considering suicide here is a list of numbers you should call who will provide you the help you need". It breaks policy. And the substance of this article hasn't changed. Most certainly NOT enough to justify reopening this debate which has been done numerous times and always results in the same answer. A reach-around attempt to evade policy won't work. Shabidoo | Talk 19:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer pings btw There has never been discussion on this article's talk pages about the inclusion of a hatnote. The idea came about from this RFC. I see no policy reason why to justify your position (especially calling this a reach-around attempt to evade policy).
Your stance fails to hold water in even the slightest sense of the phrase. You've positioned this debate as me pushing some sort of "anti-suicide advocacy" as if it was a cheap political opinion I held. It's very clearly not. This is simply about informing readers about some of our other bits of content (ie. the purpose of hatnotes). To do otherwise at this point is a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED on your part by premising this position off nonexistent consensus.
I'm fully prepared to seek out whatever method of dispute resolution is needed to wider input on this hatnote because I know I'm right here.
I'll end on this note: If the proposed hatnote has the effect of making even one person reconsider ending their life, so what? Them dying does not further our goals of building an encyclopedia. It's a good thing for them to be alive in all likelihood. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to waste people's time then go for it, it certainly won't be the first time you've brought people into a process that is a foregone conclusion. Your hatnote will not pass any "dispute resolution" process you try. That hatnote is totally bogus but good luck in any case. Shabidoo | Talk 12:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I started the RFC below. I was surprised at your choice to abstain from pinging me as preferred, but I am even more surprised that you seem to suggest some personal animosity towards some past action I have taken. I do not see how that adds anything to the discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Hatnote at top

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
TL;DR: A consensus exists to add a hatnote to the article linking to Suicide prevention. Details are below.

Going to close this one too, as I closed the main Village Pump RFC where I found a consensus to add Suicide prevention to the main Suicide article hatnote, it likely makes sense for me to do this one as well.

Discussion here was not as extensive, nor were the numbers as clear as the Village Pump discussion, but the arguments were similar to the other discussion, with a key difference here, in that the main article already had a hatnote, where this currently has none. Another difference here is that WP:RELATED was not referenced, as far as I can see, in the Village Pump RFC.

I've considered this, among the other opposing arguments in my close, however weighing the discussion here and the rationales given (along with the broader RFC result at VPR), I do find a consensus here for inclusion of a hatnote linking to Suicide prevention (but not to List of suicide crisis lines)

Now, onto implementation. Not all of those supporting an alternative hatnote have been specific in which version of the alternative hatnote should say. From my reading of the discussion in #Alternative hatnote, the version "For information on methods of suicide intervention, please see: Suicide prevention" appears to have the most support from the options given. So in this close, I will implement that option.

However, if further conversation here post-close determines that the hatnote should be differently worded, editors here are free to implement a proposed alternate version. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 16:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Should a neutrally worded hatnote directing users to List of suicide crisis lines be added to this page? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion(s)

In the above section, there are claims made that this hatnote violates Wikipedia's policies. The hatnote reads as thus:

I obviously disagree as this makes no mention of the reader committing to any specific action. It just provides a list of resources.
Separately, the situation on Talk:Suicide is different, but it may have some bearing on this RFC. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. It violates WP:RELATED. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Support inclusion of a hatnote to "suicide prevention" (Summoned by bot) there is a reasonable chance that this could help someone. It's a violation of RELATED, but IAR if it helps someone not commit suicide. signed, Rosguill talk 18:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC) 16:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what the hatnote is designed to achieve. It's not about providing resources its about activism. Thanks for illustrating the point many users have made countless times. Shabidoo | Talk 23:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rosguill the best avaliable evidence does not support or refute a benefit of crises lines. Per the Lancet paper "Thus far, the evidence of telephone and internet intervention effectiveness is rather scarce and of low quality. Rapidly increasing utilisation of information and communication technologies in suicide prevention requires research assessing their efficacy" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of this, thanks for pointing it out. signed, Rosguill talk 16:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OBVIOUS NO The hatnote is a clear attempt to sneak around policy under the bogus excuse of "providing resources" when in reality it is a total disclaimer meant to direct suicidal people to suicide hotlines and is not about the convenient navigation to other information. It's already in the see also section. This violates multiple policies, not just WP:RELATED since it isn't at all a hat note directing readers who might be confused or lost per the title of the article but a redirect to stop users from hurting themselves but also WP:ADVOCACY which violates WP:NPOV. Wikipedia doesn't do disclaimers or warnings or prevention in general because drawing the line is impossible and we can go from "simply obvious warning" to very subjective advocacy in no time. That's why this policy is here. In an ideal world there would be a clear disclaimer at the top. Advocacy invites a slippery slope and the community has rejected it for obvious reasons. Shabidoo | Talk 23:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's so interesting to me that holding the opinion that people should avoid killing themselves (which is supported by WP:RS) somehow makes me an anti-suicide advocate. I'm just a Wikipedia editor trying to ensure people get to the right page is all. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This violates multiple policies. My opinion or your personal interests are irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabidoo (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's generally considered poor form to edit your comments after the fact.[3] For the record, I originally responded to this. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to "suicide crisis lines" But would support neutrally worded hatnote to "suicide prevention". Evidence for crisis lines is really poor. There is stuff for which there is evidence and we can link to suicide prevention were it is discussed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)
Also I note that WP:IAR is improving or maintaining Wikipedia with no mention of Wikipedia being an encyclopaedia. Inclusion clearly violates even WP:HERE and everything else, but in this page I think all are overridden. --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No As much as it pains me to say it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven: Any particular reason? It'd help the closer with assessing consensus. I'll note that we are also workshopping an alternative hatnote below, so you are welcome to review that conversation as well and, if you think there is something worth supporting there, adjusting accordingly. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many, some of which will cause some offense. One answer would be wp:not, which I feel this violates in an number of ways.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]



Alternative hatnote

@Doc James and Rosguill: Would that be a sufficiently worded hatnote? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a little redundant to say suicide prevention twice. We could just do:
I also like saying please because it's more formal. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find the meaning of "suicide intervention methods" a little unclear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is "methods of suicide intervention?" better? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think "methods of suicide intervention" is the best wording suggested so far. signed, Rosguill talk 19:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The result would be:
Is that a best alternative? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality would require the inclusion of a similar note on the suicide prevention article directing users here GideonF (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah would oppose a hatnote from suicide prevention to here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FALSEBALANCE –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want it because it's encyclopedically relevant, then the relevance is symmetrical. If you want it because you personally hold anti-suicide beliefs that you want to promote, that would be a violation of WP:SOAPBOX GideonF (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the necessary hatnote from here, I think the term "suicide intervention" is clear enough, and seems to be the current term. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks User:DGG will support that wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak support Whilst I support either hatnote in principle, I dont understand the argument based on weak evidence for crisis lines (this type of evidence is extremely difficult to develop in medicine, and will always have poor generalisability worldwide). Furthermore, if you extending that argument there is no evidence I have heard of to link a suicidal person to how society manages suicidal intervention and prevention. If that suicidal person doesn't have access to those things, such as being in a remote area or low income nation, it could in my limited opinion could also have unintended consequences as well and I would suggest a suicidal prevention expert's input here. But I certainly prefer weak evidence and expert opinion/common practice (ie. to crisis lines) to what might have no evidence. Also if this second hatnote has consensus suicide prevention and suicide intervention needs a far more global viewpoint / rewrite. --[E.3][chat2][me] 19:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Crisis line concerns

  • I’m not offering a vote here, as I’m not an editor (obviously), but I want to suggest that those of you who think some version of this hatnote is “Morally and ethically right to do so regardless of our policies.”… might want to reconsider that position.
These “suicide crisis lines” are often used to pull people into a system that wishes to profit off their distress (no matter how minor):
“Expected to keep beds full, former admissions workers from three UHS hospitals said they learned how to turn even passing statements that people made during assessments into something that sounded dangerous.”
And they use various “involuntary commitment” laws such as California’s “5150”, “5250”, and “5350” laws:
“Under California Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) 5150, an individual can be placed (involuntary) to a locked psychiatric facility, for an evaluation for up to 72 hours …. If, after a 72-hour hold, an individual is deemed to still be a danger to others or themselves, or is gravely disabled, WIC 5250 permits for an individual to be involuntarily held (in a locked psychiatric hospital) for another 14 days. A 5350 hold … is initiated at the end of 5250 / 14-day hold. … (Accessed 2019-08-26)
… to deprive people (who have committed no crime) of human, civil, and constitutional rights, without due process of (criminal) law. Your own “suicide intervention” page already documents this:
“Most countries have some form of mental health legislation which allows people expressing suicidal thoughts or intent to be detained involuntarily for psychiatric treatment …”
Getting caught up in these systems causes significant trauma to people (who are already suffering), and it also leads to increased rates of suicide:
“ … the postdischarge suicide rate was approximately 100 times the global suicide rate during the first 3 months after discharge and patients admitted with suicidal thoughts or behaviors had rates near 200 times the global rate.”
Encouraging people to call these “suicide prevention hotlines” is putting them at significant risk of (additional) trauma, and loss of life and liberty.
So I will suggest that you should not violate your WP:ADVOCACY policy, because your advocacy may well do harm (in addition to not being encyclopedic).
If you are going to violate that policy, however, you should then consider your WP:NPOV policy, and include information about the risks and consequences of calling these “suicide crisis hotlines,” not just an explicit or implicit endorsement of calling them. --69.122.39.162 (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP, does that mean you would prefer the alternative hatnote? It would read For information on methods of suicide intervention, please see: Suicide prevention. and not mention crisis lines whatsoever. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, any such link would also have to have a reciprocal link from the “suicide prevention” page. (which would bring on all sorts of “are you mad” type accusations, of course…)
And of all the suggestions, the one from Rockstone (“This article is about….”) strikes me as the most neutral in terms of wording.
However, as far as I understand the polices and what I’ve seen elsewhere on Wikipedia, that’s still very questionable in terms of advocacy vs. being encyclopedic -- which the reciprocal link makes much more obvious, given people’s natural emotional attachment to this issue.
The “suicide prevention” page also needs to be expanded to include the views of the likes of Thomas Szasz and his students (that suicide is a right), Michael Foucault (that “prevention” is a form of social control), especially Jerome Motto (as above, that suicide actually can be prevented and in a non-coercive way) and others with dissenting views of the modern practice of psychiatry. I’ve seen “controversies” sections on some Wikipedia pages, so something like that perhaps. But I digress…. --69.122.39.162 (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We've phased out controversy sections awhile ago (but not every article has gotten rid of them). It's generally preferred to include dissenting viewpoints throughout the article now (if not considered WP:FRINGE; ie published in WP:RS). You're welcome to discuss improvements to that article at Talk:Suicide prevention as you see fit, but I thank you for your participation here! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear:
  1. Admissions assessments in a certain number of for-profit hospitals in the US are different from independent non-profit helplines (or, for that matter, admissions assessments in public hospitals, as is usual in most of the developed world).
  2. The fact that people discharged after a suicide attempt have a higher suicide rate than average is because your sample is now exclusively of people who have already come to a point where they've attempted suicide. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 01:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to:
1. There are various reporting requirements for people “deemed a danger to … themselves” which no doubt vary by jurisdiction, and which may or may not apply to any given crisis line. If you can truly maintain anonymity (which you really can’t on a PTSN phone system) when calling these helplines and already know enough not to take their likely advice to call 911, you might be safe. Might be.
2. The sentence I quoted above specifically identifies “…patients admitted with suicidal thoughts or behaviors … “ as having a more elevated risk (200x) than other patients (100x). This indicates that the hospital, its staff, the laws they operate under (and typically endorse), and the experience of losing your liberty are, in fact, responsible for a large fraction of the elevated risk. --69.122.39.162 (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the IP. We really need evidence around the utility of these numbers. If there was evidence that they decreased the risk of death that would sway my opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that the decision of whether to post resources should depend entirely upon waiting for a series of comprehensive meta-studies. This strikes me as a case where we want to make a good, interim decision on the basis of suggestive, if incomplete, information. Doc James, you note that the Lancet meta-study just doesn't indicate effectiveness one way or another--they didn't have enough studies to draw a conclusion, since out of the 1797 they initially looked at, and of the 144 they analyzed in the meta-study, only a few dealt with crisis hotlines. Those that did, like the Gould et al study., suggest that the lines do in fact help. But beyond the question of what several future studies and eventual meta-studies might show in the next several years is what we want to do in the meantime. I'd think that the level of evidence currently present suggests that lines are in fact helpful, and if research shows evidence that they aren't a net benefit, that can be revisited and edits made to the page again.

SSiy (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

a missing method

There doesn't seem to be any mention of the method whereby one attaches one or more weather balloons to themself launches themselves into the atmosphere whereby they suffocate from lack of oxygen at high altitude. Which section ought this one to appear under? Rebroad (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • What are the sources for the use of this method? If this is actually used with any kind of regularity it would belong under suffocation; however, if it's something that has only happened once it's probably more suited to List of unusual deaths than to this article.GideonF (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASuicide_methods&diff=917391094&oldid=916839161

Leave a Reply