Talk:Suicide methods

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.

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]

• No per WP:No disclaimers. Suggest closing this per WP:SNOWBALL. wound theology◈ 03:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] See also Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Content warnings. wound theology◈ 03:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] I'm only here to dispute the idea that this only has a "snowball's chance in hell" of success. Previous discussions have yielded results on this article in favor of placing redirect links in the hatnotes of the article to "suicide prevention." aaronneallucas (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] "Previous discussions" on page disclaimers of any sort is a perennial proposal and has been struck down dozens of times. wound theology◈ 02:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Include. The suggested hatnote is not accurately called a disclaimer or content warming. Implied prohibitions of this type are formal, not substantive, and as a practical matter we should be cognizant that Wikipedia influences the real world. It's not only reasonable in this case to invoke WP:IAR, but the suggested hatnote doesn't seem to violate a true "rule" in the first place. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] Please read Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. wound theology◈ 02:15, 28 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. [1], [2], [3] 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] But do we need a disclaimer on everysuicide-related article? no, people don’t go to Suicidal ideation etc. looking for ways to kill themselves Kowal2701 (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] I think it's more complicated than that. It's possible that a note about crisis hotlines would actually be more useful at an article like Avicii or Robin Williams than at an ordinary article about something related to suicide. On the other hand, maybe someone who is looking up suicidal ideation is exactly the person who benefits most from such messages (think "Why is my brain trying to kill me and how do I make it stop? Oh, maybe if I text these people, they can help"). But AFAICT that research has never been done, so we don't know which sub-topics are the highest risk. (We do know that anyone reading anything about suicide has an elevated risk.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] Agreed, but imo it’s much more probable that people coming to this article are in an actual crisis, rather than just at risk. We could track the visits to the meta page before and after adding to gauge the hatnote’s usefulness/ratio of people open to services Kowal2701 (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] Maybe. There's a certain amount of "Huh, I wonder what this is" clicking, especially when it looks new or different, so not everyone who clicks is in crisis. Wikinav says that Suicide prevention is the sixth most popular outgoing link from here: Last month, there were about a quarter million page views for this article, and 1,621 of those page views had Suicide prevention as their next destination. Most (>70%) of readers don't click any links, but if they do, then about one out of every 35 clickers go to the Suicide prevention article next (or about one out of every 150 page views). A link to the Suicide prevention article appears in the hatnote, the lead, a caption, the side navbox, the footer navbox, and at least twice in the body of the article. We don't have data right now to say whether most of these clicks are from the hatnote vs lead vs elsewhere, though the hatnote is probably responsible for a significant fraction. A } could produce those numbers if we felt like we needed them. For comparison, the List of suicide crisis lines is linked four times (body, caption, both navboxes; crisis hotline [but not the list] is also in the lead). Neither of those pages are in the top 20 most popular outgoing links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 31 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] @Xaosflux, would your view change if the suggested target page had instead been the Wikipedia article, List of suicide crisis lines? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure if that is a great idea, however my objection would be alleviated and I'd likely stay out of that discussion. — xaosflux Talk 17:59, 2 April 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] I don't think that a link to a page with related resources implies that the content is unsuitable for certain groups. I think it probably does imply that (using common sense) we think people who arrived at this page might be interested in the list of resources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] It does when there's a heart and patronizing text about what to do if you feel like hurting yourself. wound theology◈ 03:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] So you're objection is to the heart? That can be removed. In terms of the text being "patronizing", that's your subjective opinion - I just don't like it is not a very convincing argument. Furthermore, the wording is direct and to the point in keeping with best practice advice for media. If the presence of a link to resources is an "implied" content warning, then should we not also remove the Template:Self-harm from this talk page as well? To save scrolling up, it is a template and list endorsed by the Wikimedia Foundation itself and displays as shown here. Does that not also imply that there may be content here that relates to suicide and self harm? And why WOULDN'T we want to encourage suicidal people towards mental health resources, especially when there is empirical evidence that suggest we should? Dfadden (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] My objection is to any sort of disclaimer or content warning on Wikipedia article pages, keeping in line with long-standing policy. Talk pages and user pages are another matter, I don't have any particular interest in them. wound theology◈ 04:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] It is patronizing. I’m going to go on a bit of a personal rant here,: I’ve struggled with suicidal ideation and when I did I resented in any kind of “don’t do it” platitudes like these. I appreciated the fact that Wikipedia was seemingly the only place that didn’t bombard you with these messages. Maybe they help some people, but a lot of things Wikipedia doesn’t do help some people. Not explicitly discouraging suicide is not the same as encouraging it. Dronebogus (talk) 13:49, 29 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] RGW is about content, this isn't even close to a trigger warning, unencyclopedic and NPOV are non-sequiturs here. There's room to disagree on the disclaimer part but this is just wikilink spam. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 17:36, 29 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): [4], Dfadden (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for that link, @Dfadden. The 'holes' in evidence that we've talked about in the past were:
  • Do the services work? (Your source indicates that the answer is yes, which is good news.)
  • Does advertising the services work? (Maybe people who benefit from those services would seek them out, so it's kind of a waste of effort.)
  • Does advertising the services harm? (Maybe I was having a good day, but now I've been reminded of self-harm, and maybe that causes distress.)
  • Assuming advertising the services is a net benefit, in which circumstances are they actually most helpful? (For example, is it more helpful to put it on the Suicide article, or on a page about whichever celebrity suicide death is in the news?)
  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] In answer to your second point, academic articles linked above recommend this approach. Your third point doesn't make any sense. People are already looking at an article on suicide methods. In answer to your fourth point, as previously, this discussion is about this page. We know there is an issue with people looking up how to commit suicide in particular. Bondegezou (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] Lots of sources recommend this approach. I'm hoping that someday the world will find out whether the widely recommended approach actually saves lives. About the third question, see the above comment from an editor who "resented" such advertisements in the past. Provoking resentment is a type of harm. In a previous conversation, a different editor said that when they encountered these types of messages (e.g., at the end of an obituary), they felt like the message was saying they should have been upset by the content, and that they weren't expected to be resilient and able to read about this person's death without needing external help. That, too, is a type of harm. Some people might believe that these are a minor sort of harm – perhaps similar to the kind I get from truncated dome barriers at the grocery store – but even minor harm is still harm. One hopes that the widely recommended approach produces more benefit than harm, just like one hopes that the truncated dome barriers (which are intended to keep blind people alive, and which have been proven to cause pain, falls, twisted ankles, and broken bones) produce more benefit than harm. AFAICT a 'net benefit' has not been proven for either of these widely recommended, hopefully life-saving interventions. On the fourth point, it may be that these advertisements are more effective/produce more benefit on other pages. Nobody's done the research, so nobody knows what the right 'dose' is (Should web browsers automatically display the local crisis line for every single webpage? There's a Firefox plugin targeting people looking for information about self-harm), whether it is more effective to put it on this page vs. on an article about a person who died recently, etc. It could be that this page is not the most effective (or, alternatively, that it is the most effective, or that it falls somewhere in the middle). We just don't know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] On one hand, we have an extensive research and clinical literature. On the other, we have an anecdote from one Wikipedian. Does Wikipedia's own rules on epistemology offer us any guidance on how we weigh up such differing sources of evidence? Bondegezou (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Bondegezou, my point is that we don't have extensive research. I have looked, e.g., for publications about natural experiments on whether this specific (and apparently minor) detail of national media guidelines makes any difference to suicide rates, and I've come up empty handed. There is research saying "When they advertise our phone number, our call volume (and funding, hooray!) goes up" but I've yet to see a single study that says something like "Starting in January 2016, all news outlets in Ruritania were required to post the crisis hotline's number at the end of any article that contained the word 'suicide'. To see whether this had any overall effect on deaths, we compared the national suicide rate for the previous three years against the national suicide rate for the subsequent three years, and we found that this change resulted in..." PMID 27289303 in 2016 said there was "insufficient evidence" that having national media guidelines saved lives, but it was measuring "Do you have a national media guideline at all?" and not "Does your national media guideline include a recommendation to advertise a crisis hotline, and do media outlets in your country actually comply with that recommendation , and does that recommendation actually save lives?" We have fairly good evidence that if people call, they self-report short-term improvements. "People who choose to call get some short-term benefit" is not the same thing as "Advertisements prevent deaths". There is AFAICT no research at all on the latter. If you know of some, whether now or in the future, please share, because I very much want to read it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] You are right that we do not have clear evidence from direct evaluations that adding something like this works. The problem is that that is very difficult to evaluate. We do have evidence that crisis lines are effective, including over the long term: see doi:10.3389/fpubh.2019.00399 }: unflagged free DOI (link). The logic chain is that we know searching for suicide methods is done by people in crisis -> crisis lines help those people if called -> promoting those crisis lines increases their use. You may or may not feel that logic chain is robust enough. Bondegezou (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Yes, it is difficult to evaluate, but not impossible. I'm rather surprised that nobody seems to have undertaken such an evaluation for such a high-profile topic. I hope that it is not the case that such studies have been made but not published because they came up with the "wrong" answer - this is a well-known problem with the peer-review system. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Aplucas0703, I'm curious why you have suggested a link at the top of the page. In real-world sources, this sort of link would be put at the end of the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] Something at the top of the page is more visible. However, if editors can agree on something at the end of the page, that would be an improvement on the current article in my view. I am happy to support that as well. Bondegezou (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] I'm interested in implementation details. For example: Does it need to be in a box? Does it need to be visibly separated somehow? Does it need to be the Meta-Wiki page instead of our own List of crisis hotlines by country? Does it need to be at the top (BTW, the WHO suggests placement at the end)? Does it need to include some sort of "encouraging" (or at least explanatory) text, or is a bare link enough? I don't really want to add an ==External links== section to this article, but I could imagine a ==See also== link to m:Mental health resources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] @WhatamIdoing I think two reasons: We often see crisis resources listed at the top of most search pages. We also usually put "For xxxxx, see..." in the hatnotes, so it felt more natural, and less disruptive, than placing it anywhere else in the article. aaronneallucas (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] Also, on mobile you have to tap on section headings to open them, nobody’s ever tapping on “external links” Kowal2701 (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] Since the most clicked-on links in any article are the WP:ELOFFICIAL links, I'm not sure that's true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Include, but not the proposed version. This one feels too close to an outright disclaimer to pass the NODISCLAIMERS test, and its second-person tone is unencyclopedic. I'd suggest something closer to the existing hatnote: JJPMaster (she/they) 02:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] Include per JJPMaster's proposal at the top of the article. It's tactile, encyclopedic, and not at all sensational/moralistic. WP:DISCLAIMER and WP:TRIGGER don't apply here because the proposal isn't warning anyone about content, or giving legal or medical advice. Really surprised at the opposition here and scepticism about crisis hotlines. Look on Google Scholar, there are loads and loads of studies confirming their efficacy. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] The point that this could be a slippery slope towards censorship and content warnings is utterly absurd. Pick your battles. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] On a side note, search engines and media also usually give a hotline number. Since this is for main space, we should follow what sources do. But I wouldn’t support this for any other pages Kowal2701 (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] We should "follow what sources do"? That's not how it works. wound theology◈ 01:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] @JJPMasterI like this proposal. I think that it is succinct and encyclopedic. I am less concerned about the exact way the hatnote looks, just that we have something on this article that offers the resource to people, which I think this version does well. aaronneallucas (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] Agree with JJPMaster's proposed wording. I too am less concerned with the exact wording or appearance of the hatnote and can see no conflict with policy in this version. Dfadden (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] We currently have this: Do we expect to replace this, or add to it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] Either or, but if i had to choose I'd say replace. There are other links to suicide prevention, and that link is to another article. JJPMaster's suggestion is directly to the resources. Dfadden (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] This is something I had been thinking about. I'd say outright replace. Looking at the archives, it seems like it was intended to accomplish much of the same goals as this current proposal, so it would be redundant. A good argument for deleting the current hatnote is that it is less effective to its purpose than the proposed hatnote, so it would simply add clutter and confusion more than help and utility. aaronneallucas (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] I would support replacing the current hatnote. The article Suicide prevention does not provide much useful information directed towards a reader who is currently considering suicide. However, if this discussion leads to an overruling of the previous consensus to include the Suicide prevention hatnote, leading to a hatnote being removed altogether later, I would consider that an abuse of process and would totally oppose whatever could cause that result. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Welcome to Wikipedia, @EchoVanguardZ. You might be interested in reading Wikipedia:Product, process, policy. Doing the right thing by an article is more important than following a specific process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] I agree that "doing the right thing by an article is more important than following a specific process". I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Include JJP's proposal per Kowal's comments The AP (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] Include per Dfadden's argument. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] Include, with strong preference to JJPMaster's proposed wording, as I think that version still addresses the gist of what aaronneallucas was concerned about, while very tactfully balancing against WP:NODISCLAIMERS. FlipandFlopped ツ 23:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: if this has to be in the article, I’d strongly prefer the bare link version (“for mental health resources see [link]”). It appeases the demand for some kind of suicide prevention message, which will probably never go away even if this proposal fails, without completely ruining the page’s encyclopedic neutrality and tone. It’s just saying Wikimedia maintains a list of resources, not demanding you use them. It’s still a case of “disrupting the encyclopedia to make editors feel a tiny bit better” like with the ban on links to Kiwi Farms, but it’s the least bad option to do so. Dronebogus (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] The current hatnote is functionally identical and unfortunately, it has not appeased these sorts of demands. wound theology◈ 03:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] It is not functionally identical. The current hatnote points to suicide prevention, which is an article that provides a pseudo-academic discussion of intervention methods, policy initiatives and strategy implementations. The other points to a list of resources for people experiencing a mental health crisis. Dfadden (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] It is functionally identical because it was implemented on these same principles. You can argue it is less efficient and "pseudo-academic" (whatever that means) but it was added to serve the exact same purpose. In time, a new hatnote will be replaced with an even more cushy and patronizing one, and so on. wound theology◈ 07:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No, per Xaosflux and others. I'll also note, in passing, that the originator of this RfC has stomped all over WP:RFCNEUTRAL and its call for neutrality in an RfC statement; that may not matter a lot, since it is clear what the intent was, but it's certainly less than ideal ~ LindsayHello 11:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] The RFC question is: "A link should be added at the top of the article to Wikipedia's crisis resources in the hatnotes section." Re-writing it to "Should a link..." doesn't make any practical difference to the neutrality. That said, in my not-inconsiderable experience with the RFC process, I have found that editors complaining about non-neutral RFC questions are usually motivated by a fear that their side is "losing" (scare quotes, because IMO every RFC that reaches a conclusion is a win for everyone). If you think there are good reasons to oppose this (or simply no good reasons to support it), then you might explain what your reasons are in more detail. That will have more of an effect on the result than complaining about the wording of the question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] My statement is extremely neutral compared to many RFCs currently underway. It makes no argument, only presenting a statement to be agreed with or disagreed with. aaronneallucas (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No neutral/comment per Wikipedia:No disclaimers. Do we have these types of disclaimers in other articles? If we don't then I would say that adding one to just one article should require significant consensus. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 03:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] @IntentionallyDense, is a hatnote saying "For mental health resources, see m:Mental health resources" really a disclaimer ("any statement intended to specify or delimit the scope of rights and obligations that may be exercised and enforced by parties in a legally recognized relationship")? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Great point actually, I didn't really consider this. I would like to slightly rephrase my original statement by saying, are hatnotes like this seen in other articles? If not, this feels like something that should require significant consensus as it does seem to border into the territory of a disclaimer (looking at the definition, they don't exactly match but many editors would see it as a disclaimer and it has a similar function to some disclaimers). IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 20:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] We have hatnotes that point to non-mainspace pages. For example, the Verification dab page has a hatnote to Wikipedia:Verifiability at the top. The Not dab page lists Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The Editing article has a hatnote that points to Editing. On more fraught subjects, Incivility links has a hatnote to the relevant policy. Forum shopping has a hatnote to the relevant policy. Harassment has a hatnote to the policy of the same name. Sockpuppetry has a hatnote to the policy of the same name. Vandalism has a hatnote to the policy of the same name. The dab page Oversight has a hatnote to Wikipedia:Oversight. The dab page Banning has a hatnote to the banning policy. In fact, of all the policies I checked, either:

• There no article with a matching name (though even then, a similarly named article may have one: there is no Ownership of content, but Ownership has a hatnote to Wikipedia:Ownership of content);
• There's already a hatnote to the policy; or
• It's Child protection, where the hatnote to Wikipedia:Child protection was removed by an IP a year ago with no explanation.

That's the lone exception, and I'll go revert the IP in a minute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] The various examples you have listed are logical and not disclaimers (or otherwise intended to dissuade people from suicide, whether or not that is a disclaimer.) They're all pages with the same title in other namespaces. The hatnote on Sockpuppetry was not placed there to dissuade readers from using sockpuppet accounts. wound theology◈ 21:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] As links are navigational rather than persuasive tools, I generally assume that all links have been placed for the purpose of helping people find pages/information, rather than being placed there to persuade them of anything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] My thought is that I don't think anyone has found this page with the intention of trying to find the Wikipedia resources, unlike someone accidentally going to the namespace article for some of the examples you've listed. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Exactly; the examples here are unrelated to the stated rationale (people with suicidal ideation would benefit from having the note placed in the article again). wound theology◈ 06:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] I suggest to you that the examples are related in one sense: In all cases, editors thought that these } links would be appropriate and helpful. (Also: "The" stated rationale, as if there were only one? People can and do support or oppose proposals for their own reasons, and they sometimes even support while disagreeing with the first stated rationale, or oppose while agreeing with the first stated rationale.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] The stated rationale, which does not imply only rationale, which prompted the RfC, yes. The initial edit, which I reverted and indirectly initiated the referendum, was complete with second-person language and a heart emoji. wound theology◈ 08:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] So you meant the OP's stated rationale, which happens to be different from some other editors' stated rationales. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] To intentionally seek that page, one would first have to know that it exists. I doubt that necessary precondition is met for ~99% of people. I could imagine someone ending up here with a "Surely they have one of those ubiquitous hotline things, and surely it would trigger on a page with that name" thought. That user story is not exclusively about people with suicidal ideation; it would be equally valid for a student doing a school project or a friend of someone in crisis, or even an author who wants to check Wikipedia to make sure the details of their upcoming novel are correct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Hmm that's a good point. I'm going to change my initial vote to neutral because while I'm not convinced it's needed I don't think there is as strong of an argument to oppose it once you really look at it. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 17:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] I have similar overall feelings about this. It's not a bad idea, but my sporadic efforts to improve this article have been directed towards other things, like highlighting method-specific prevention efforts. I think it's much more important to describe what Parking garage owners are doing to prevent suicide deaths on their properties and how gun shops save lives by providing secure crisis storage services than to put a link on the page, but I don't mind having both. One possible benefit I hadn't thought of until now: Maybe if we stick this link at the top, people will finally stop talking about whether we need to have a link like this on the page. (Or they might find a new way to complain about it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] That is true. It does seem quite trivial in the grand scheme of things. On the plus side I've noticed, at least in Canada, tylenol and similar OTC medications are locked up after 9 to prevent suicide, so perhaps were moving in the right direction? IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 19:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] @IntentionallyDense, the UK and Ireland limit the amount of those medications that can be bought at one time, and apparently that has reduced the "impulsive teenager" type attempts. If you've got good sources for this, then method-specific prevention policies belong in this article, and I'd be happy to have you add it. It should go right at the end of Suicide methods#Drug overdose, with the information about the British and Irish package size restrictions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Include. This doesn't tell people not to commit suicide, it simply links to resources people can use if they want to. This is an WP:IAR topic and this should really be decided based on the number of votes on each side, not a single admin's analysis of whether the arguments are based on Wikipedia policy. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] What the hell made you think this should be decided by votes instead of policy? wound theology◈ 17:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Because policies should not be mandatory when they do not help improve Wikipedia. Some people are saying that including this would be a violation of some policy, and others are saying that even if did violate a policy, it would be better anyway. For one admin to decide the result based on whether it aligns with policies would mean ignoring a lot of the arguments. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Okay, but decided based on the number of votes on each side is not the same as building consensus or evaluating arguments. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that's a good thing. wound theology◈ 20:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] ...and others are saying that it doesn't matter whether it violates a policy (we can always change policy or make an exception), but it has not been shown that it is any better. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely include. How many people has this article already helped to kill themselves? Or pushed them further towards suicide attempts? You might attempt to say that people wouldn't seek it out if they weren't already suicidal, but people in that position are more vulnerable than anything else, and little bits can matter. This article has been seen many, many times and we absolutely do not know those numbers are zero. Blind idealism about "non-censorship" taken to extremes fail and are irrelevant in the face of articles actually leading to people's deaths. The most prominent possible link to crisis resources should be added, and I would support much louder measures than a hatnote. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] This argument is absolutely against the spirit, albeit not the letter, WP:RGW. You could argue people should stop selling kitchen knives because people have used them to kill themselves, and it’d still be a better argument because it’s objectively true. There is no objective evidence being presented that this article has lead to a non-trivial number of deaths, or that a giant warning like you propose will prevent a non-trivial number of deaths. It’s “blind idealism” in s different direction. Dronebogus (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] You are correct, no evidence has been presented that this article has led to any deaths. However, i have presented evidence above in this discussion that demonstrates that a) there is a link between people with suicidial ideation being more likely to complete suicide after exposure to material like that found in this article, and b) that providing easy access to mental health resources when presenting this content has at least some immediate mitigating effect. Those opposed to any of hatnote seem to be conveniently ignoring this. Dfadden (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Because they don’t say “exposure to this article has caused X suicides” and “we as experts strongly recommend you do Y as a solution”. This is just assuming that reading this particular article (and only this particular article) has led to suicide frequently enough to require some kind of extraordinary preventative measure. Which of course has absolutely no hard evidence yet presented. Dronebogus (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] I don't think that putting a link on the page is "extraordinary". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] @WhatamIdoing: point to one article, any article, that has a similar disclaimer. Even if you can, they would be so few in number that they would be out of the ordinary. Extra-ordinary, in fact. Dronebogus (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Emergency. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] That’s a matter of potential confusion between the encyclopedic article “emergency” and the shortcut WP:EMERGENCY. A comparable situation would be a disambig on suicide prevention that linked to Wikimedia’s suicide prevention resources. It’s a case of potential user confusion vs. trying to sway user behavior in an encyclopedia article, which is inherently not neutral even when you think the cause makes it totally justified. Dronebogus (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] I think that some people might come to this page in the expectation of finding such a link. (And they will, no matter what we decide here, because List of suicide crisis lines is linked in the body of the article.) If you think it would be reasonable to add a link to the Meta-Wiki page at the top of Suicide prevention, then feel free to propose that at Talk:Suicide prevention, or to boldly add it and see if anyone objects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Well, its impossible for there to be any source that says X number of deaths are directly related to this article. People who die by suicide are dead. You cannot ask them "what was the last straw?" when they are dead. We have that evidence says is that people who are seriously thinking about suicide DO come to articles like this one when trying to make decisions about HOW to end their life and that they are more likely to actually try to do so after reading them. Of course, unless you want to criminally investigate every completed suicide and do forensic analysis of their computers to see what they've been browsing, you can only base the research off what people who have attempted suicide are willing to tell you. But to claim that they would have to single out this particular article to do anything about it is a bit like saying "well even if cigarettes do cause cancer, I want to see something that specifically says Marlboro brand cigarettes cause cancer before I slap a warning label on them". That would be a ridiculous position, as is the standard of evidence you require. Dfadden (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] It’s been established that all cigarettes astronomically increases cancer risk because they all have extremely potent carcinogens in them. You’re basically claiming that all resources discussing suicide methods have a proven correlation with a similarly astronomical increase in suicide attempts. Additionally this page isn’t even encouraging people to commit suicide, whereas the whole point of cigarettes is that you smoke them and tobacco companies want to make that as appealing as possible. In short, your analogy falls flat just like most of the “it’s the new cigarettes” arguments that come up when someone doesn’t like something and wants it restricted somehow. Dronebogus (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Reading about suicide methods actually is associated with a higher risk of suicidal thoughts, attempts, and deaths. It is not an "astronomical increase", but then again, neither is most tobacco use.[1][2] Reading about suicide may or may not be causal, but there is at least a correlation. There is also a correlation between tobacco use and suicide, though that, too, may not be causal. In both cases, the connection is not absolute: Smokers don't usually get lung cancer, and occasionally they get lung cancer as a result of something else (because smoking tobacco doesn't make you immune to other causes of lung cancer). Non-smokers also get lung cancer. Similarly, people do not have to read about suicide to be affected by it, and people can read about suicide and not be affected by it. It is not an inapt analogy. . [1] In populations where lung cancer is already high for non-tobacco reasons (e.g., high-risk occupations, high-pollution areas), then smoking an average amount might "only" quadruple the baseline risk (and less than that for people who smoke less or stop). I believe the highest I've seen is 100x, for lifelong heavy smokers who would otherwise be low risk (e.g., have a low-risk occupation, live in a low-pollution environment). [2] To all my wiki-friends: If you use tobacco, please talk to your healthcare provider about Tobacco harm reduction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Putting a faux footnote to say that anyone who uses tobacco should talk to their healthcare provider is exactly the sort of paternalistic attitude I'm talking about with this RfC, btw. I have never met a smoker or an alcoholic who wanted to be lectured about their habits. wound theology◈ 06:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Is it really lecturing just to advise people of their options? The proposed hatnote "For mental health resources see meta:Mental Health Resources" does not seem like lecturing. It simply directs a person to another article which they may ignore and makes no mention of self-harm or suicide. I could understand that criticism for the original hatnote, but it doesn't seem to apply to the one most editors supporting inclusion currently favor. aaronneallucas (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Putting it there carries a certain implication. Imagine if you went to a pornsite and there was a big banner at the top linking to a pornography addiction recovery service. You couldn’t really call that neutral even though it isn’t saying you’re a porn addict. Dronebogus (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Online gambling websites (at least in my country) DO have links to resources for gambling addiction and financial management on the landing pages. 21:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC) Dfadden (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Yeah and in my country online gambling websites are just illegal. Maybe we can start censoring Wikipedia? wound theology◈ 23:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] The "one most editors supporting inclusion currently favor" is just a slightly more direct compromise from the one years ago about the hatnote currently on the page. wound theology◈ 23:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] I did not say "articles discussing suicide methods are the new cigarettes". I said asking for evidence that singles out this particular article and quantifying the number of people that have committed suicide after reading it is an unrealistic standard of evidence akin to trying to separate a particular brand of cigarettes as causing more lung cancers than another. You can twist my words any way you like, but the reality is i can support my opinions with credible evidence, while your opinions seem to be only about how policy should be interpreted. Speculation to what you think the motivations of those who don't agree with you may be (eg WP:RGW - really?) doesn't really add much.Dfadden (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] • Include, obviously. Ultimately, Wikipedia's rules and policies are meant to improve usage for readers. Most of the time, this means trying to make it a better encyclopedia, so the rules are focused on that. This is not one of those times. This is stating the obvious, but clearly our readers would be better suited by having easy access and visibility to resources on a page like this. The downside of possibly breaking Wikipedia's rules is dwarfed by the potential upside of saving even a single person. This is common sense. As a side note, for those concerned about it being unencyclopedic, Britannica doesn't seem to share those concerns. Either they feel it is encyclopedic, in which case it should be included because we're supposed to be making a better encyclopedia, or they feel that it is more important to include this than to be encyclopedic, in which case we should also include it for the same reason. Ladtrack (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] I have listed this at Wikipedia:Closure requests. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]