Jump to content

Talk:Suicide methods

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

Suicide Helplines

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Typo on number of deaths

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

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

Edit Request

The original:

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


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

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

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

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]
  • No thanks. I don't think we should start off a content page with directing encyclopedia readers to a non-content page. The prior compromise of linking to suicide prevention seems sufficient. — xaosflux Talk 10:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per WP:No disclaimers. Koshuri (グ) 10:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No WP:RGW, WP:TRIGGER, WP:No disclaimers, Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Content warnings, unencyclopedic, WP:NPOV, abusing WP:IAR (Wikipedia’s original sin) to ignore all of the above… Dronebogus (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be a serious lack of understanding about what IAR actually entails -- it doesn't mean "ignore policy if I think there's a good reason"; it certainly doesn't mean that there is necessarily an exception to every rule (per WP:WIARM). Larry Sanger's original wording was that if rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely -- which is substantially different than overturning long-standing policy about content disclaimers, trigger warnings, censorship, and so on. The apparent "compromise" about the hatnote linking to suicide prevention only works because a a "suicide method" can plausibly conflated with a "suicide [prevention] method." wound theology◈ 12:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please explain why you believe the hatnote linking to a list of resources is either a disclaimer or a content warning? I concede it's unusual, but WP:DISCLAIM states For the purpose of this guideline, a disclaimer is some text or template within an article that editors may attempt to insert as a warning to readers. The proposed hatnote doesn't look anything like the examples provided in that policy. The perennial proposal regarding content warnings refers to statements that directly describe the content of the article and make recommendations about its suitabilty for particular audiences. In this case, the hatnote it is not directly warning about the content, nor does it directly describe the content or its suitablity to an audience. It simply provides a link to resources and states If you feel you may physically harm yourself, or others: Click here for a list of crisis support resources. I agree with your suggestion over at AN that a reworking of no disclaimers may be in order. The way I interpret no disclaimers, it doesn't explicitly rule this out therefore WP:IAR is moot. Dfadden (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The hatnote implies that the content is unsuitable for certain groups, and the argumentation provided on this very talk page shows that the basic reasoning for it is that such content is triggering or detrimental to suicidal people. The reasoning you provide in your "Include" vote above is based on the idea that there is a demonstrated correlation between articles which detail methods of suicide and increased rates of suicide and suicidality. In other words...it's a content warning urging suicidal people to look at mental health resources. wound theology◈ 13:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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]
  • @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]
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:
For mental health resources, see meta:Mental health resources.
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]
@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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suicide_methods&oldid=1283190496"