Template:Did you know nominations/National Strategy for Suicide Prevention

Copyright and comprehensiveness

National Strategy for Suicide Prevention

 * ... that the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention is to lessen the rates of attempted suicide and deaths from suicide in the United States including carbon monoxide poisoning by asphyxiation in automobiles?
 * Comment: I'm open to any hooks that seem better!

Created/expanded by Insomesia (talk). Self nom at 08:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ALT suggestion - ... that the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention is to reduce attempted suicides and deaths in the United States due to carbon monoxide poisoning by redesigning automobiles?
 * I just think that would really catch my eye, FWIW. Good luck with it. Tlqk56 (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I retweaked it to -
 * ... that the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention aims to reduce rates of attempted suicides and deaths from suicide in the United States including redesigning autos to avoid carbon monoxide poisoning by asphyxiation?
 * I think it is better, I like the final retweaked version as its clear that redesigning cars is only a part of the overall plan, not the whole plan.Insomesia (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's clearer but I don't like the use of includes twice in one sentence. How about saying "by redesigning autos"? It makes it clear the plan only includes that, but doesn't repeat the word. Tlqk56 (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, how about ...
 * ... that as part of the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention to reduce rates of attempted suicides and deaths from suicide in the United States, autos are redesigned to avoid carbon monoxide poisoning by asphyxiation?
 * Better?Insomesia (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * well, "are redesigned" implies they they are being redesigned already. If that's true, OK. Otherwise, maybe "would be"? But I know this is nit-picking. I'd just like to see the hook as clear and catchy as possible. :) Tlqk56 (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Some have been redesigned already and I think the rest either already are or are in process. Many design regulations go into auto design and they are continually updating regulations. Insomesia (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You need a shorter hook: maximum is 200 (shorter is better), and the new one clocks in at an ineligible 213. Here's a temporary solution:
 * ALT4: ... that as part of the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention to reduce rates of attempted suicides and U.S. suicide deaths, cars are being redesigned to avoid carbon monoxide poisoning?
 * However, I think the reviewer will find the hook problematic because it's from a part of the article that is sourced from a 2001 article that said these design changes were anticipated to happen around 2005 or so. It's 2012: at this point, the article—especially since it's new—should have more recent information saying what was actually done, not just what was planned 11 years ago. Otherwise, "are being redesigned", "are redesigned", or "redesigning" require a source that actually can say that this is happening, and that source does not do so; it's merely said to be a goal. The hook will not be accepted as it is now. —BlueMoonset (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The way the NSSP is structured, from my understanding, is that they make recommendations and those ideas are passed on, so that down the line the reporting may never acknowledge the initial work. I think that's a tense change needing a rewording is all. I've tweaked it to try to resolve the issue. Good catch! Insomesia (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ALT5: ... that as part of the U.S. National Strategy for Suicide Prevention to reduce rates of attempted suicides and suicide deaths, the redesign of car exhausts to avoid carbon monoxide poisoning was sought?
 * I prefer it if my proposed hook is left as is, and your tweak is listed separately as its own ALT, which I've just placed above this line as ALT5. Otherwise, what I said previously makes no sense in context. I do agree that your ALT5 is definitely to be preferred to ALT4, and have struck ALT4 as a result. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Need a full review of nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW I like ALT 4 5 and it's sits at 200 characters presently. I think I've addressed the other concerns raised. Insomesia (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's now ALT5. I do think it could be shortened, since "U.S." and "National" are redundant. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll leave that up to you guys, to me it was specifically that the nation in question was US and not Australia or Ireland or wherever else. Insomesia (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg I find several serious problems with the article and the hook. On balance, I don't think this one is salvageable.
 * First off, I'm not convinced that the "National Strategy" exists as an ongoing government program, as the article claims. As near as I can determine, the article title comes from a 2001 report that presented a plan for a program. There are US government efforts to prevent suicide, and it does appear that some organizations are still using the program plan, but I don't find evidence that this is the name of an existing program.
 * Second, the article seems to have been largely derived from this online factsheet; not only is the article too close to the source, but much of the article consists of fact-sheet content (such as out-of-context statistics about suicide) that is not encyclopedic content about the article topic. If there really is a government program by this name, the article should give me details, such as when it was started, that I don't find here.
 * Third, the proposed hook fact is nowhere to be found in the article. I did find it on that fact sheet as an example of the bullet item "Promote efforts to reduce access to lethal means and methods of self-harm", which bullet is one of several items copied verbatim from the fact sheet. --Orlady (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you may be faulting the article for not being clear about something the US Government itself is unclear on. I can only reflect what the sources state. Maybe it was a one-time effort to kick-start more suicide prevention coordination between agencies. I didn't see evidence of that so didn't add it in. I started the article because other agencies or efforts were created because of it. In short, I could only use what the sources offered and I was only looking to start the article, not complete it.
 * The hook is from the first sentence in the second paragraph - In 2001, David Satcher, then-US Surgeon General, released a plan to address suicide in the US including short and long-range goals like changing automobile design to prevent carbon monoxide poisoning by asphyxiation. Insomesia (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Argh! Why didn't I see that hook fact in the article? Possibly because I thought that a detail like that wouldn't be in the lead section, I even searched the article for the word monoxide!
 * Regardless, I believe that the article has problems with copyvio (noted above) and the superficiality of the underlying research. I've done some more research on this topic that leads me to conclude that the article is seriously superficial. The "National Strategy for Suicide Prevention" is actually the title of a 206-page report (subtitle is "Goals and Objectives for Action") published in 2001 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services -- the report is what is described in that little Seattle PI article that is the basis for the hook fact. The entire report is online -- download it from this page or go directly to the PDF link. Additionally, there's a 62-page 2009 report with the title "National Strategy for Suicide Prevention" and subtitle "Compendium of Federal Activities 2009" (see this link) that describes progress made in implementing the strategy between 2001 and 2009. The 11-page fact sheet at this link that was used as the main source of this article (and is, by the way, published on the website of an organization called Suicide Prevention Resource Center -- not by the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention) seems to be a summary of the 2001 "strategy" report. The "preface" to the 2009 report (on page 11 of the PDF) provides a lot of information about the who, what, when, and why that I found missing from the Wikipedia article. Among other things, it says that the Federal Working Group on Suicide Prevention (which seems to be the name of the entity that was working on implementing the strategy -- this page says it was formed in 2006) planned to update the document on Federal Activities "on a twice yearly basis". I have not found any more recent progress reports yet; the Strategy is mentioned on page 161 of this report on SAMHSA programs and activities (also from 2009), but I don't find it in current DHHS budgets and strategic plans. It appears to me that this report is still the basis for some suicide-prevention activities, but the current Administration no longer invokes its name. --Orlady (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, your sleuthing skills are far better than mine! I figured each agency was calling it something different and no one coordinated public updates so i just wasn't finding very much. Based on what you found is there any hope for the article? Insomesia (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of possible hope for it. With the whole DHHS strategy document in hand, plus a document that describes what the government did to implement its recommendations, the article could be revised/expanded to provide a more authoritative discussion of the recommendations and their implementation. Statements by various other organizations (particularly nongovernmental organizations) about their involvement with implementing the strategy could also help flesh out the article. And I think that Senator Harry Reid's comments on suicide, wherein he said he was "proud of the advances we have made over last decade, including the adoption of a ‘National Strategy for Suicide Prevention’" could be cited (and possibly quoted). --Orlady (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds great. I'm a bit burned out but I'm happy if you want to do it. Otherwise maybe we can build a road map and i can work on it when i have the energy. Thank you again for figuring this out! Insomesia (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)