User:Steven Crossin/RFC close

Summary/Close

 * Raw !vote count:
 * Argument A - Support disclaimer, link to crisis lines:
 * Argument B - Support link to meta suicide prevention page:
 * Argument C - Support Suicide prevention link:
 * Argument D - Oppose any hatnotes:


 * Summary of arguments:
 * Policies weighed:
 * Outcome:

Support

 * 1) Support - This has been rejected before but I would like to raise this point again. Viewers of Wikipedia who are suicidal are more likely to search the Suicide Article than any other articles and as they read more info on suicide they may look at methods to commit suicide that are on the article and may actually replicate it. I’ve seen many disclaimer that were added on top of the suicide article then they were deleted as there was a page on Wikipedia that tells Wikipedians how they respond to suicide threats from wikipedians. However most of the suicidal viewers are probably not wikipedians, they’re just random visitors of Wikipedia who just went to the suicide article to find out methods to attempt suicide. Just by adding a disclaimer and redirecting them to the suicide crisis line on the top may just help them get out of that thought of committing suicide. So I’m proposing that we should add that disclaimer on the Suicide Wikipedia article just so we can prevent people committing suicide as a result of viewing that page. I also propose to add the same disclaimer on the Suicide Methods so they don’t replicate any sort of suicide attempts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OfficialNeon (talk • contribs) 23:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - I'm broadly in favor of adding the top most visible and respectable national or international suicide prevention resources to the external links section. I proposed something similar years ago for the article for Rape and it was fairly broadly opposed. So I don't expect it will get consensus, but I'm still in favor of it. We're only one of the most popular websites in the world and all.   G M G  talk  00:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: I don't see anything wrong with adding such a disclaimer if you ask me. We're here to present facts, not encourage or condone any method of self-harm as what the suicide methods article may seem to imply, even if our job here is not to provide advice for things. Second, there's a similar disclaimer on articles like WikiLeaks telling people that Wikimedia has no affiliation with the site despite the name. TV Tropes, while more informal and less factually reliable, does take suicide seriously, and would go to lengths to advise suicidal individuals to seek help. Not that we'd add suicide counseling advice on each and every article though, but a general piece of advice to dissuade and comfort those who are depressed shouldn't hurt. As mentioned in the talk page, "the importance of harm reduction outweighs the importance of policies like WP:NPOV that might guide us under normal circumstances to leave out such a hat note." Blake Gripling (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I'd support something along these lines, which guides an interested reader who inadvertently arrives at Suicide while searching for help on the subject, while not being flashy or condescending towards the general reader. Abecedare (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Support That example strikes me as appropriate and fitting with the style of Wikipedia. Particularly if the assertion that people looking for such information reach the general article is true; I have no evidence either way on that point, and benefit of the doubt here seems reasonable. Anomie⚔ 00:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - Certainly I see nothing wrong with something along these lines. While a geo-specified method would be nice, I'm concerned that cases where it was inaccurate would make it less helpful than a generic answer and link Nosebagbear (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Thinking about this more, I don't really like putting a non-content banner of some sort on this page - the crisis lines are already linked at the bottom of the page. I suppose possibly a hatnote to the actual article on Suicide crisis might be editorially acceptable - as readers may actually be looking for that subject. —  xaosflux  Talk 14:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - I'd support a hatnote to that effect, but not a banner. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Strongly oppose per WP:NOTADVICE. That's not the purpose of Wikipedia. However, there is nothing wrong with either having a section in the article about suicide prevention services, or if appropriate, a link to an expanded article about it. Banana Republic (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC) Changed my mind after seeing the hatnote at Governor of New York. Hatnotes need not be purely for disambiguation. Similar to the hatnote at Governor of New York saying, I could support a hatnote saying something similar to the hatnote proposed by  who suggested  , but I would suggest something less explicit, such as "For suicide prevention, see List of suicide crisis lines". Banana Republic (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. There's nothing wrong with a quick note on the page. As others have noted, we have disclaimers on some pages. They're usually in the form of a short hatnote. A quick one-line hatnote, along the lines of "If you're considering suicide, please visit List of suicide crisis lines" should be enough to help people that may be considering suicide, and not significantly detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. I believe that Wikipedia's goal is to help as many people as possible learn as much as they can, and to encourage people to help others. I'd be willing to bet that there have been at least one person that has committed suicide and has read the Suicide article beforehand, and could have been helped with just a little compassion and just a single line that tells them that there is someone out there that cares. If we can save just one life, the policies don't matter. Just my 2 cents. andritolion (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 11) Support a hat note link to List of Suicide crisis lines. Wikipedia exists in the real world and a meta study of suicide prevention suggested that we don't know if these lines are effective or not. But it also appears its not harmful. And the inclusion of a single hatnote is not harmful to Wikipedia. So this low cost way is not harmful and might beneficial to our readers. Further, suicide ideation is inherently different from drug addiction and so those analogies just don't hold water for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 12) Comment I am meh with regards to a note of the form For agencies offering couselling about the subject see..., which is (or, at least disguised as) a navigational aid. But I'm strongly opposed to any hatnote of the form If you’re thinking about suicide, it’s important to know that you’re not alone. See... that directly addresses the reader and offers them life-advice; that goes against WP:ENC (fwiw, see also EB's article on suicide). More broadly, my main two concerns regarding adding any hatnote are (1) the slippery-slope argument that has alluded to (where do we stop offering links to "helpful" resources: mental traumas, mental disorders, physical diseases, natural disasters, general trigger warnings ...?) and (2) the ineffectiveness argument mentioned by  (would the hatnote do anything except make us feel good about ourselves for doing something?). I'd like to see some thought-out arguments against those objections before I can support making an exception to WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Abecedare (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 13) Support I would support Abecedare's example text here, since that is a genuine navigational aid to something related that people could be looking for. But anything more aggressive than that shouldn't be added to the article without some evidence that it might actually help. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Hi all. I’m one of the lawyers at the Wikimedia Foundation, and I work in particular on issues related to threats of harm and similar risks. We’ve had a number of cases where people working on Wikipedia have contacted us because of threats of suicide to provide help for them, and one of my colleagues flagged this discussion to me. I think this is an important issue and I hope I can be helpful by sharing some sources that we’ve looked at and offering my thoughts on the matter based on what I’ve seen in dealing with suicide-related topics on Wikipedia. I support a community addition of a message at the top that lets people reading the article know about resources that might be available to them if they’re considering suicide. It’s likely that a significant share of the population that looks into topics like suicide and suicide methods are doing so because they are considering suicide. I and a number of my colleagues believe that links to resources for seeking help do lead to saving lives, and a couple of the sources cited below provide some information on how these sorts of resource links have worked. I would also note that as a matter of best practices, other online platforms that host user contributions, as well as a number of organizations that work to prevent suicide, recommend banners or similar notices to assist people. While Wikipedia is not quite like any other website, I think the way that people use it to search for information about difficult topics means that can be helpful to apply these best practices for suicide-related topics. Wikipedia articles also appear prominently in search results related to suicide. I’ve linked a couple examples below: about 5,000 thousand people a day view the Wikipedia article on suicide, and 9,000 a day view the suicide methods article. So, changes that might have a small statistical effect can have a significant impact in practice.
 * 15) Opppose Seriously, how many times have we gone over that we haveno disclaimers in articles? I understand that it may help people, but that's not what Wikipedia is designed to do.  --  Rockstone   talk to me!   07:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)  Everyone here has convinced me.... I weakly Support a proposal like the one described in the section below referring to suicide prevention. It retains NPOV while still giving users access to resources which may help them. It also is possible that someone who typed in "suicide" is looking for "suicide prevention", so I think it's okay.  --  Rockstone   talk to me!   01:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC) Want to clarify that I oppose this proposal, but support the alternate. Do not count me as support.--  Rockstone   talk to me!   21:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Comment If we DID have some type of disclaimer, I'd be OK with it being something like:  But that's about the extent that I think it should go. --  Rockstone   talk to me!   17:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 16) Comment logically a brief message and link to Wikimedia's mental health resources is the way to do it, if we go ahead Nosebagbear (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 17) Support a link to Mental health resources or List of suicide crisis lines per Jrogers. I'm not convinced by WP:NODISCLAIMERS since that guideline is not an absolute prohibition on disclaimers. In fact, it specifically defines its own scope: For the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicate the information at one of the five standard disclaimer pages: General disclaimer, Content disclaimer, Legal disclaimer, Medical disclaimer, Risk disclaimer none of which mention disclaimers of this type. Even the content disclaimer, which says we have objectionable content and is why we don't have NSFW or other disclaimers, doesn't mention anything remotely related to this topic. The idea that Wikipedia is not meant to help people is absurd given that we are an encyclopedia which literally exists to help people find information. Crisis services outlines at Mental health resources and List of suicide crisis lines are related to the content of the article and a hatnote would serve a navigational purpose redirecting readers to related information they may in fact be searching for. (See also Richard Neville's discussion with Finnusertop, above under Werespielchequer's comment). I'm not concerned by slipper slope arguments, and rarely am, for the reasons at slippery slope. Notably, this quote from an intro logic text book: The strength of the argument depends on two factors. The first is the strength of each link in the causal chain; the argument cannot be stronger than its weakest link. The second is the number of links; the more links there are, the more likely it is that other factors could alter the consequences. It's not particularly clear that if we add a hatnote we will be required or even strongly compelled to add similar notes to similar articles; there's not a strong link between each event in the slippery slope. The number of decisions required to reach the bottom of our slope is conceptually very large, we won't devolve into hatnoting The Sorrows of Young Werther with links to mental health resources in one or two steps, and likely never will, because we have WP:COMMONSENSE that people in crisis are most likely going to read suicide and suicide methods not some random other page. Such hatnotes are unlikely to be useful on other topics like mental illness in general or even rape because while similarly weighty, they are not nearly as time sensitive nor do we have particularly well developed encyclopedic content to which we can redirect a reader (we don't have a List of doctors in your area and services for survivors of sexual assault are incredibly variable between jurisdictions). Wug·a·po·des​ 21:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 18) Support I support but I also have some requests. We in the Wikimedia community have values and rules. We do not make exceptions lightly. We do have a process for exceptions, and it typically involves making a case and sorting some documentation. This issue of a suicide notice is not just an English Wikipedia issue, but an issue for all languages of Wikipedias and for our platform as a model for behavior in online spaces in general. This proposal is fairly disorganized to this point. Considering the seriousness of the issue and that putting a notice on a page is an exceptional and unusual thing to do which will have major and unpredictable consequences, I advocate to raise this issue from a casual discussion to a moderately organized discussion. I do not think this is so contentious that we need to invest the resources to make the best case and documentation that we can, but I do think that the issue merits some moderate amount of documentation. To implement this with the documentation we have now seems likely to cause various problems and we should mitigate that with some advance planning in the Wikimedia community.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 19) Support If we can save one life with a brief blurb at the top, it's worth it. I'm personally familiar with people who have used the hotlines, and they have been beneficial. Really don't understand the opposition here - if you're not suicidal, it doesn't impact you, and if you are, there's a chance it could help. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 20) Support As Doc James now supports something similar and it seems some of the opposes misunderstood, the issue Doc James raised was whether hotlines provide measured benefit. But there is no doubt in the literature that intervention is basically the only thing that can do anything to prevent.  It makes good sense to do something like this and is fully in keeping with Wikipedia's mission to inform. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 21) Support as reasonable given Jrogers' arguments. ɱ  (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 22) Support as per the above arguments. From an Australian perspective our media guidelines state and provide information about where to get help -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   12:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC) My other arguments from the other RFC Whilst we're here to make an encyclopaedia, and the link to suicide crisis lines is arguably unencyclopedic from this article, this is definitely an ethically challenging area. I would strongly support for this article inclusion, especially as Wikipedia is not censored and the suicide methods article may have obvious unintended consequences. Also I note that WP:IAR is improving or maintaining Wikipedia with no mention of Wikipedia being an encyclopaedia. Inclusion clearly violates even WP:HERE and everything else, but in this page I think all are overridden. and also re: evidence I think its one of those areas of medicine that will never really have good evidence. If evidence is shown in one study, worldwide generalisability is poor. Theres little evidence in risk assessment for suicide as well. It is common practice to link to crisis lines, despite the lack of evidence, I think we should do the same. --  [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]  
 * 23) Support per Jrogers. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 24) Support We use disclaimers on talk pages, what's the harm in including one right at the forefront of the main article? Especially when it isn't there to clutter but potentially could help someone.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 15:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 25) Support It's a sensible action and I think the case can be reasonably made that it 'makes the encyclopedia better'. Also support the more conservative compromise wording proposal below that is more within wikipedia norms. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 03:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 26) Support seems an obvious necessity to help those in need, one article in the Lancet is not enough to dissuade Atlantic306 (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 27) Comment the proposal is a little vague. How should the notice ('disclaimer') appear and what, specifically, should it say? The lead section of Suicide doesn't mention prevention at all. Perhaps one way forward is to add a paragraph at the end of it introducing the idea of suicide prevention, noting some of the key organisations that support it and linking to relevant Wikipedia articles. Adding direct links to e.g. hotlines would be a well-meant departure from the usual Wikipedia style. I support the idea behind it, I'm just wondering what the best way of achieving the goal is. I also think that objections based on WP:NODISCLAIMERS are misguided. That guideline frames itself as being about swearing, 'adult content' and spoilers. A notice of some form aimed at preventing readers' own suicide, on a page explicitly about suicide, is a long way away from that kind of sensitivity concern. Doc James's opposition is different, but I would ask it the other way around - is there evidence that pointing people towards services intended to help is harmful? "Unclear benefit" doesn't strike me as a good reason not to try something. I've supported the Doc's proposal below separately. &rsaquo; Mortee  talk 01:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 28) Support It may coincide with some of our policies, but we are talking about life and death here. If we can add a small sentence or disclaimer, it could save lives. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 17:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 29) Support I think Jrogers lays out a strong case, and others have already made the point that this is absolutely an appropriate place to diverge from general practice on the encyclopedia. Ralbegen (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Most convinced by Jrogers' reminder that linking to relevant mental health resources (whatever they may be) is already standard journalistic practice and recommended by the WHO. Note should be brief and as neutral as possible. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 01:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 31) Support a short hatnote to point to meta:Mental health resources. Not one linking to other on-wiki articles. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 32) Support Sounds reasonable. Already standard practice elsehere.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 33) Support for the reasons stated by Hawkeye7. Mgasparin (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 34) Support - Which is more important, an article that follows content guidelines to the letter or a person's life? - ZLEA T\C 21:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 35) Support: It's not unheard of for encyclopedias to contain disclaimers around this topic. For example, The Canadian Encyclopedia has the disclamer This article contains sensitive material that may not be suitable for all audiences. Given the seriousness of the topic, some sort of trigger warning or redirect to help is appropriate.4meter4 (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - We don't do disclaimers in articles and we also don't disguise them as bad hatnotes. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) OpposeI'm against this idea although the sentiment behind the proposal is a good one. Two reasons: 1. People find this article through Google, Google already includes crisis information and local hotlines. 2. There's not really any good evidence that suggests crisis hotlines are actually helpful at preventing or limiting self harm. --188.250.220.217 (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose"Don't do heroin" or "If raped call" is simply not our purpose....that said external links to help groups would be OK in my view.-- Moxy 🍁 01:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. No disclaimers on articles. --Yair rand (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. See guideline NODISCLAIMERS. While I think this is a serious issue and I have sympathy with the intentions behind it, I do not think it is the job of the Wikipedia to give advice or tell people what to do or think. --Hecato (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - I would question the effectiveness of such disclaimers. The Hellenic Army has in recent years created its own suicide line, trying to reduce its chronic issues with drafted soldiers committing suicide. It has not done much to reduce the reasons for suicide, such as the poverty of the soldiers (the monthly payment for a Greek soldier in 2019 is 8.70 euros, equivalent to 9.76 American dollars), the isolation of soldiers from their families and friends, or the lack of treatment for their health problems The suicide rate in Greece (526 suicides per average year) has increased in recent years, despite the availability of suicide lines. Dimadick (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - has supported an alt First of all the best avaliable evidence does not show a benefit in decreasing the risk of suicide. Here we have a 2016 review article in Lancet Psychiatry that says hotlines are of unclear benefit. There are things we know that do work such as removing guns and other easily methods of suicide from the home. So if we are going to put a hatnote on the page it should contain advice that is better supported. Second why was this raised here on July 19th without notifying the talk page of suicide? This discussion has occurred lots of times there. For those who support this what is the evidence of benefit? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per rationale of other editors who have opposed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per Doc James. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per Doc J. --Izno (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose No. This sets a bad precedent for allowing similar disclaimers on articles. Plus, as Doc James points out, it is dubious whether these disclaimers or hatnotes have any real impact. Let us please stick absolutely to the principles of having no advocacy or censorship. SD0001 (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose: Sadly, I don't believe it to be within our remit to do this, whether hat-note, banner, or message. Moreover, even if the slippery slope argument were to be ignored (which would be a mistake, in my view), the research, as pointed out by Doc James, doesn't exactly support the impact of any method.  &mdash;Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 15:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose this particular proposal. There is no point in linking to any particular site, especially one of doubtful efficacy. the argument "It is the only thing that can possibly work" is in defiance of WP:V. and WP:OR and WP:MEDRS. We shouldn't be sending people o places where here is no evidence of effectiveness. "This is a problem. Something must be done. This claims to be some thing. We must do it. The discussions at the other location, mentioned below, make much more sense.  DGG' ( talk ) 06:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose on the same grounds as at the very similar RFC here. Gimubrc (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 15) Yes! Yes!  Let's Do This!  I have a collection of notices ready for articles on ADDICTION of {name any} DRUG;  the consequences of ABORTION;  problems with PROMISCUITY;  the dangers of using TRAFFIC CIRCLES; why one shouldn't ICE FISH, and more.  Text me for the exhaustive list!!!  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 03:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose A static notice at the top of the page is unlikely to change anyone's mind about suicide if they are actively thinking about doing so. Furthermore even if it was added to this article and not others (such as Hanging (don't hang yourself), Murder (Murdering people is wrong), or any illegal drugs) would this not put the WMF/Wikipedia in a tricky legal situation?  Sak ura Cart elet Talk 21:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose (supports alt proposal): Per No disclaimers in articles. Great humanitarian cause with unintended consequences. Alternative proposal is a better choice. See "Discussion" subsection below. Otr500 (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose Readers considering suicide may coming to Wikipedia for an objective treatment of the topic of suicide, which the article suicide does a decent job of. The reader's perception is immediately damaged by the impression of an agenda. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose (OK with alt proposal) per WP:NODISCLAIMER. Though if there is to be a change then I'd much rather use 's alternative proposal below. SkyWarrior  01:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Alternative proposal
Link to the general topic of suicide prevention rather than one specifically and poorly supported measure. Something like  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Per User:Banana Republic I could support something along the lines of. This would prevent us from giving undue weight to crises hotlines when other methods have better support. That article will need improvement but happy to work on that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest that. I quoted, who did suggest that. I suggested "For suicide prevention, see ...." whatever the appropriate article would be. I wanted to de-personalize the hatnote, to make it more neutral. In general, the word "you" should not appear in the article space. Banana Republic (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How about something like:
 * ?-- Rockstone   talk to me!   21:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * An even better idea than what I proposed. Banana Republic (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I would support something like that. This would retain NPOV while giving users who are suicidal the opportunity to read an article that may help them without being preachy or breaking encyclopedic standards. I've changed my Oppose to a weak Support above.-- Rockstone   talk to me!   01:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure would support User:Rockstone35 proposal. Have adjusted mine to reflect it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Several studies have documented specific caller benefits during and after crisis line contact. These include: Overall, these studies provide promising, if preliminary, evidence that the participating crisis lines did deliver outcomes consistent with their goals of providing crisis support and reducing immediate risk of suicide. They also demonstrate how research can identify areas that need addressing to increase helper competencies and enable service improvement. Furthermore, if you extend the paucity of evidence argument I have not heard of any evidence to link a suicidal person to how society manages suicidal intervention and prevention (linking suicidal people to help appears to be to be the main thought behind the WP:IAR in this proposal). If that suicidal person doesn't have access to those preventative measures, such as being in a remote area or low income nation, it could in my limited opinion could also have unintended consequences as well and I would strongly suggest a suicidal prevention expert's input here. I certainly prefer weak evidence and expert opinion/common practice (ie. to crisis lines) to what might have no evidence. Also if this second hatnote has consensus suicide prevention and suicide intervention needs a far more global viewpoint / rewrite. -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   19:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Good compromise. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Whilst I support either hatnote in principle, I dont understand the argument based on weak evidence for crisis lines (this type of evidence is extremely difficult to develop in medicine, and will always have poor generalisability worldwide). Heres some weak, narrative review evidence, noting the Lancet paper already commented on.
 * 1) Changes in the callers’ crisis state or suicidality during the call;
 * 2) Resourcing for improved crisis management such as the development of action
 * 3) plans and the provision of referrals and
 * 4) Flow-on benefits after the call, as assessed in caller follow-up.
 * Support as reasonable compromise within existing norms. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 03:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support without prejudice to the original proposal. Having a more prominent link like this to the topic of prevention seems a practical and unobtrusive way to redirect those readers who might be in need of exploring the topic. &rsaquo; Mortee  talk 00:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Article specific and not a well meaning attempted guideline or policy change. See "Discussion" section below.  Otr500 (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Related RFC
I have started an RFC at: Talk:Suicide methods. I have not been following this one as much, but users here may be interested in it. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Study the effect of linking to a crises number
Would support the idea of linking to a crises number as part of a research trial. With respect to study design we could look at having "crises numbers" present in odd months one year and even months the next. This would allow the comparison between the same months between the two years. We could have the number present to all IPs from the UK. The primary end point would be change in suicides in each pair of months in the UK, with secondary outcomes being total calls to the crises hotline we are linking. This would move knowledge on this topic forwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think the encylopedia should be a mechanism for an external social experiment. (c.f. What_Wikipedia_is_not) — xaosflux  Talk 13:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I don't think we should display different article content to readers based on their IP address. — xaosflux  Talk 13:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support but prefer a larger sample size. The UK has about 5,000 people dying by suicide a year, of which only so many will be visiting Wikipedia during their crisis. Presenting a specific number in the hatnote would make it less neutral but (as you say) give us a clear secondary measure. WP:NOTLAB doesn't preclude the idea, especially if we're just trying measure the efficacy of the note and not helplines in general. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 02:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * While from a humanitarian point of view this is an admirable suggestion, even supported by one or more WMF lawyers, but as mentioned there could certainly be unintended consequences. Some editors may apparently rarely be concerned with a Slippery slope argument, but it is prudent to consider what might happen after opening a can of worms. The guideline No disclaimers in articles would be rescinded. This means that a well intended editor, possibly an advocate for not smoking, would have arguments (of course not WP:OTHERSTUFF) for placing a warning or health advisory disclaimer or hatnote on Cigarette. Other examples are offered by Sakura Cartelet and we can certainly request an expanded list from GenQuest.
 * Concerns about WMF legal liability were rebutted by one of their lawyers (Jrogers (WMF) stating that if the "community" were to implement this type of change it would mitigate WMF legal concerns. I can not imagine providing a "disclaimer" would result in litigation. However, this is not actually about placing a disclaimer but a notice or banner to potentially aid in suicide prevention. This is a very noble "cause". There are literally thousands of individuals and organizations that would be interested in using "banners" for humanitarian efforts, warnings, or as potential aids for some cause.
 * Then we have the battle that would ensue should a majority here decide to implement this. As a "proposal" we could provide consensus to implement a guideline change but when the dust settles this will not be just about a template, banner, or hatnote on Suicide. It will not take long before an editor with good intentions will decide Murder, Mass shooting, Massacre and other violence related articles need such a banner. We will then gain a sub-project so that all such articles could be covered.
 * Is this far-fetched? Not even close, but merely a matter of time, and why the slippery slope thought should be at least considered.
 * The best option from an editorial point of view would be Alternative proposal above. This would not entail changing established long-standing consensus, opening more than one can of worms, and provide a solution that would reflect article consensus on inclusion and be more encyclopedic. A problem is many that might support this, over the original proposal, already !voting, may not watch this page. Otr500 (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Aside from some very good reasoning on the part of dissenters here (studies showing ineffectiveness, problems with determining whether or not these "help lines" are really any good at what they claim to do, slippery slope, etc.)...I wonder about the value judgment we would be imposing here.  There are many countries now that have legislated authorization for assisted suicide; are we suggesting that these countries are wrong to do that?  Are we imposing our own values in assuming that suicide is always a bad thing to do?  I'm not going to take a formal position on this, but I genuinely worry about the level of activism that is coming out of the WMF (note that WMF staff have proposed a session about this very subject at Wikiconference North America). Risker (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, but I mean the Wikipedia is basically a humanist entity. We're not here to make money. We're not here to expand the hegonomy of any country. We're not here to make art for art's sake. We are supposedly here to do a small good thing: make a free encyclopedia. We carry a lot of value judgements into that, basically the values of the Enlightenment: we value objective observation over argument from authority, and so on and so forth. And "humanism" -- that is, the valorization of human beings as opposed over, say, any church or country or company or what have you -- is a key part of that.


 * So yeah, on a technical level I'm willing to listen to arguments along the lines of "this is actually counter-productive". If a winning argument can be made that having a disclaimer will result in more net suffering -- more appropriate suicides prevented than inappropriate ones -- then fine (altho, good luck with that). But aarguments along the lines of "well, we shouldn't judge that 'life' is somehow better than 'death'" or similar are not going to gain much traction with me or a lot of other people. Declining to make a moral judgement about something is a moral judgement, and you can't escape that. Herostratus (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)