Jump to content

Talk:Sanctioned Suicide

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSanctioned Suicide has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 27, 2023Good article nomineeListed
August 15, 2023Good article reassessmentKept
May 22, 2024Good article reassessmentKept
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 16, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the decision to report the name of an internet forum dedicated to suicide was described by journalist Megan Twohey as one of the "biggest ethical issues that we had ever dealt with"?
Current status: Good article

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that Sanctioned Suicide, an internet forum dedicated to suicide, has been linked to the incel subculture? Source: Incels Are Running An Online Suicide Forum That Was Blamed For A Young Woman’s Death Marquis told BuzzFeed News on Wednesday that he and his cofounder are both incels and founded sites such as Incels.co, Incels Wiki, Looksmax.me, the Manosphere, and Blackpill.online.
    • ALT1: ... that journalist Megan Twohey described the decision to name the internet forum Sanctioned Suicide in their report as one of the "biggest ethical issues that we had ever dealt with"? Source: How The New York Times handled life-or-death ethical issues while reporting on a popular suicide website (Poynter) - “We also even worked with our search team to make sure that we were being extremely careful not to raise the profile of either the site or the preservative more than absolutely necessary,” Dance said, “while also making sure lawmakers, law enforcement and parents and family members had the opportunity to know what to look out for.” ... “Immediately, we recognized that these were going to be two of the biggest ethical issues that we had ever dealt with in, you know, our pretty lengthy journalism careers,” she said.
    • ALT2: ... that Sanctioned Suicide called Australia an "anti-liberty country" after some Australian internet service providers blocked access to the internet forum dedicated to suicide? Source: Pro-suicide website blocks access to Australians after families speak out - A pro-suicide website linked to deaths in this country has answered calls to block Australian users from accessing it, but not because of claims it is harmful and incites suicide...Now its administrators have blocked it to Australian users, saying it is a response to this country's "authoritarian" attempts to stifle its influence..."We are done with the site-blocking BS, and anti-liberty countries will just be blocked."...The website had been blocked by some internet service providers at the request of the Australian Federal Police but was still accessible to many Australians.
    • ALT3: ... that after U.S. lawmakers released a statement against the internet forum Sanctioned Suicide, Microsoft Bing responded by lowering the site's ranking in its search results? Source: Lawmakers Urge Big Tech to ‘Mitigate Harm’ of Suicide Site and Seek Justice Inquiry Responding to a New York Times investigation of the site published this month, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on Monday released a bipartisan statement requesting briefings from search engines, web-hosting companies and other tech companies whose services might have been leveraged by the suicide site...A representative for Microsoft’s search engine, Bing, told The Times last week that the company had altered its search engine to lower the ranking of the site, which has been linked to a trail of deaths.
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hyochang Park
    • Comment: I've discussed the appropriateness of having this article on the main page with another editor on the WP:DISCORD, who encouraged me to go ahead, but I would like to hear the thoughts of other editors as well. I'm willing to not run the hook if there is a belief that it would be too dangerous to run. I've also provided four hooks and hope that other editors could provide advice on the wording of the hooks as it is a sensitive topic.

Improved to Good Article status by Freedom4U (talk). Self-nominated at 03:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sanctioned Suicide; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Kate the mochii (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Kate, this appears to be your first DYK review? Out of an abundance of caution, I would rather that this was seen by more editors (with some discussion of the hooks themselves), as it is potentially contentious, before it is approved. I've moved it back for now. :3 F4U (they/it) 05:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened a discussion about this at WT:DYK, where it's likely to get more attention. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to disapprove and strike ALT0, which mentions links between the forum and incels. I understand that the founders self-identify as incels, but the hook would "focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals", which violates WP:DYKCRIT 4a. Additionally, the hook could be interpreted to link all members of the forum to the incel subculture. See MOS:SUICIDE: Language choices sometimes carry connotations that are not obvious to every editor. Additionally, see WP:BLP: [BLPs] must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy... It is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
@Freedom4U: I'm wondering if you'd be willing to propose hooks that avoid including the name "Sanctioned Suicide"? Edge3 (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Edge3: Agree with your judgement on the first hook. I bet I could refactor ALT2 while keeping it quote, hooky, unquote. What about:
ALT4 ... that an internet forum dedicated to suicide called Australia an "anti-liberty country" after being blocked by some Australian internet service providers? Source listed above
ALT5 ... that the naming of an internet forum dedicated to suicide was described by journalist Megan Twohey as one of the "biggest ethical issues that we had ever dealt with"?
ALT6 ... that an informal survey conducted on a suicide forum found that half of its userbase were 25 or younger? Where the Despairing Log On, and Learn Ways to Die - About half were 25 or younger, the survey showed
Let me know what you think. Also, should "an" be inside or outside the wikilink? I'll be logging off pretty soon for tonight and my day is packed tommorow, so I may not respond until Sunday. :3 F4U (they/it) 02:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to oppose ALT6 for similar reasons as I articulated before. MOS:SUICIDE says: Suicide and self-harm are complex behaviors with multi-factorial causes. Do not oversimplify the causes of suicide. I'm reluctant to have any hook that could be interpreted as a generalization of the website's userbase. (e.g. whether the hook impies that they are incels, or they are young people.) Such language could lead to a variety of interpretations based on the perspective of the reader. (A young person at risk of suicide could either feel encouraged to have found a community of people just like them, or in the alternative, insulted that their problems are being reduced to youthful naïveté.) As I quoted previously from MOS:SUICIDE, Language choices sometimes carry connotations that are not obvious to every editor. Young people are already a vulnerable population; we shouldn't bring attention to their high levels of participation on this site.
Additionally, the source is an informal survey conducted by the site itself. If we're going to present sensitive statistics on such a vulnerable population, we should stick to the highest possible standards of sourcing.
By the way, @Freedom4U: I wasn't sure if you wanted to keep ALT3, so I added the version ALT3a which avoids directly naming the forum. Edge3 (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Edge3: I really need to sleep, but one comment before I'm out. Support striking ALT6, yeah it definitely seems insensitive in retrospect. I didn't convert ALT3 because I feel it would be too wordy at that point for it to also be "hooky". :3 F4U (they/it) 05:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re-review
@Freedom4U and Kate the mochii: GA reviewers can't review for DYK as well; re-review needed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about that lol, but yeah I did want a new review. :3 F4U (they/it) 02:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated on the same day as attaining GA status. Long enough. Neutrally written, and well-sourced. Passes Earwig. QPQ is done. No image has been submitted.

Addressing the broader question of suitability for DYK — According to WP:DYKAIM, our goals are:

  • To showcase new and improved content, illustrating to readers the continuous improvement and expansion of Wikipedia's corpus of articles;
  • To highlight the variety of information on Wikipedia, thereby providing an insight into the range of material that Wikipedia covers.
  • To present facts about a range of topics which may not necessarily otherwise receive Main Page exposure;
  • To acknowledge the work that editors do to expand and improve Wikipedia, encouraging them to continue their efforts and thereby contributing to editor retention and ongoing content improvement;
  • To encourage readers to edit articles that appear on DYK or start their own, thus facilitating the recruitment of new editors.

The first four factors weigh heavily in favor of approving this nomination. The article covers a highly-trafficked and dangerous website, and our readers should be informed about its existence. It helps fulfill Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission, and all articles that meet our quality standards deserve to be showcased. The article is well-written and well-sourced, having passed GA review. The editors involved in this article, including Freedom4U, deserve recognition for working on such a difficult topic. The fifth factor, facilitating the recruitment of new editors, is unlikely to be impacted by this nomination.

Of course, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Having said that, the specific contents of a DYK hook remain a matter of editorial judgment. wmf:Resolution:Controversial content recognizes the principle of least astonishment: content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain". Additionally, WP:OM requires that potentially offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Furthermore, as I explained in prior comments on ALT0 and ALT6, there is ample guidance from MOS:SUICIDE and WP:BLP.

The article by Barbara Allen on Poynter is helpful here. While we have an obligation to showcase our work and keep our DYK readers informed, it is not strictly necessary to identify the website by name on the Main Page. This aligns with community consensus at Talk:Sanctioned Suicide#RfC on linking to the forum. Accordingly, ALTS 1, 2, and 3 are rejected.

ALTS 3a, 4, and 5 are compliant, well-sourced, and supported by in-line citations. Edge3 (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Edge3: In what sense do we have an obligation to showcase our work? This is something that we choose to do, and may equally choose not to do. Your argument that as many people as possible should be told about this website seems contrary to the general consensus of reliable sources, which intentionally refrain from naming the site; see e.g. [1][2][3][4]. Removing the name from the hook seems like a very minimal concession, since it still appears prominently on hovering over the link, and the whole point of the hook is to entice readers into visiting the article.
As a side note, I think ALT5 needs rewriting; it currently gives the impression that Megan Twohey gave the site its name. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sojourner in the earth: We have an obligation to follow WP:5P2 and WP:NOTCENSORED. As long as the hook fulfills our objectives in WP:DYKAIM, we should run it on the Main Page. The Main Page is in article space, so the content policies apply just like they do to any other article.
I agree that ALT5 needs rewriting. @Freedom4U: When you have a moment, could you please try rewriting ALT5 to avoid implying that Twohey gave the website its name? I know you're busy, so no rush! :-) Edge3 (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: The GA nomination was reviewed by a sockpupppet in violation of their ban and is therefore not valid. GA status has been removed, but the article may be re-nominated. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review remains invalid while such is the case. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: The article is currently being re-reviewed, so it might come back to DYK soon. I'd suggest keeping this page open rather than closing the nomination. Edge3 (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Way ahead of ya :) would've marked for closure otherwise, but this can't be promoted yet. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break

Just so that its clear here—a second GA review is currently being carried out after the original reviewer was found to be a sock. As for hooks, we currently have the two following working hooks:

In addition, as of this moment, there is still an ongoing discussion in the above section regarding whether the article should run at all. :3 F4U (they/it) 03:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, ALT 3a was also approved, but I understand you had concerns about it. Whatever you prefer is fine with me! Edge3 (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not a fan of it and I rather it not be used. :3 F4U (they/it) 03:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re-re-review
I'd be glad to! I'll review within the next day or so. Edge3 (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Freedom4U: I know I promised a second review within one day, but I'm going to need a bit more time. Given the sensitive nature of this article, I'd like to be thorough. Edge3 (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Edge3: I advise you to take a look at the recent article history before you take a look. There is a LTA who likes to edit this article. :3 F4U (they/it) 11:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the recent IP editor? Anyway, I see that you responded to the new thread at Talk:Sanctioned Suicide#Articles used to establish first sentence. I'll be reading the talk page threads and reviewing the article history as part of this DYK review. I even was able to get the original GA review (by the sockpuppet) restored to my user space as part of this review. Edge3 (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Edge3: Yes. It's the same sock/editor that appeared back in February/March and was blocked. :3 F4U (they/it) 22:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, thanks. Edge3 (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few things:

List recreated below without items that were addressing additions/removals made by a WMF-banned user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Does the forum have paid staff? The very first sentence says "staff-regulated", and the body of the article contains text saying "The staff of the forum have since restricted the accounts..." (emphasis added).
  • Is there a source supporting the claim that the forum is "staff-regulated"? If not then it should be removed.
  • "The forum is primarily reported on in terms of the harm it has caused to users of the site and the resulting legal responses." — This sentence is too wordy. Since this is the second sentence of the article, it's better to be direct. (MOS:INTRO)
  • I think you're giving short shrift to the Nashrulla 2019 source. For instance:
    • Nashrulla provides a lot of biographical info on Small, which you could incorporate into the article. e.g. Small was 25 at the time and from Virginia, and he did address concerns that the incel sites were connected to SS.
    • Despite Small's claims that the communities are separate, a user ("Alex") was banned from SS for asking questions about their links.
    • SS is used by many women who are victims of rape and abuse.
    • Apparently the link to incels was not immediately known to the SS community. Nashrulla's reporting apparently prompted the mods to disclose to the forum members that they are connected to incel sites.
    • You can mention that when the forum was started in 2018, the founders relied on domain registrars and hosting companies that were against censorship, and those entities are connected to their incel sites.
  • Neither the Nashrulla 2019 nor Reddit 2018 sources confirm that the date of ban was precisely March 14, 2018. In face, Reddit doesn't even provide a date at all.
  • "The incel communities run by Small and Galante promote the 'blackpill', a misogynistic and biological determinist ideology." The sourcing here doesn't seem strong. Twohey 2021 notes only that most incels "share a dark outlook known as 'black pill,'" but that's not the same as saying Small and Galante directly promote that ideology. Squirrel 2023 doesn't mention Galante at all, but it does mention Small, though not necessarily in the context of black pill.
  • If you keep the Squirrel source, add the year of publication (2023) to the citation.
  • Regarding the case of the 22-year-old woman from Glasgow, I think it's important to note that Scottish police aren't investigating the site due to lack of jurisdiction. (Twohey 2021).
  • Clean up the sourcing for the story of Daniel (the "male minor"). Nawaz 2021 (the year is missing from the ref, by the way) doesn't explicitly mention that he used sodium nitrite, but that information is available in Twohey 2021.
  • Regarding the "Australian who died by suicide after members of Sanctioned Suicide taunted him and asked him to film his death", are you sure that Twohey 2021 and Bridges 2022 are referring to the same person? I don't see support for this in the sources.
  • "online sellers of poisons" – Might as well be specific and identify the poison as sodium nitrite.
  • "While the .org domain remains blocked in Australia, access to the site remains unrestricted through the .net and .site domains." – What is the source?
  • "Many U.S. states have laws against assisting suicide" – True, but not the whole story. Twohey 2021 notes that such laws are "inconsistent, rarely enforced and don’t explicitly address online activity." Additionally, Love 2020 notes that activity on SS doesn't necessarily meet the legal definitions under such laws. You could also specifically cite the California and Pennsylvania statutes, along with the federal proposed Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act, that are mentioned in this article.
  • Maybe also mention the fact that Epik terminated its services for the site. (Twohey 2021).
  • Is Barbaro 2021 actually used for anything in this article? I checked both statements in which it is cited, but Twohey 2021 is actually the more comprehensive source.
  • "Small noted that registrants who only sought the recovery forum were unlikely to be approved" — But you could also counter that with Love 2020, where Small himself is quoted promoting the Recovery section as a way to save users going through suicidal ideation.
  • From Love 2020 you could also mention:
    • SS has around 500 members
    • Only Galante and Small are the known "incels" on the forum, and other mods are hand-picked and trained community members.
    • Perhaps mention the support group on Facebook that's run by Wilson?
    • Near the end of this article, Love argues that banning SS wouldn't necessarily solve a problem, since people at risk of suicide would still find other ways to obtain the desired information. I wonder if there's a tactful way to include that perspective.

This is just my first set of comments for now. I'm going to continue checking the sourcing. Edge3 (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also aware that this review is more thorough than typically required at DYK. If you have concerns about the scope of review, I'd be happy to tell you which items are optional for DYK purposes. Edge3 (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Freedom4U: Pinging you directly, in case you haven't seen the above comments. Edge3 (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Edge3: Ah! Thank you, I'll address them by the end of today. :3 F4U (they/it) 13:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Edge3: The WMF-banned sock has been blocked and the changes reverted, I would suggest that you take a look at the article again. I believe these are the concerns that are still relevant:
  • I think you're giving short shrift to the Nashrulla 2019 source. For instance:
    • Nashrulla provides a lot of biographical info on Small, which you could incorporate into the article. e.g. Small was 25 at the time and from Virginia, and he did address concerns that the incel sites were connected to SS.  Partly done - I believe this is unnecessary/irrelevant information for an article about the site itself. I did add his quote addressing the connection between the sites. I have addressed the second portion of your comment.
    • Despite Small's claims that the communities are separate, a user ("Alex") was banned from SS for asking questions about their links.  Not done - I think individual incidents like this, especially a ban of one user, while appropriate for a news article, would be inappropriate here and not in line with summary style.
    • SS is used by many women who are victims of rape and abuse.  Not done Again, this is coming directly from Small. I would support inclusion if it was reported on by a secondary source.
    • Apparently the link to incels was not immediately known to the SS community. Nashrulla's reporting apparently prompted the mods to disclose to the forum members that they are connected to incel sites.  Done
    • You can mention that when the forum was started in 2018, the founders relied on domain registrars and hosting companies that were against censorship, and those entities are connected to their incel sites.  Not done - I think the source is too vague about this to include.
  • Neither the Nashrulla 2019 nor Reddit 2018 sources confirm that the date of ban was precisely March 14, 2018. In face, Reddit doesn't even provide a date at all.  Done I was using old reddit, which does show the date. I've changed the link to direct to old.reddit.com which states the date. This is in quotation marks in the reference.
  • "The incel communities run by Small and Galante promote the 'blackpill', a misogynistic and biological determinist ideology." The sourcing here doesn't seem strong. Twohey 2021 notes only that most incels "share a dark outlook known as 'black pill,'" but that's not the same as saying Small and Galante directly promote that ideology. Squirrel 2023 doesn't mention Galante at all, but it does mention Small, though not necessarily in the context of black pill.  Done - Support removal; it was added by the WMF-banned sock and I also agree that the sourcing is very weak, particularly for a potentially BLP claim.
  • If you keep the Squirrel source, add the year of publication (2023) to the citation. no Unnecessary - Source has been removed per your suggestion.
  • "While the .org domain remains blocked in Australia, access to the site remains unrestricted through the .net and .site domains." – What is the source?  Done Removed unicted sentence.
  • Is Barbaro 2021 actually used for anything in this article? I checked both statements in which it is cited, but Twohey 2021 is actually the more comprehensive source.  Done Thanks for the catch! It was added by another editor and I had assumed it would be the case.
  • Maybe also mention the fact that Epik terminated its services for the site. (Twohey 2021).  Done
  • "Small noted that registrants who only sought the recovery forum were unlikely to be approved" — But you could also counter that with Love 2020, where Small himself is quoted promoting the Recovery section as a way to save users going through suicidal ideation.  Not done I don't think that a statement which, in essence, states that the recovery section exists is necessary to include.
  • From Love 2020 you could also mention:
    • SS has around 500 members  Not done The NYTimes source already confirms 25k users
    • Only Galante and Small are the known "incels" on the forum, and other mods are hand-picked and trained community members.no Unnecessary - This is just them re-reporting from the Buzzfeed article you already mention above. I have addressed its inclusion with the following sentence In response, Small stated that the site's moderation was handled independently of the incel sites. I would note that this description is coming directly from Small.
    • Perhaps mention the support group on Facebook that's run by Wilson?  Done - though I'm unsure as to whether its inclusion is really justified. Please take a look.
    • Near the end of this article, Love argues that banning SS wouldn't necessarily solve a problem, since people at risk of suicide would still find other ways to obtain the desired information. I wonder if there's a tactful way to include that perspective. - I could add April Foreman, a psychologist on the executive board of the American Association of Suicidology, argued that rather than block the site, better systems of support for people with suicidal ideation need to be created. (its a comment right now), but it feels a bit UNDUE to me. What do you think?

The remainder have to do with additions/removals made by the sock. :3 F4U (they/it) 15:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedom4U: I still haven't finished my review of the sources, so I'll add additional thoughts later. Also, it might be easier for you to just strike (<s> ... </s>) whatever feedback you think has been addressed, rather than repeating them as a separate set of comments. Edge3 (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Edge3: Addressed the rest of your concerns. I'm gonna be blunt: if your concerns don't have to do with NPOV or errors, please provide them on the talk page instead. Suggestions to do with comprehensiveness are not relevant to the DYK criteria, with exception to potential NPOV. :3 F4U (they/it) 02:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I'll try to be more focused going forward. I was conducting a thorough sourcing check because of sock involvement. I do think that comprehensive coverage of certain topics may be required to ensure NPOV, but that is not always the case as you astutely point out. More comments to come. Edge3 (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "receiving over 10 million page views [in September 2022]" – Dance 2022 states "nearly 10 million views", not "over"
    •  Done Ah thank you! Really good catch, I believe that may have gotten messed up during the dispute over the lede.
  • "In December 2022, he pled guilty to culpable and reckless conduct with a sexual element and is reportedly the first person convicted in connection to the site." – The source, Delaney 2022, does not state that he pled guilty, only that he was convicted. Also, the source states only that he was the first person in the UK, not the first person worldwide, to be convicted in connection to SS.
  • The 'This is horrifying' source was written by Aisling Murphy and published by CTV News (not 'Toronto'). Please adjust the citation template accordingly.
    •  Done Removed citation. Added by another editor without any addition of content so its unnecessary.
  • Is the ANSA source reliable? It's not very thorough, and it even names the poison as potassium nitrate as opposed to sodium nitrite.
    • ANSA is equivalent to the AP for Italy, so reliable, however there is the potential that this is the result of poor translation. Regarding potassium nitrate, it is not necessary to document every type of suicide method promoted by the site. It lists sodium nitrite because sources specifically point towards it as one whose usage was dramatically altered by the site.
  • "it is very difficult for there to be a crime" – The phrasing seems odd in English. I propose the following translation: "It is very difficult to establish a crime"
  • "Uruguayan legislation requires that there be an effective assistance to suicide in order to charge a crime" – Similar concern. I would translate this as: "Uruguayan law requires actual involvement for assisted suicide to be prosecuted". You could also opt to paraphrase rather than attempt a direct quotation.
    •  Done Addressed. The quotes there were added by the sock, but I kept it because I felt they were good additions. They do appear to be simple Google Translate copy/pastes from the article, but their meanings appeared to not be altered. I've altered the second quote into prose per your suggestion and I've also added a footnote with the original Spanish.

@Freedom4U: Please see the above for my final set of comments. Edge3 (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the sensitive nature of this topic and the high frequency of sock/vandal involvement, I have thoroughly reviewed all of the online sources in their entirety. (AGF on the offline sources.) I have also reviewed the talk page history, related discussions at the BLP and COI noticeboards, and both GA reviews. I reviewed numerous comments posted by socks, though I gave little or no weight to their perspectives. Based on the aforementioned information, I conclude that this article is neutrally written. Inline citations are provided for every contentious statement, and the sources are of high quality. Earwig does not detect any significant copyvio.

The article has been submitted for GA reassessment. I have read the concerns raised over there, and I disagree that there is any issue with regards to neutrality and completeness. As I stated previously, the article is compliant with WP:DYKCRIT. Furthermore, WP:DYKSG states that nominations are placed on hold only when the article is going through AfD (Rule D5) or has any dispute tags (Rule D6). A GAR does not fit within either category, so this DYK nomination may proceed.

As for eligibility to be published on the Main Page, I refer to my prior review on July 22 as if fully repeated here. Additionally, a previous RfC in 2018 determined that: (1) DYK hooks should not be excessively sensational or gratuitous, and (2) There is no consensus for any overarching ban on hooks that feature murder, riots, war, or any other potentially "sensitive" issue. My review on July 22 is consistent with this guidance, even though I wasn't aware of it at the time. Posting the hook on DYK – without naming SS explicitly – would not be excessively sensational or gratuitous.

ALT 4 and 7 are approved for the reasons previously stated on July 22. Edge3 (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 03:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sanctioned Suicide/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 20:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Per Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, I'm going to redoing this review. Comments will be coming soon. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 20:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
  • Infobox image doesn't meet threshold of originality
  • 'File:Pulitzer2018-megan-twohey-20180530-wp.jpg' I reverse image searched this and every instance I can find for this image is after the upload date on commons.
  • All image rights are in order.
  • Caption for the Logo is needed
  • I'd love to see Alt text for each one but this isn't a requirement.
  • What contribution does File:Lori Trahan, official portrait, 116th Congress.jpg provide to the page? Additionally, it's never cited in the wiki article itself that she was one of the writers.

Sourcing

[edit]
  • I'm not a big fan of using Reddit as a source. I can't find anything explicitly against WP:ABOUTSELF mentioned here. I'll leave it for now but still going to draw attention to it in the event you find a better source.
-I know a few people are going to be watching in on this review so please leave a comment if you have any ideas.
  • I've manually checked all the sourses, they are all still live and most are archived. I do not have a NYT subscription and for some reason my paywall bypass isn't working. I'll have to take some of it on good faith.
@Etriusus: If you reload and press the "x" button in time, you'll be able to access the article without being paywalled (I know reloading while inside the "reader view" on Firefox also works). Just FYI. :3 F4U (they/it) 19:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drat, I messed up the ping twice! Third time's the charm... @Etriusus :3 F4U (they/it) 21:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-vios

[edit]
identified 45 people who died by suicide after spending time on the website Word for word from another source, close paraphrasing at least
Pretty sure that was added by a blocked sock. I've rephrased it now. I had been thinking of rephrasing that sentence anyways because "after spending time on the website" felt too colloquial. :3 F4U (they/it) 19:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the site was removed from online search results in Germany.
I'm gonna be honest, I think that's too simple of a sentence for it to be close paraphrasing. Could you provide a suggestion as to how I might rephrase that?
So, I went back and reread the sentence, I actually misread it the first time and thought it was copied wholesale. Yes it is very close to the original but I agree that it's likely short enough. Leave it for now, I might change the prose a bit myself. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 20:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many U.S. states have laws against assisting suicide, but they are often vague, do not explicitly address online activity, and are rarely enforced.
Same sock. Fixed. :3 F4U (they/it) 19:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig mainly tags simple phrases, and proper nourns
I've made a number of checks. I'll continue to make more as we go along.

Misc

[edit]
No concerns about stability

Prose

[edit]
  • While MOS:CITELEAD is generally a good rule of thumb, I recognize this is a controversial topic and won't hold you to it.
I have already removed as many unnecessary citations as possible, but I do believe the rest are, at least for the moment, necessary.
  • 'unrestricted ' does this really work here? It is restricted, even if its by external factors. Maybe change to 'controvertial'
Hm, this was a concern brought up before and I do agree to an extent that it can give off the impression of the website being wholly unmoderated. At the same time, I feel that it needs to be made clear that the website allows discussions on suicide, including promotion of suicide, to go on unrestricted (since that is what gives the website notability). :3 F4U (they/it) 19:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Freedom4U The issue with 'unrestricted' is that it implies a lot more than there actually is, it boarders on inaccurate information. 'unmoderated' will work better, same with 'controversial'. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 20:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Etrius I think "unmoderated" is significantly worse than "unrestricted", as that's actually false. Would open work? (Also, I still don't quite understand what it would imply about the site) :3 F4U (they/it) 21:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Freedom4U Open would work fine. The reason I dislike the term 'unrestricted' is that the site is very much restricted, a handful of countries have banned the site. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 02:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhhhh, I get your concern now. Changed to open.
  • The forum was founded in 2018... Sentence is confusingly worded. I recommend splitting it into two sentences.
  • drawing over 10 million page views in the same month reword to 'and received 10 million page views that same month'
    •  Done
  • "intense" WP:PUFFERY
    • When attempting to describe the near universal condemnation of the site, I used a word describing the sharpness of the criticism, rather than its prevalence. I've replaced it with widespread.
  • "found dozens more" can you give a specific number?
    • No I cannot. That's what the source states: The Times has since identified dozens more deaths, including several young teenagers. I actually accidentally tried to remove it way back when it was added because it seemed strange to add a vague figure, but its also the most recent/highest figure reported by the NYTimes to date.
  • So the lead is only meant as a board overview of the page, you mention the site's founding by Diego Joaquín Galante and Lamarcus Small but don't bring it up in the body of the article.
    • In the first paragraph of the body, it states: On March 14, 2018, r/SanctionedSuicide was banned for breaking Reddit's rules on the promotion of violence, prompting Galante and Small to create the site later that month.
  • As of September 2022, the forum has over 25,000 members, drawing over 10 million page views in the same month. Although the forum frames itself as a "pro-choice" suicide forum, the forum has been widely described as pro-suicide. None of this is brought up in the body of the article either. See MOS:LEAD
    • Regarding the user count, that is something I would consider basic facts, which MOS:LEAD states is allowed to only appear in the lede. I've addressed the other concern.
  • Galante and Small describe themselves as incels and have been found to run a number of incel and manosphere related forums where members condone, downplay, or advocate violence against women. Oof, serious WP:POV issues, describe this more passively. Such as saying "...related forums where members' activities have been described as, condoning, downplaying, or advocating..."
I get that the Buzzfeed source comes out no holds barred against them, but unless Galante, Small, or SS explicitly say this, it's WP:UNDUE and WP:POV to outright say this as fact.
I've made the changes (mostly to match the way the incel article is phrased), but I'd note that this is also something pretty much entirely reiterated in the Washington Post and the CCDH report. I've also removed "have been found to" as that was unnecessary phrasing. :3 F4U (they/it) 22:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "disproportionately" Change to "Substantially"
    •  Done I think I've seen "disproportionately" be used as a peacock term too often in other publications that I forgot what it originally meant lol.
  • "An April 2023 study" be more specific
    • Probably shouldn't have used the date as the identifier...but I wasn't exactly sure what to mention (take a look at the doi). I've mentioned the publisher for now, but please do let me know if it should be changed.
  • " informal survey" more specific please, if able
    • Most members reported that they had experienced mental illness and were 30 or younger, according to a survey last year by the site...About half were 25 or younger, the survey showed; like Daniel, some were minors. [5] This is all we know
  • "would be unlikely to be let in" Let into what? I assume the site.
    • Mhm. Rephrased to better represent the source.

Comment: Okay, that'll be all for my first pass. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 02:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedom4U I've given the page a second pass, I've made some minor edits, please review them when you can. At this time I can't find anything more within GAN criteria. I will pass the page momentarily, please give me a sec to get the templates set up. On a personal note, thank you for being so responsive and letting me do this review piecemeal. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 03:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
🏵️Etrius ( Us) 03:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RoySmith

[edit]

I'm not sure how to best do this, so I'll just leave my comments in a separate section.

  • I think we should delete the image of Megan Twohey because it fails MOS:PERTINENCE ("Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative."). Having a portrait of Twohey doesn't enhance the reader's understanding of the main topic of the article.
  • Same comment about the photo of Lori Trahan.
  • If we could find photos of the site's founders, those would be worth including.
RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if there were public domain photographs, my understanding is that it would likely be an issue wrt personality rights, though I'm not knowledgeable enough on this. :3 F4U (they/it) 02:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Responses (2023-07-22)

[edit]

I've addressed all the comments so far and added strikethrough to them.

  • I removed the two images. Those were recent additions (recent as in following the recent sockpuppet GA review) and I get how they might be misleading.
  • I didn't realize that there wasn't alt text on the screenshot image actually. I've done that now. Also added a caption for the logo.
  • Question Under the section Galante and Small, it states The incel communities run by Small and Galante promote the "blackpill", a misogynistic and biological determinist ideology that commonly condones or advocates for suicide or mass violence. The second half of that sentence (in red), is cited to the following sentence:
Those who believe in the blackpill tend to adopt violently misogynistic beliefs about the nature of women, particularly with regard to their sexual behaviour. They also tend towards nihilism, with many incels considering or advocating suicide or mass violence as the only ways out of their predicament.
This sentence was added by the blocked sock I previously mentioned, and I was unsure whether it would fall under WP:OR (or is just plain UNDUE) when it was added. Now that I have eyes on the article, I wanna ask: does the sentence appear appropriate? :3 F4U (they/it) 22:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Freedom4U I agree that it would be WP:OR. Cut the sentence. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 02:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. Removed. :3 F4U (they/it) 02:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Sanctioned Suicide

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reopen this as I find that the article is:

  • too sympathetic to the viewpoints of Galante and Small, especially as regards their “retirement”, giving the site to an anonymous account seems ridiculous—who pays the bills?
  • is not clear enough on how access is being blocked in certain countries, by what legal authority, by which ISPs, et cetera;
  • lacks historical context. Suicide discussion forums did not start in 2018 or with Reddit. The concept indeed goes back to Usenet, as noted, but then thirty years of history are condensed in a sentence. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 12:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also includes potential WP:CITOGENESIS; see Talk:Sanctioned Suicide § Potential citogenesis incident. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 12:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Psiĥedelisto Here are my responses to your comments:
1. That's what the NYTimes article states. We also state that that's what they wrote, not that that's what happened.
After the article was published, on Dec. 9, Marquis announced on the site that he was resigning as an administrator, permanently deleting his account and turning over operation of the site to someone using the online name RainAndSadness.
Mr. Small and Mr. Galante also resigned as administrators of several websites they operated for involuntary celibates, or incels, men who believe women will never have sex with them because of their looks and social status. [6]
2. That's because the sources aren't specific enough on this. However, even if they were, that would not disqualify this article from the "broad overview" that the GA criteria requires.
3. That's unnecessary to the article. If reliable sources on the subject aren't giving thirty years of history when talking about SS, then I see no need for this article to do so.
4. The article does not include citogenesis. My comment was that the source should not be cited because they copied from us. :3 F4U (they/it) 13:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Psiĥedelisto It should also be noted that the page is very unstable at the moment. I completed the GA on July 27th, since then this page has had over 100 edits and it appears a vandal that is sympathetic to Galante and Small has taken an interest in this page. While I don't think we're quite to the point of needing page protection, the rather abrupt shift should be noted. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 14:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Etriusus A lot of those edits were at my request, as the article has also been nominated at DYK since the first GA review was completed. Edge3 (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Edge3 Thanks for the clarification. There does appear to be a vandalism stint that's going on but at least it's not as bad as I thought. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 15:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Etriusus I'd like to add on that all of the edits of the specific "vandal" you're talking about have been reverted. It's a sockpuppet of a WMF-banned editor and I was just waiting on the SPI to be closed before reverting the edits. The specific IP range is now blocked for a month (and the editor in question was the opposite of sympathetic towards the site). :3 F4U (they/it) 20:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are we looking at the same IP here? Willwill0415 have universally been against the existence of the site and its owners Trade (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Compiling recent research

[edit]

Since it's been a while since I've updated the article, I've looked for what new sourcing has come out about the website that hasn't been added yet. Here are all of the recent publications about the forum that I could find:

  • (Lekkas and Jacobson, 2024), from just two days ago, is primarily about machine learning, but it does provide additional description of the website that was not included previously, such as descriptions of the registration process and the level of moderation. It describes the forum as pro-suicide, while also stating that it describes itself as pro-choice (which is curiously the term they use for the rest of the article). The authors describe criticism of the site as deserved, but also acknowledge the forum can have some positive outcomes, writing that the camaraderie provided by the site could reduce suicide risk. As pertaining to previous discussions, the authors describe the site as 'anonymous', 'fringe', 'anti-censorship', and 'anti-stigma'.
  • (Das et al., 2024) finds that there is a statistically significant association between mentions of sodium nitrite on the website and sodium nitrite suicides in the United States. They also write that the purpose of the site is to discuss suicide and methods without 'content screening', which may be better than our current lede which uses the words "known for". They also describe that the website has 3 post options—discussion, poll, and question. The article also includes a graph of showing changes in mentions of different suicide methods over time.
  • (Lekkas and Jacobson, 2023) describes the site has having a unique digital subculture and language (pointing to words like "catch the bus", "exit bag" and "SN"). They write that the website is ripe for ethnographic and linguistic research.
  • (Fisher, 2023) examines the legal and political feasibility of restrictions on websites like Sanctioned Suicide and restrictions on the sale of sodium nitrite. They mention the two operators by name and describe how they are careful to not encourage suicide themselves. The paper also discusses various pieces of proposed legislation (in the US) that would criminalize online suicide assistance. The article also describes changes in UK law in reaction to the site and successes in Australia at limiting the site's reach. They also specifically mention that the site was banned from search results in Germany under the German Youth Law. The article also describes the large difference in number of posts in the discussion and recovery forums (1.2 million comments vs less than 79,000).
  • (Newman, 2023) warns that criminalization of providing information on suicide methods would "have a broad chilling effect on free speech" and describes how the site skirts legal restrictions by encouraging only the spread of 'factual information', rather than 'assistance'.

~ F4U (talk • they/it) 23:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using the site as a source

[edit]

Would it be possible to use pinned posts on the site as a source for factual claims (e.g. things they promote)? If so, how would you cite it without including the URL? Laura240406 (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page has already reached consensus that the forum itself should not be directly cited, and this aligns with Wikipedia's core content policies for several important reasons:
1. Preference for Secondary Sources:
Per WP:PSTS, Wikipedia prioritizes secondary sources because they provide broader context and analysis. The forum's pinned posts are primary sources—authored by the site itself—and are inherently biased. Without independent verification or context, these posts cannot reliably document the site’s broader influence or practices. Primary sources CAN be useful in some contexts, but are generally not suitable for contentious claims about third parties (per WP:PRIMARY).
2. Neutral Point of View (NPOV):
Citing the site’s self-description risks misrepresenting its activities. Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV policy requires the fair representation of all significant viewpoints, especially those supported by experts and reliable sources. Using the forum directly would give undue weight to its own narrative, which may conflict with external evaluations by journalists, researchers, and professionals.
3. Verifiability:
Posts from the forum fail to meet Wikipedia’s WP:V standard, as their claims cannot be independently corroborated. Including such sources could mislead readers by lending undue credibility to unverified information. This would violate the WP:UNDUE principle by amplifying potentially biased or unsupported claims.
4. Ethical and Practical Concerns:
Quoting the forum directly could inadvertently direct readers to harmful content, contradicting Wikipedia’s policy against amplifying harmful or promotional material (WP:NOTSOAPBOX). Additionally, citing posts without linking directly would lack transparency and create disputes about accuracy or interpretation, undermining the reliability of the article.
So instead of relying on the forum itself, we should continue to use peer-reviewed research, journalistic investigations, and expert commentary to describe the site’s practices and effects. These secondary sources offer the neutrality, credibility, and context needed to ensure Wikipedia provides accurate, balanced, and informative content. Xelapilled (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
okay thanks for the clarification Laura240406 (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

SS does not encourage suicide; rather, it has a different perspective on life and death, which some might find unsettling. However, this is not a matter that Wikipedia should concern itself with. SS is not "pro-death"; it is "pro-choice", which is fundamentally different. Removing the link makes Wikipedia appear censored and as though it has adopted a specific point of view on this topic, which would violate its policies. I believe the URL should be included ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 23:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The decision isn't about censorship, it's about Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality with its responsibility to readers. While it's true that Wikipedia is not censored, this policy doesn't mean that every link or piece of content should be included simply to avoid the appearance of censorship. Including a direct link to the forum raises concerns about inadvertently directing users to potentially harmful material, which conflicts with Wikipedia's goals of being a responsible and educational platform. This is why we have the talk pages.
Wikipedia's stance on neutrality (WP:NPOV) requires presenting all significant perspectives, but it also involves exercising judgement on how to represent and contextualize controversial subjects. The forum may self-identify as "pro-choice" (which is reflected in the article), but numerous sources including journalists and researchers have documented its harmful impact. Most reliable secondary sources label it "pro-suicide" or document its harmful impact. Reflecting these external views maintains neutrality and avoids privileging the forum’s self-representation. We all know what the forum thinks it is.
Removing the link does not inherently violate neutrality—it reflects a consensus to avoid amplifying the site's reach, especially given its sensitive and controversial nature. Wikipedia has previously excluded direct links to sites with similar controversies (e.g., hate groups, extremist forums) such as Kiwi Farms, where the URL section of the infobox is intentionally empty as per consensus (just like we have done with SS). These decisions were based on the same reasoning: ensuring neutrality and avoiding amplification of harmful material. Even if the intent is to remain neutral, directing readers to a site criticized for enabling harmful behaviors could expose vulnerable individuals to risk. Wikipedia has a history of avoiding links to potentially harmful or illegal content, particularly when reliable secondary sources provide sufficient information. In this case, expert commentary and investigative journalism already offer a detailed picture of the forum, making the link itself unnecessary for understanding the topic.
If this is meant to be a challenge against the talk page's consensus, then my vote is to keep the url section empty and reaffirm the article's framing on SS as it already exists.

Xelapilled (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xelapilled The vast majority of hate groups, some illegal stuff like piracy websites, morally abhorrent sites, are linked. Stormfront (website), ISIS and Al-Qaeda propaganda sites, The Pirate Bay, Anna's Archive, Z-Library, all hate speech or illegal piracy sites, we link them. People had strong feelings about the Kiwi Farms one so that ended up unlinked. As to my personal thoughts, I think we should include the link for every website with an article, if the website does not have illegal content in the US (but we already ignore that rule by linking to every single piracy website). I personally think it's absurd we don't link this one here, but the consensus was already discussed and there's no point in rehashing a fight I know I'll lose. Generally however you are wrong - this is the exception to the general practice and not the rule. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m agnostic about it. It’s a rare case of arbitrary moralization per Parakanyaa, basically saying encouraging suicide (which Kiwi Farms has also been accused of doing, albeit for completely different reasons) is the only thing appalling enough to outright censor. But removing the link does nothing; if people really want to find it, they can find it very easily. So arguing to put it back in is just moralizing from a different, arguably worse direction i.e. “freeze peach” absolutism. Dronebogus (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely censorship. The question is whether in this particular case it's justified. I just fixed some text that was really awkwardly written because the editor was trying to talk about the URL without actually stating the URL.
Personally, I ended up on this article because the BBC published a news article about it without actually even naming the site. As a result of that glaring omission, I was curious enough to try to find the name of the site, and I found this article. (One could easily argue this article shouldn't even contain the name of the site if we are following BBC's journalistic standards!) Then, because I noticed the article didn't contain the URL, another glaring omission, I was curious enough to find it, and I clicked on it. If the BBC had contained the name of the site, and if this article had contained the link, it's doubtful I would have ever clicked on the link. The clear censorship was what motivated me. However, I'm not an at risk person, so maybe my experience isn't relevant. But it's not clear to me that this is, in fact, saving lives given the link is both trivial to find and accessible which, in the UK, it is. It is only blocked here by internet filters implemented at the router level, unlike say sci-hub, which is blocked by court order.
On the other hand, there is the Swiss Cheese model of protection. Perhaps by BBC not mentioning the name of the site, it prevents a certain number of people from accessing it, and then us not having the link, it prevents another number, leaving only those curious enough or those interested enough in the topic. But it is not at all clear to me this definitely is beneficial, and it's such a clear violation of WP:NOTCENSORED it does bother me.
I wonder if some compromise could be reached. Perhaps links could be prefaced with a "here's where to get help" message like Google and many other webservices offer, before allowing the person to proceed to the content. I'm not sure if these messages work either, but it would be in line with what other services are doing, without actually censoring the link. Mvolz (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. We don’t do “what other services are doing”, especially when it’s something as non-neutral as “don’t kill yourself! You are not alone!” There’s a huge gap between omitting “bad” information and including “good” information. Taken to the logical conclusion we’d need to put “here’s where to get help!” On Romeo and Juliet. Dronebogus (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would prefer it to omitting the information entirely. There's no slippery slope towards Romeo and Juliet. I am only suggesting it for articles where information is currently being censored, as an alternative to censorship. Currently Romeo and Juliet links to the full text of the play, so it would not be required there. Mvolz (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sanctioned_Suicide&oldid=1264647623"