Talk:Suicide/crisis hotline link

Why

It seems like this discussion has come up many times, and it's hard to get a good feel for the conversation by reviewing the split-up archives. So I thought I'd try to concentrate the discussion in one place to make it easier to follow. --ESP (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of positions

This is a summary of some positions about adding a crisis hotline link to the top of the Suicide article.

Pro

Connecting a web reader with a suicide prevention hotline could get them the help they need to avoid suicide and save their life.
Search engines like Google, Yahoo, and Ask have special links to suicide prevention resources when users search for "suicide".

Con

The efficacy of suicide prevention hotlines is unproven.
An anti-suicide message violates the neutral point of view policy.

Neutral point of view?

Is it necessarily non-neutral to take a anti- position on suicide? The act of taking one's life is universally discouraged, and Wikipedia wouldn't necessarily be going against any group of people, as would be the case with, say, taking a position on recreational drug use or political affiliation. Additionally, it isn't unthinkable to consider the idea that someone who may be considering taking their own life should access this article; it's probably the first search result on Google. Matt.syl (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree absolutely. Something like adding a link to the Republican website to the top of the Democrat's page would be seen as trying to influence political views - not acceptable from an encyclopedia, sure. But influencing people not to die surely does the opposite of harm!--Wodgester (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's really time to discuss this more, how can this be a violation of wikipedias neutral policy if it considered for universal good? How can it be bias and impartial to at least offer someone the option of having these numbers, even the search engine google will have a "need help?" notification box come up, I think a small box at the top of the article is a universally positive thing to do.Theprussian (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Furthermore, a banner would not say ″don't kill yourself″, it would say ″here's where you can get help″. Who exactly are we going to offend NPOV-wise with that? --Yhdwww (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is non-neutral to take an anti- position on suicide. It is an anti-position in suicide, not a neutral position in suicide. I don’t think that the action of taking one’s life is “universally discouraged”. There are types of people in the world who do not discourage it. But, I do think it is discouraged in terms of the people who utilize resources that are from the Wikipedia website. The action of taking one’s own life is discouraged by the people who read and maintain Wikipedia, because they want to live and read and/or maintain Wikipedia.

Also, if a single person who is not known of by the rest of the humans of the world puts his own life away, the rest of the world doesn’t feel bad for that person, except for the people who do. Wikipedia would be going against the people who encourage the putting away of one’s own life if Wikipedia takes an anti- position on suicide.

Influencing people “not to die” has a possibility that it does more harm than good, because in history, if the people whose life was taken away by unnatural causes had their life not taken away instead, and if those people were going to take away multiple people’s lives away, such as criminals, then those people would be harmed, which would be more harm than when only one person was harmed. Providing helplines for preventing putting one’s own life away may put Wikipedia in an anti- position against putting one’s own life away, instead of a neutral position.

So, it can be bias and impartial, because it might misrepresent and possibly offend the type of people who encourage suicide.

Note, I do not personally encourage Suicide. I say this because I read the Wikipedia “Suicide” page myself, and under the section, “Advocacy”, it says that there are types of people who encourage suicide, so I am referring to people who are like them when I talk about people who encourage the act of putting one’s life away. 2600:1700:1150:6A10:253A:DD92:EB2C:D360 (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It seems that taking an pro-position on suicide is a fringe perspective. There are also plenty of examples on Wikipedia of including fringe perspectives, but labeling them as fringe-perspectives, and not catering to them. For example, in the fields of science. Pages explaining that the Earth is round do so even though there it might be seen as violating NPOV by flat-earthers. So, I would argue strongly for the inclusion of a banner at the top of this page, while including the section further down in this page about people who support suicide. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New angle

Several arguments have been raised in the past (see [[1]] and [[2]]) not to add a banner on the Suicide page. 1) That suicide is morally neutral and that Wikipedia, true to its philosophical roots, should not preach the virtues of staying alive. I can see the validity of this argument but I would like to point out that 80 to 90% of people who commit suicide suffer from some mental illness (chronic depression, bipolar disorder, etc.). They need all the help they can get. Ask them and they will tell you that they don't want to die. A strong support system - including the right hotline at the crucial moment - is sometimes the difference between life and death. 2) That these banners don't work. This is not true. Please check this study. It shows that as other social curses, suicide needs to be fought on a multitude of fronts. Suicide hotline operators field tens of thousands of calls every year; they save lives. 3) A banner on the wikipedia Suicide page would have a limited impact anyway. Well, I agree, which means we should go further. I propose that we insert some sort of banner (the content of which to be discussed) on the page of all major personalities who committed suicide. Frankly, this is where the beef is. The Suicide page receives 5,000 visits per day. Compare this to the number of daily visits on the pages of Kurt Cobain (13,000), Anthony Bourdain (7,000) or Kate Spade (4,000). Combine all the pages of the personalities who talk their own life and they probably receive 50 times more visits than the Suicide page alone. Suicidal people, especially teenagers and young adults, are drawn to personalities, which they often see as role models. I dare to say that some pages attract more traffic because their holder committed suicide. The point could be made that Marc Jacobs is a more important fashion designer than Kate Spade; yet his page generates only one third of the traffic of Spade's. I would love to hear your thoughts on this issue. Antoine jed (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this thought too! Likeanechointheforest (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebar option

I'm not sure if this has been suggested before, but would putting suicide prevention information in the sidebar be inappropriate? It may not be as immediate as a banner at the top, but it might be more noticed by someone in need. Snaans (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would also second this option if a banner on the top cannot be used. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Links to previous conversations on the topic

I'm trying to collect links to previous conversations in Talk:Suicide on the topic. --ESP (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got them all; feel free to add to this list if needed. --ESP (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is ridiculous to not include a suicide hotline because of NPOV.

You think some abstract policy is more important than saving the lives of all the people who may be consulting this page in a moment of desperation? What precedent are you afraid of setting by doing this, and is it more important than saving lives of those in need?? --Spafky (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be like the similarly controversial situation Wikipedia had with dealing with child porn and/or those trying to push a pro-paedophilia agenda. Both suicide and child (sexual) abuse are equally abhorrent, yet somehow we don't seem to make a stand against the idea of offing oneself. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]