Talk:Sanctioned Suicide

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Voorts (talk | contribs) at 00:00, 24 April 2023 (→‎RfC on linking to the forum: fixed typo in closure result). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RfC on linking to the forum

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was reached to remove the external link to the forum. voorts[1] 04:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article include an external link to the Sanctioned Suicide forum, as it currently does in the infobox? ––FormalDude (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, it appears to be precedent to include links to sites. I have only seen one or 2 circumstances where the link for a website hasn't been included outside of the site being defunct or seized. But I agree with @Freedom4U when they said that it is not really up to us to decide what is objectionable or not due to WP:NPOV. Kevinsanc (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Linking to these types of sites may be slightly useful to academics and researchers, but they're not our only audience; kids browse Wikipedia too, and they're highly vulnerable to having any suicidal ideas reinforced. This NYT report documents several cases of teens that were hesitant, and may not have gone through if they hadn't found the site. We already removed links to KiwiFarms because its harassment has led to one death; the NYT says this site has led to at least 50 deaths. Looking at policy: WP:PROBLEMLINKS refers to harassment, which doesn't apply to Sanctioned Suicide. But Wikipedia tends to treat treats to life quite strictly, even more strictly than it deals with harassment, and I'd argue Sanctioned Suicide fits within PROBLEMLINKS's spirit. I'm very sensitive to arguments that we should avoid a slippery slope in removing official links, since that would be strongly detrimental to the encyclopaedia, but I think "has this forum directly led to deaths as a result of its primary purpose?" is a stringent enough guiding light here (and, I argue, is a more stringent standard than the one advanced at the KiwiFarms RfC; though I don't oppose the latter's result). DFlhb (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Official links are generally always included, and are exempt from the reasons we would normally avoid links. See WP:ELYES/WP:ELOFFICIAL. The only exception I've seen for this, which I still don't agree begets a blanket rule, is WP:PROBLEMLINKS (cited in the Kiwi Farms RfC), which as DFlhb mentioned pertains to harassment. The reason to want to avoid linking to the sanctioned suicide forum is more one of obscenity: it has graphic depictions of suicide and suicide methods and a general philosophy very permissive of the right to die, which of course means that many of its members have killed themselves. This has a lot to do with what is mentioned at WP:NOTCENSORED, and extremely little to do with what is mentioned at WP:HARASSMENT/WP:OWH, which is what PROBLEMLINKS is based off. Endwise (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The main sources of the article, the two New York Times articles, and other source here describes in depth that minors were encouraged to kill themselves. Not chose, they were encouraged. They were reportedly encouraged to kill themselves with a meat preservative, eg Daniel. There are also descriptions of taunting members to kill themselves. This goes beyond harassment and is not the same as the right to die. The sentences detailing encouragement was scrubbed from the article by KevinSanc over the last couple days. Reminiscon (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I read through all of the source material and there was very little talk of explicit encouragement in the NYT investigation outside of the 4 times it was mentioned.
    One time was a quote and there was also a mention of there being no laws against encouragement. Yet, it appears that the word appeared 8 times in this very article. The only source that I have read that mentions encouragement explicitly is the WBUR article and that is in the context of the goodbye threads.
    The sentences I removed had very poor sourcing and calling it "encourgement" when the source doesn't say that is dishonest in itself.
    You have to remember that this is an encyclopedia, and this is a very contentious topic, which means that Wikipedia standards when editing this article is stricter than it would be on most other articles on this site. Kevinsanc (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • remove. this is a site that actively encourages people to suicide. lettherebedarklight晚安 06:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sanction Suicide's forum member's view on life and suicide is going to be shocking and offensive to the morality of the great majority of Wikipedia's readers and editors. What is meant by encouraging here is something of the form "Alice: I want to die. Should I kill myself? Bob: Yeah, I think so". But, as WP:NOTCENSORED states: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Basically, obscenity is not a valid reason to remove an official external link. Endwise (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does abiding this rule in this instance improve or maintain the encyclopedia though? ––FormalDude (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think any article about a website will be woefully uninformative if it doesn't even tell you its URL. The only way to see the actual website is to visit its URL. To me it really is like writing an article about a movie but not telling you its name, for fear someone might go and actually watch it. If the goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia which informs and educates its readers, then inclusion greatly serves that purpose. Wikipedia also has recipes for making both illegal methamphetamine (History and culture of substituted amphetamines#Illegal synthesis) and military-grade incendiary devices (Molotov cocktail#Design) in your home with relatively easily obtainable materials. Does a guide on how to make meth agree with the average reader's morality? Probably not. Does a guide on how to make meth inform Wikipedia's readers? Greatly. Endwise (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is arguably quite different than any of those scenarios you mentioned because including the website could, according to reliable sources, lead to self-harm by distressed readers. None of the situations you mention have the same immediate risk as this.
    A Google search for name of the article pulls up the website as the second result, so I really don't see how you can possibly construe not including the link as "woefully uninformative". ––FormalDude (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, I think teaching people how to make meth can also lead to real world harm as well. I think there's a lot of factual information, including on Wikipedia, that can lead to real world harm. I think that's kind of just how it is.
    Usually I would think we treat Wikipedia articles as their own product. Like if we changed climate change to the one sentence: "Britannica's article on climate change is pretty good, go read that", we would in the same sense as you mean be informing our readers about climate change. But anyway if we do assume that the readers are all going to just google search it anyway (not sure that's true?), then why would anyone care if we mention it? The readers all know the URL already; we're not doing any harm telling anyone something they already know. Endwise (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i think teaching people how to make meth can also lead to real world harm as well. as far as i can tell, wikipedia doesn't tell people how to make meth. lettherebedarklight晚安 03:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia does have a Suicide methods article, though. Kevinsanc (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    it's not encouraging suicide. lettherebedarklight晚安 03:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Suicide by hanging#Process teaches readers that partial suspension hanging involving compression of the cartoid artery or jugular veins is going to be significantly less painful than one involving compression of the airways, and that a drop hanging of at least between 1.56 and 2.75 metres long is likely to be even less painful. I'm not entirely sure, but I imagine that equipping readers with the knowledge of how to make their suicide attempt more pleasant would probably make them more likely to attempt it. Endwise (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The section I linked describes various different methods at a higher level, and links to sources which provide more in depth step-by-step guides. See e.g. the last paragraph for an easy method utilising over-the-counter pseudoephedrine tablets. Since what we are discussing for this article is a link, here is the text from the second source (Erowid) linked in that section:
    A mixture of 40 g (0.3 mole) phenylacetone, 200 ml ethanol, 200 ml 25% ammonia, 40g (1.5 mole) Al-grit and 0.3 g (1 mmol) HgCl2 is warmed with vigorous stirring until reaction takes place, after which warming is stopped immediately. Cooling should be applied if the reaction becomes too violent. When the violence of the reaction has diminished, the mixture is refluxed with vigorous stirring for about 2 hr, concentrated in vacuo to 200 ml and poured into ice water, alkalinized with 120 g KOH, and extracted with ether. The extractions are treated with 20% HCl, the resulting water layer alkalinized and extracted with 150 ml ether. The organic layer is dried over Na2SO4, the ether evaporated, and the residue distilled in vacuo. Yield: 12.5 g (30%). Preparation of amphetamine sulfate yielded 96-98% product with a purity of 99.2-99.8% (USP grade).
    Endwise (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Leaving discussions on Wikipedia policy aside, I'm wondering if by providing a link that Wikipedia (and more specifically the editor who placed it) could be in legal trouble for facilitating a suicide(which is illegal in most places). 331dot (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot We need to find out. I'll ask T&S. Doug Weller talk 10:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the link Freedom4U added as it is not appropriate and the consensus here is to remove it 71.171.90.218 (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If The Peaceful Pill Handbook is protected speech in the US i cannot imagine how linking to a site with suicide instructions would not be protected as well Trade (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's NOFREESPEECH on Wikipedia. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant to this subthread which just about whether there's a legal risk in us linking to the forum Nil Einne (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne They've replied that they can't give legal advice to volunteers for ethical reasons. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes absolutely no sense. Addressing questions regarding the legality of content on Wikipedia is the one of the main reasons the legal department exists Trade (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes – WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:ELOFFICIAL; in an article about a website, we should always include a link to that website if possible, even if the website is abhorrent and harmful. The URL is an essential part of informing readers about the website. For comparison, our Stormfront (website) article links to the corresponding website per this RfC from a couple of years ago.
As a side note, to those making a "think of the children" argument – removing the link would not make the website materially harder for children to find. When I search for "sanctioned suicide" on Google, the website is the third result. When I search on Startpage, it's the second result. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about making it hard to find, it's about whether Wikipedia should be the one aiding them in directly accessing the website due to ethical (and potentially legal) consequences. And if removing the link doesn't prevent people from accessing it, how can you possibly try to use WP:NOTCENSORED as justification? ––FormalDude (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And if removing the link doesn't prevent people from accessing it, how can you possibly try to use WP:NOTCENSORED as justification? I'm not sure what you mean by this. My point in linking WP:NOTCENSORED was to point out that the awfulness of the website is not grounds for removing the URL from this article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 06:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Linking WP:NOTCENSORED implies something is being censored, yet you admit removing the link does little to prevent people from accessing it. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If something is censored in one place, it may still be found elsewhere. But let's not get hung up on the word "censored". Just read the actual text of WP:NOTCENSORED (which doesn't use the word "censored" outside the heading). In particular: Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns here are not about the offensiveness of the link, they're about the evidence that linking to the forum could cause real-life harm. We are well within our rights to use editorial discretion here and remove the link if a consensus develops to do so. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't heard back from T&S yet, I'll email again tomorrow. But I thought that a comment from someone dying of cancer might be useful. I don't know how long I have - if the chemo doesn't work, a few months, if it does (only 30% chance) maybe sometime next year. I've always considered suicide a form of cowardice, but this has changed my view. I know I can go to Zurich, Oregon etc but I want to keep going as long as I can, and those all require a form of giving up. What I and my wife want more than anything else is for me to be able to choose the time and place. I don't think that's possible though as I doubt there is a safe way or one that wouldn't implicate my wife. Would it help people like me to have an easy link? Doug Weller talk 12:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth - I thought about you while writing my comment above. It's certainly inhumane for countries not to have proper end-of-life legislation. What still inched me towards "remove" was the survey showing half its users are below 25, and the apparent degree of overlap with the blackpill crowd. Hope I'm not being insensitive. It's certainly a complicated issue. DFlhb (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear you are going through all that. Must be rough --Trade (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade@DFlhb Thanks. Not good but it's not keeping me awake and I'm still busy here though cutting my watchlist to write. The youth issue is a problem I agree. Doug Weller talk 08:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
T&S has my email. Doug Weller talk 11:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The link has encyclopedic merit, doesn't go against any existing Wikipolicy, and inclusion of the link is consistent with previous discussions of similar websites. I find the "think of the children" argument unconvincing per previous arguments and against WP:NOTCENSORED. :3 F4U (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Retracted per new statement below — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom4U (talk • contribs) 04:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the arguments against not including the link aren't strong enough. I know there's precedence with sites like Kiwifarms in regard to harassment campaigns, but I just don't see that same argument being used here. Something simply being shocking and disturbing hasn't stopped a website URL from being listed, such as in the case of Bestgore.com even though its defunct now.
I don't think mentioning the link here makes a difference on how accessible the site is, either, and I don't think that's a good basis to go off of when determining whether sites should be linked or not, and we should include links to websites unless there's a very good and compelling reason not to, and I don't think we should be lead astray by reporting on the subject which can sometimes be sensational and exaggerated to make these kinds of decisions, either. Kevinsanc (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude direct link. I feel there's enough risk of direct harm to troubled individuals who are better served by getting help elsewhere in up linking to the website that this is one of the cases we should use our editorial discretion not to link. While I acknowledge most people who come to this page and end up visiting the website and are negatively affected are not going be affected whether we link to the website and there's even a small chance some who are negatively affected may end up visiting just because we exclude they link on the whole while I have no real evidence, I think what little evidence there is, suggests there may be more harm in us linking to the website. The inconvenience to those who won't be negatively affected but still wish to explore the website is IMO too minor. I'm the case fir exclusion is significantly weaker than for KiwiFarms since in that case the people being harmed are random often non-notable living persons who are not choosing to website and have instead been subjected to targeted harassment. But it's stronger than for Storm Front where the risk of harm from its linking is very unclear. Note I'm only supporting excluding a direct link. It's oppose excluding RS just because they do have a link or even censoring the name of the website in titles etc. Nil Einne (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per Nil Einne. Wikipedia is not censored, but it does have compassion. This is a case where we improve Wikipedia by exercising our editorial discretion. I would even go so far as to say we can therefore invoke WP:Ignore All Rules Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a case where we improve Wikipedia by exercising our editorial discretion -- Does concealing (objectionable) information from our readers really make for a better encyclopedia? Endwise (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While obviously better encyclopedia is subjective, yes I would say the compassionate protection of our readers makes a better encyclopedia, as (if I dare extrapolate) do the others supporting it's removal. Additionally, I think you may have missed that the key motivator in removing the link is not that it is objectionable but that it is harmful.
    Further I would say this is similar to the judgement made by many of the articles in this source, in their choice not to publish the sites name. And to preempt "but they aren't encyclopedias", I'm well aware of this but:
    A) The general logic of reader protection stands - Wikipedia is unique in many ways, including our policies, but this does not mean we cannot learn, or take inspiration from anyone else.
    B) That is why I am not suggesting we remove the name, or delete the article, but merely remove the link. It balances our 'informational purpose' with editorial discretion - both concepts well established in the realm of encyclopedias.
    Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Doing some more policy reading I came across the following relevant sections of Wikipolicy:
  • From WP:NOCONSENSUS, External links. In disputes over external links, disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
  • From Wikipedia:External links, Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.

This could be very important for whoever closes the RFC.Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exclude URL - First, the argument that this somehow doesn't violate WP:PROBLEMLINKS relies on distinguishing "harassment" from "encouraging people to commit suicide", which is a distinction without a difference. Second, WP:NOTCENSORED is not meant to be used as an affirmative argument for inclusion; see WP:GRATUITOUS. Hatman31 (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hatman31 I think the distinction between "harassment" and "encouragement of suicide" in this situation is that harassment is based on unwanted contact, while the encouragement of suicide present on the site does not cross that line. The encouragement being discussed in the sources has to do with passively condoning hopeless suicidal thoughts and providing very specific information on suicide methods. (for example, the BBC report states "They were nearly encouraging each other saying: 'We're sorry this is how far you've come but we wish you luck on your journey.'") :3 F4U (they/it) 20:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone here is using WP:NOTCENSORED as an affirmative argument for inclusion. The clear affirmative argument for inclusion is WP:ELYES (and WP:ELOFFICIAL). Some have argued that this article should be an exception to ELYES because the website is so objectionable, but I cited NOTCENSORED as a counterargument. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, a reminder that the exclude arguments' key motivator in removing the link is not that it is objectionable but that it is harmful. NOTCENSORED is about objectionable material not harmful material. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think to create a more productive discussion, we should first answer the question Does inclusion of the link cause demonstrable real-life harm? A consensus on that will make any discussion on inclusion or exclusion much easier to facilitate. :3 F4U (they/it) 03:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I do agree. It seems like the discussion is too focused on removing the link because of encouragement. I do believe that linking the website does cause demonstrable real-life harm, going off the sources about methods and encouragement, going off the sources, but it is hard to determine if linking to the website here on Wikipedia comes to that level.
    There are good arguments for and against linking the website, but I do agree with someone here that this is an encyclopedia at the end of the day, and that it is meant to be informative to the reader. I don't see a reason for removing the link due to "harmful content" considering that some of said "harmful content" could arguably be found on this website, specifically Suicide Methods. Kevinsanc (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include as plaintext I've retracted my previous statement. Let me first state some preliminary remarks:
  1. Whereas Wikipedia guidelines are global and cannot be overturned by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
  2. Whereas Wikipedia policies are global and cannot be overturned by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and leave no room for exceptions
  3. Whereas content guideline WP:ELOFFICIAL finds that official links of notable subjects are inherently encyclopedically notable information.
  4. Whereas content guideline WP:ELOFFICIAL also finds that the only exemption to this guideline is WP:ELNEVER, which only cites copyright disputes and technical reasons as reasons not to include a link
  5. Whereas Wikipedia content policy WP:NOTCENSORED finds that obscenity (such as instructions on suicide) cannot be the justification for removal of encyclopedically notable material.
  6. Whereas behavioral guideline WP:PROBLEMLINKS finds that Wikipedia strongly discourages any links to web sites that routinely harass, due to potential of the material on the site, taken as a whole, to cause distress.
  7. Whereas harassment is defined by the meta:Universal Code of Conduct to include encouraging someone else to commit self-harm or suicide as well as encouraging someone to conduct violent attacks on a third party. I still think there is a distinction to be made between unsolicited, unwanted encouragement and the site. From what the sources state on the subject, the site seems closer to Exit International than harassment as described at WP:HARASSMENT.
  8. Whereas the fact that the site encourages people to commit suicide is not in dispute.
And since behavioral guideline WP:PROBLEMLINKS states that Where an especially problematic link is encyclopedic content (e.g. in an article on someone whose notability includes harassing others), putting the link in plain text, e.g. <nowiki>http://www.unpleasant.example/</nowiki>, (rather than as a live link), or even just the domain name, e.g. unpleasant.example, is sometimes used as a workable compromise, the link should be included in plaintext.
I find this to be a satisfactory outcome. The article would still provide, what previous consensus has determined to be encyclopedically notable information, while at the same time minimizing risk of real-life harm. :3 F4U (they/it) 04:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the best possible solution for this situation, considering the Wikipedia policies. Kevinsanc (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove/Exclude per WP:IAR, fundamentally. While you can nit pick at policy to find ways this link is technically permissible, I think the potential for harm outweighs the encyclopedic value of having the link in the infobox, and constitutes a (abnormal) exception to WP:ELOFFICIAL's note that "these links are normally exempt" (emphasis mine) from WP:ELNO. Conversely, I don't feel there is much lost encyclopedically by not having the link in the Ibox. Also per Nil Einne above. And on a personal note, as someone who was quite recently suicidal, I can confirm that this potential for harm is not just theoretical, at least for me, and the presence or absence of the link is a noticeable difference. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude. This is a clear instance for IAR, because none of our policies or guidelines were written with the intent of applying to questions like "will inclusion of this link lead to deaths?" and "will inclusion of this link prevent significant harms?" Policies, guidelines and precedent are not handed down by God, but made by us and changed by us. So, I visited the website and vote my conscience.
    The website is easily accessible and I think there is an argument to be made that if we delete the link then by the same logic we should delete our article per IAR. Removing the link, then, could only introduce one more tiny barrier to somebody who thinks they want to accessing the website. Thinking about several people I have known who attempted suicide, impulsiveness can be a factor in both the action and the planning stage. It seems to me that something so small as providing a link could make a significant difference in impulsive actions. The most effective treatments for self-harm that I am aware of involve "counting to 10 slowly", "say: I am going to stop myself for just 5 minutes, and if I still want to then I will". On the other hand, many suicide attempts follow lengthy periods of suicide ideation and for many kinds of mental health issue, a few seconds of research will be no impediment. But there our decision may be irrelevant either way.
    I am both limited in my perspective by and inordinately grateful that nobody close to me has died by suicide. But I feel that non-inclusion of the link is correct. — Bilorv (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Related COI Discussion

In the interests of full information parity I feel I should note here that there is a COI Discussion occurring relating to the article that may also be relevant to this RFC, and involves some of the same editors.See: [1]. I just thought it was worth editors knowing this, as I had not seen this when I first interacted with the RFC. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 08:25, 16 March 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.

Hatnote

Moving to subsection, as this is a separate discussion.

I disagree, regardless of its contents, the topic of this article is a website first and foremost. An article on the topic of suicide methods can point to prevention or intervention. But again, this is about a website. Adding a link to Suicide prevention goes against WP:HATNOTERULES. The hatnote is incorrect by the way, suicide prevention and suicide intervention are two separate topics. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I took a closer look at those discussions after my edit was reverted and it appears that consensus then was quite contentious and

I would stress that exceptions to well-established guidelines should be rare, and the outcome of this RFC should not be taken as creating a precedent for future discussions of this nature.

:3 F4U (they/it) 07:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting however, that quote comes from the closer of the RFC, and is (as far as I can tell) not something that was explicitly agreed upon in the RFC itself. While the closer has a say, it should not be taken as law - as they are no judge. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It comes from the closer, however, the reason the closer states that is because WP:HAT is an editing guideline, and therefore the rules there, by definition, cannot be bypassed except in "exceptional circumstances." :3 F4U (they/it) 14:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind guidelines aren't as stringent as policies; personally, I like the hatnote. DFlhb (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suport its inclusion as well, but we'd need to gather consensus here for its inclusion. I'm aware guidelines aren't as stringent, that was the point of my reply. If it were a Wikipedia policy, then there would be no exceptions allowed unless broad community consensus was reached. :3 F4U (they/it) 14:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it were a Wikipedia policy, then there would be no exceptions allowed unless broad community consensus was reached that's phrasing it quite a bit more strictly than necessary. The only things that are truly binding are ArbCom and WMF Office decisions. WP:IAR is policy too, and there's strong precedent that consensus (whether local on a single talk page, or community-wide) takes priority over our policies and guidelines, in order to allow collaborativeness and the judgment of contributors to be the cornerstone of Wikipedia, rather than bureaucratic rule-obedience.
I suppose 3 vs 1 isn't that strong a consensus, but that's about the only argument I can find that supports keeping it out for now. DFlhb (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support having the hat note. There's a reason why responsible media always have information on suicide prevention on any material that includes mention of suicide. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, we're not "responsible media", whatever that is. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 00:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intend to imply that Wikipedia falls under that heading. Merely that there are good reasons for doing it and that it is the responsible thing to do. I apologise for giving the impression that I was accusing Wikipedia or its users of being responsible. I would never do such an unconscionable thing. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible BLP and OR issues

Just leaving a note about this, I'm probably not going to do any sigificant editing on this article right now at least. This article largely refers to the founders by their real names, even though the sources often are actually using their pseudonyms. I think, as well as being misleading, because it's giving the impression things are being said and done under their real names rather than their pseudonyms, it also presents issues with WP:OR and WP:BLP - generally speaking we need sources to make the specific connection rather than inferring it ourselves, and we need to be especially careful about this in the case of living people and contentious material.

I think this should be fixed - if a source refers to the pseudonym, we should refer to the pseudonym. This may mean that perhaps the article should be using the pseudonyms for the most part. Tristario (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just regarding OR, surely if a source explicitly says this real person goes by this pseudonym, then it's fine to treat their pseudonym and their real name as referring to the same person (even in other sources)? For example, it's not an issue if we see that a source that says "patients with Lou Gehrig's disease experience...", and write in ALS that "patients with ALS experience..." -- we know from other sources that ALS and Lou Gehrig's disease are the same thing. I don't think there's an OR problem there. Endwise (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit of an edge case. But given that on top of the possible original research and BLP issues, it's also misleading, I don't think there's much argument for using their real names if the source is using their pseudonyms. I don't think we should be treating someone's pseudonym as equivalent to their real name in sources, if we extended that general principle that could lead to a great deal of WP:BLP issues. Eg. If someone gets outed in a reliable source, is someone then free to dig up everything under that pseudonym and add it to their biography? I don't think we would allow that. Tristario (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again to not comment on whether there are any BLP issues with identifying them, I could see why it could in theory be misleading if we don't make obvious that they were acting pseudonymously, but I think it is made clear enough at Sanctioned Suicide#The New York Times investigation (and in the lead). Endwise (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's only really clear if someone specifically reads the New York Times investigation section and then also thinks it through on top of that (just having a pseudonym doesn't necessarily mean someone is doing everything under a pseudonym). So I don't think it's that clear. There was a bit of confusion about this in the discussion at WP:BLPN so I'm not just talking about this being theoretically misleading Tristario (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was already a BLP discussion on this on both the BLP board and the COI board. Both ended with a weak consensus to keep the names. The first New York Times article publishing their full names was a front page story. The rest of the pieces publishing their full names are over a third of of the sources present in the article, all high quality, reliable sources. Barshay11 (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock--Tristario (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I'm pointing out here, I'm not (right now) arguing we should exclude their names entirely. I'm pointing out that some of the sources in this article say things about their pseudonyms, but in the article we're using their real names for the things the sources are saying about their pseudonyms. I think that's problematic, for the reasons above Tristario (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also not aware of any reliable sources preferring any one of their (many) pseudonyms, over their real names, after the Dec 9th front page New York Times article. If there are any, it'd be a strong minority. 2600:4040:4030:5000:FB46:53AF:370E:8304 (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock--Tristario (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

again, the insistence the forum is non-moderated or unrestricted is refuted by every source. WP was dragging their feet on the entire topic for 3 years, and just barely admits it is notable after F4U created the article. Either AFD the article or be accurate about it 72.86.42.248 (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock --Tristario (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead was fine as it is. Stop changing it. You've been warned repeatedly. We won't delete the article because you don't like the looks of it. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with almost all of the article, as a descriptive encyclopedic article because I wrote half of it. What the kevinsancs of the world did was to capitalize of the first sentence to depart from the sources. Please direct me to where in those sources it says that the forum is not moderated or is unrestricted in terms of moderation 72.86.42.248 (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with @Soetermans here. What sets this site apart from other places, and what makes it unique is that it is a place for uninhibited discussion of suicide and suicide methods.
  • Suicide Solution differs from other well-known online suicide forums, like Take This Life, Suicide Forum, or Reddit’s Suicide Watch, in one immediately obvious way. The moderators aren’t as strict about limiting discussions about the methods one might use to end their life, though users often use abbreviations or code words. Vice
  • The New York Times describes the website in one line as: ...a website that provides detailed instructions about suicide
I also don't think its important to include that it has a wiki prominently (very few sources mention it...and the NYTimes expose says that its been taken down) :3 F4U (they/it) 16:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was taken down once in 2021 yea. It's been taken down a few times since then. I don't see a reason to exclude it in the past tense if it's in one good source, but I guess it makes sense to exclude it in the present tense for now, as hopefully they will not bring it back up. Most of your recent edit appears accurate and improving the article. However, the New York Times, PBS, most sources, myself, DFinbh and apparently perhaps Soeterman publicly disagree with the notion the forum is unrestricted, given it has active moderation that restrict suicide discussion to facilitation. The Usenet forum (which this article is not about and there is a separate article), was indeed unrestricted, because to my knowledge, it had no actual administrator, and hence nothing to prevent people from talking users out of suicide, and no moderators/adminitrators facilitating suicide. However, this is a different forum as you know. 72.86.42.248 (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would also like to mention that although you are clearly not involved with the site, nor are you overall promoting it, which is good, you have once written a lede that was speaking in wikivoice about the forum using their own self-promotion, which was removed, the 'pro-choice' line. The 'free speech' 'unrestricted' line is another of their self-promotion lines as you sort of acknowledge in the article. The presence of active moderation refutes that on both the suicide forum and their incel forum. On their incel forum, they say they are free speech, even some sources do, but if you post anything supportive of feminism it gets removed in two seconds lol. Also the quote I posted about earlier, which you haven't really responded to below in the context of this dicussion, is about the suicide forum this article is about and a direct quote of the NYTimes: 72.86.42.248 (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I've written enough paragraphs about this, and will leave it up to the rest of the editors to decide. This is just a wiki, there is no reason for me to want to have everything my way all the time. At the same time, please continue to be overall ethical about this forum, cheers 72.86.42.248 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two took other precautions. Serge warned members they would crack down on anyone publicly sharing personal contact information. He also said they would begin closing the accounts of those who had posted goodbye threads, a step that kept loved ones and law enforcement from gaining access to them later.

If you’re preparing your departure, please contact a mod so we can help with preparations,” Serge wrote, directing members to moderators.

https://archive.vn/ZTV82

Please explain how the above, from the first NYTimes source, is "unrestricted moderation". My edits were in line with the sources in that sentence. 72.86.42.248 (talk) 09:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is the summation of the article. We do not need to bring up 'goodbye threads' and meat preservatives right away, this article is about Sanctioned Suicide as a whole. Please understand that, and why re-adding your own revision again and again is not the way we do things. I'll try to incorporate your suggestions to the lead. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also from DFlhb' summary of the Vice article above
  • "We help and support those that are looking for information to end their life"
  • "We ultimately believe that a person does have a right to die as much as they have a right to live. Our community supports either choice". "supports"!
  • "we don't want people trying to 'save' people either""We help and support those that are looking for information to end their life"

"We ultimately believe that a person does have a right to die as much as they have a right to live. Our community supports either choice". "supports"! "we don't want people trying to 'save' people either"

All of that combined is not "unrestricted moderation", that is a specific goal of suicide facilitation 72.86.42.248 (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm as pro-euthanasia as the next person on WP, but this forum is both illegal and way out of bounds. Their suicide method is unhinged, painful, unethical, and has a 70% survival rate. They are reported to have hid activity from law enforcement and it is not a generic suicide forum, and the sources, and even this article spell out exactly how that is 72.86.42.248 (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am personally going to drop this as I know most editors like DFlhb on this talk page agree with me. But as per now, the first sentence looks as ridiculous as the NXVIM article did for years 72.86.42.248 (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, Soeterman's fixed it. Thank you and sorry for not articulating on talk page earlier to good faith editor such as yourself 72.86.42.248 (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ See talk page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sanctioned_Suicide&oldid=1151424478"