Talk:Hangman's knot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name change

I believe the correct name for this knot is the "Hangman's knot". A noose is the simplest kind of running knot. - From the Morrow guide to knots. ISBN 0-688-01226-4

Copyright?

Most text is directly copied and the rest just a re-written version of http://www.geocities.com/roo_two/hangmansnoose.html

striking force

additional striking force to the back of the neck? is that even significant? seems like it needs a citation Cannibalicious!

Removal of Gif in Infobox

Many users have repeatedly removed the gif found in the infobox due to the it being perceived as dangerous. I also find the gif problematic because of the serious danger for someone to use it for the purpose of self harm or suicide. I am aware that Wikipedia is not considered censored, however, it is also Wikipedia policy that images should not be offensive unless there is serious encyclopedic value in its inclusion. There are other images of the hangman's knot that do not show how to tie it, such as the image already included in the page. I want to seek consensus on removing the gif in the page, and if the consensus desires an image to replace it with, it ought to be one that does not show others how to tie this knot.

Note: I'm still a novice at editing, so if there is anything else that needs to be included to formally request this change, such as tagging an administrator, I ask that a more informed Wikipedia editor make the proper additions. Thanks!

Roccoharde (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTCENSORED, which is a Wikipedia policy. A simple gif showing how the knot is constructed is highly relevant to the subject. You've already found an administrator, but you don't need a one "formally request a change." You need to establish a policy-based consensus from established users. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
It cannot be reasonably argued that an image showing how a knot is formed is offensive or dangerous. If you really want a silly discussion, I put it to you that someone wishing to engage in hanging is likely to cause more offence and be more dangerous without clear instructions. I however don't think a silly discussion is at all helpful. The article is about a knot. It should include description of its form and function. Images are encouraged in all articles. The image is a visual description of how the knot is formed. There is no reason to remove the image. All the recent edits appear to be nothing more than an effort to sanitise the article in accordance with some agenda, all under the guise of cleaning up with minor edits. Trying in every way to hide the truth is contrary to the fundamental principals of Wikipedia. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I think this is a well-intentioned comment, but honestly, the internet is such a wide-open place too, I cannot imagine that if someone really wants to do themselves in, that Wikipedia would be the last or best place to provide that information. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
You would be surprised what people do and where they will look for this information. This article and gif is what taught me how to tie the hangman's knot several years ago when I attempted suicide. Ranolden (talk) 04:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
That is horrible. Holy shit. I hope you are doing better now. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm doing better now. I don't think it should be censored, but if this sort of information is on Wikipedia people will seek it out and they will use it. Ranolden (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
I know we can't right great wrongs, but your story is heart wrenching. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
i'll add a 988 suicide crisis hotline disclaimer on the page Huntmin333 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
nevermind Huntmin333 (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
I've added a hotline disclaimer in the talk page. Badept3 (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

RfC on gif in infobox

Should the gif in the infobox be removed? Joko2468 (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Summary: I'm not going to formally close the discussion per WP:RFCEND, though I will remove the WP:RfC tag since no one has commented in a week. There's a weak consensus to switch the image in the infobox to a static image, I'll do that with an image from commons. If someone else wants to integrate the GIF into the body or use one of the other diagrams of static images you can find them in commons here. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Survey

  • Weak yes (summoned by bot). It is unclear to me what encyclopedic value the GIF adds that a static image like this one would not. The difference between the two seems to be precisely that the GIF adds how-to information, which is out of scope for our project. It is worth noting that per MOS:LEADIMAGE, [w]hile Wikipedia is not censored, lead images should be selected with care. On the face of it, an image whose value proposition is primarily non-encyclopedic is unlikely to be the best choice for the lead image. I have not done a comprehensive survey, but from looking at e.g. slipknot and noose among others, it appears that many if not most of our knot articles have a static image in the infobox. So replacing this GIF with a static image would not be out of step with our general practice as established through collaborative editing. The mere fact that Wikipedia is not censored is not an argument for the inclusion of any content, especially as a lead image. On balance, therefore, it seems clear to me that this GIF is not the optimal choice as the lead image for the article. Separately, I would also note that this GIF doesn't seem to be compliant with MOS:ANIMATION, as it is 5.5 seconds long and has no stop/start control. However, I don't think fixing that would change the equation here. -- Visviva (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Nope. This is yet another one excellent, visual representation of an article's subject. In this particular case, the representation of what a specific know entails requires an image that, by definition, is moving. As to the objection raised that the inclusion of the gif file could be "dangerous" (i.e. people using the knot for harmful purposes), it simply cannot qualify as a serious one. Wikipedia rightfully contains what is already out there, and nothing more. -The Gnome (talk) 05:20, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep The gif is very useful for a reader to understand the knot and provides better information then a static image. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
    This appears to be in contravention of the guideline WP:NOTHOWTO. Joko2468 (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
    That just says Wikipedia "should not read like a 'how-to' style [instruction] manual". It does not say that Wikipedia should withhold information about how things are done. It just means it shouldn't be written as a set of instructions. It says Wikipedia should not say "To make a gimlet, mix equal parts of gin and sweetened lime juice." It does not say that the drink should not be described as containing roughly equal parts of gin and sweetened lime juice. Information about a topic has encyclopedic value. That is more about writing style. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Yes. These arguments assert that the gif provides encyclopedic value but the Wikipedia guidelines themselves rather explicitly dispute this. No further reasoning has been provided thus far to explain how the gif provides encyclopedic value within the scope of the project. Per MOS:LEADIMAGE, the image should be natural or the obvious or usual type of image, which this gif is definitely not. The guideline states that: the natural choice for the lead image for an article about an insect is a drawing or photograph of that insect. Therein, the natural choice for the lead image for this article is not a 'how to' on tying the knot. It should be replaced with a static image. Joko2468 (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
    Further to this, there is this CC-licensed photograph which I think would be a vastly more appopriate and encyclopedic lede image that portrays it in its most natural or obvious representation. Joko2468 (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
    The GIF's movement and color is distracting, but it is incorrect to say it has no encyclopedic value. It shows how the knot is tied. A photograph provides no clue of how the knot can be tied. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
    But that's out of the scope of the encyclopedia-- this is why I said it provided no encyclopedic value within the scope of the project. At the end of the day, that's merely a consensus-building tool and you can disagree with it or interpret it another way. We're just voting on removing it from the lede image, my suggestion below regarding its full exclusion has been conclusively discussed. Joko2468 (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
    Incorrect. The guideline you're referring to does not say to withhold information from readers who are interested in a subject. It just says not to present information as a set of instructions. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
    Many knot articles include static images in the body that illustrate how the knot is tied, such as Zeppelin loop, Blood knot, Ashley's stopper knot and Constrictor knot. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
    This article doesn't have those. Has someone offered such images for this knot? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
    I think this one could work. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
    I like that better than the current GIF. I find movement very intrusive, and that one also gives me the opportunity to study each part of the process without it immediately moving on past what I'm trying to see. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Yes the other editors have explained their reasons more clearly than I could, so I will be brief. I have looked for comparable examples, including other types of knots and other suicide methods, and I did not find similar images being used. GIFs are rare. Setting WP:NOTHOWTO concerns aside, since the internet is vast and anyone intent on learning how to tie a knot for self-harm will be able to do so regardless of whether we include such material here, I am still not seeing any encyclopedic justification for the current image. The one proposed by Joko2468 seems more appropriate. There are some in Commons that could also work. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Yes; we don't censor things because they're dangerous, but WP:NOTHOWTO absolutely applies, as does WP:IUP#ANIM. Inline animations should be used sparingly; a static image with a link to the animation is preferred unless the animation has a very small file size. Keep in mind the problems with print compatibility mentioned elsewhere on this page. While the file size here is low, we're still supposed to be sparing with animations, and nobody has really articulated a rationale for this animation beyond its utility as a how-to, which isn't what Wikipedia is for. I'm also concerned that some of the desire to keep it may fall afoul of WP:NOTNOTCENSORED; the fact that people have made bad arguments to remove it doesn't change the fact that there's also plenty of good ones. --Aquillion (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  • No - not delete - maybe replace with static diagram, but not just delete. WP:NOTHOWTO does not apply here, the structure of the knot is basically in any knot article and essential to it. Without a display of the knot construction, the article simply would not be defining what the knot is. You cannot just go on an external image of one side of a knot and tell much, it needs an image explaining the construction. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
    But should it be the lede image? Other articles include a diagram below and I'd argue that this knot is a special case since it has cultural and historical significance-- it's more than a technical description of the knot. Joko2468 (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
    Yes, as the essential defining aspect, this one should like other knot articles show diagram or gif in the lead info box. See Noose for example. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
    I am not sure why Template:Infobox knot includes "instructions" as a parameter in the example but not in the documentation. Either way, that supports not using the GIF as the main image. The Noose article already includes visual instructions in static form within the body, and that approach is sufficient. We can apply the same logic here. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
    Well a visual static diagram might suffice, you’d have to offer one. Maybe Henkersknoten? But that seems a “no” for the RFC question which is only asking to “remove”, as it is not an argument that deleting (to no diagram) is better than this one. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  • No/keep - After reading the above, I agree it is an excellent visual representation and the best way for readers to understand the knot. Halbared (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  • No / Keep The article is very short; if it's removed from the infobox, it could always be added to the body of the article and again, since the article is so short, readers will still be able to see the gif anyway. The WP:NOTCENSORED arguments are also very convincing. Some1 (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
    If easily understandable equivalent information about how the knot is tied is added to the article, I think it should be removed. This is not a matter of censorship, since easily understandable information about how to tie the knot would remain. Bright colors and movement (especially overly rapid movement) are very irritating to people trying to read an article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment

This has previously been discussed on the talk page and no consensus has emerged. I called the RfC because this is an exceptionally challenging judgement that requires more editors to conclusively put to bed.

I appreciate that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and sometimes its content could be interpreted as unethical but there is evidently a line, see Wikipedia:Don't link to bomb-making instructions. Should otherwise nuanced/ technical instructions on how to off onself be subject to the same principle? OhNoitsJamie argues that the gif is of encyclopedic value, but this is contradicted by WP:NOTHOWTO. Joko2468 (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

HOWTO does not apply here, and this isn’t a bomb…. Note that basically all knot articles diagram the knot construction, because that’s what defines the knot, that particular construct of line. It needs something other than prose to explain what the knot is, and just an image of one is insufficient. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Don't link to bomb-making instructions is merely a brief and obscure three-sentence opinionated essay written by a single Wikipedia editor and never expanded by anyone else. It is not widely referenced and is not endorsed as a Wikipedia guideline or policy. And the inability to tie this knot isn't going to save anyone. Lots of other knots will do – e.g., perhaps a bowline hitch would do the trick. WP:SPOILER is a guideline. WP:NOTCENSORED is policy. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI