Talk:Suicide methods

Do we think it would help to have a FAQ? I'm thinking of something like this:

Why does this page exist at all?

Understanding facts about suicide, such as the prevalence of different suicide methods, helps save lives. People have to know what the methods are to provide method-specific means prevention. Studying specific methods prevents suicide deaths through mechanisms such as changing the gas used in gas ovens and restricting the sale of certain poisons.

Why doesn't this page have information about crisis lines?

About 85% of page views come here from a web search engine (mainly Google Search), so most readers were just shown a link to one or more local crisis lines. Additionally, this page does contain information about crisis lines, including a link to Wikipedia's List of suicide crisis lines and a relevant image that shows the main crisis line number for Canada and the US. There is a link to m:Mental health resources at the top of this page.

I admit that there really are links to resources for people in crisis in this article. But why doesn't this page have a big link at the top of the page?

The ordinary recommendations from suicide prevention professionals (e.g., for newspapers) are to put those links at the end of the article (not the top) and without any special emphasis on it.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree on No.3

About No.2, it might not be necessary, I believe most readers won’t be asking that question(subjectively).

No.1 is a good question, but the explanation needs changing, I don’t think what you said is the actual reason the article exists. TyphoonHurricaneCyclone 03:24, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I think #2 is useful because not noticing the ways in which people are already being given this information is one of the reasons we get these complaints.

I wonder how you would answer #1. (That's the question that I think is least important.) Are there any other questions you'd suggest adding? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Any answer to #1 would need supported by strong (preferably academic) evidence, which it currently is not. Especially given multiple studies indicate that content that includes explicit or technical descriptions of methods of suicide, or images of locations like bridges etc are linked to increased rates of suicide - even if not by that specific method. It is a very good question though - there have been many discussions about this page, mostly focussed on why it should be removed, censored or carry warnings, but rarely on why it needs to exist in the first place. Dfadden (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you really think we'll find sources talking about why Wikipedia has this article? I don't.

I'd love to read those "multiple studies". Can you provide some citations? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Here's my play-by-play:

1. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs, and thus it is incorrect to state that the page is here to hel[p] save lives or to provide information so that method-specific prevention methods can be applied. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that is, a reference work which aims to give a general and complete overview of knowledge. Since Wikipedia is not censored, it follows that we would have a page on suicide methods.

2. Again, the reason that we do not have information on crisis lines is, factually, not because most readers were just shown a link to one or more local crisis lines.

3. For a third time -- factually, the reason we do not have a big link at the top of the page is emphatically not because ordinary recommendations from suicide prevention professionals (e.g., for newspapers) are to put those links at the end of the article. The reason -- factually -- why we do not have a suicide prevention banner or somthing similar is because every proposal for it has failed in light of Wikipedia policy on controversial or distressing topics.

In short, the FAQ should be answered as follows: every proposal given has failed for more than two decades now, based on arguments mostly surrounding WP:CENSOR, WP:DISCLAIMER, and since the status quo has never been seriously challenged in twenty years, WP:SNOWBALL. As explained at WP:PERENNIAL#Proposals related to suicide and self-harm, these proposals fail because they generally start from a position of advocacy or righting great wrongs and often carry significant implications for Wikipedia as a whole (putting a warning on pages related to cigarettes or chewing tobacco, implementing in-house geolocation services, and so on). wound theology◈ 09:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

All of your answers amount to "because that's what we decided", and the tone is going to come across to some people as being close to "because I'm a big boy now, and you can't make me go to bed/eat my veggies/behave in a pro-social way". I don't think that appealing to internal rules is as helpful as explaining why we decided what we did. Try the Five whys technique on your answers. For example:

• Why don't we post that particular link? Because we don't think it's necessary for the reader.
  • Why don't we think it's necessary? Because 85% of them were just shown one a few seconds ago.

Also, your first response answers "Why don't we get rid of this?" rather than "Why is this (potentially) valuable?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that your answers are factually incorrect. You can complain about the tone and how some people will interpret it, but the plain truth is that the answers you provide are wrong.

I'm not trying to answer the FAQs you're presented, because of course it's a hypothetical dialogue. I'm trying to point out why the answers you've provided to this hypothetical person are objectively false, and that these are not causally the reason we don't have big disclaimers or delete the page or what now. Factually, we have the page because we are an encyclopedia. Factually, we don't add a disclaimer because we have a blanket policy against disclaimers and censorship, and on those grounds every proposal has been rejected by community consensus. Factually, you cannot provide a satisfactory answer for "why" "we" did something outside of the actual arguments made, which invariably are policy arguments. wound theology◈ 23:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Looking at your few edits to this article, which have largely involved removing prevention-related content that was subsequently restored over your objections by consensus, I guess I just don't feel confident trusting your view about this article's purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, largely involved removing prevention-related content that was subsequently restored over [my] objections by consensus? Can you give me literally one example of this happening? Because from my memory, the only thing close to this was placing an illustration of popular help lines and I didn't object to that because it was not prevention-intended, at least not explicitly. Every other time I've participated in squabbles on this page, the proposals have failed. And in any case, I provided actual well-documented evidence for my points. wound theology◈ 02:55, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

So, let's look at every single edit I've made to the page, since I mostly participate in the talk page here:

• Removing a link based on WP:EASTER. Not restored.
• Removing Suicide prevention from the "See also" section since it is already on a hatnote. Not restored.
• Changing "women" to "females" based on the wording of the citation (which, explicitly, I said I would otherwise agree with). Restored, but I'm not sure by what means or what reasoning was used. Unrelated to prevention.
• Removing an egregious prevention disclaimer. Not restored.
• Good faith edits that I rollbacked. Not restored.
• A series of edits removing HTML comments placed inappropriately. Not restored.
• Reverting the replacement of the painting with a suicide crisis hotline. Not restored, but eventually placed as an illustration lower down the page -- a compromise I fully agreed with.

So, to surmise, your claim about my edits are emphatically wrong and easily-disproven. WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs), please strike your comment here. It is incredibly inappropriate to publicly doubt my view about this article's purpose with claims about my edits that are objectively false. I'm not sure even sire why you would make a claim that takes all five minutes to fact-check. Not a single edit I made was restored save the one about wording, which I explicitly stated I agreed with but didn't think it was supported by the sources. wound theology◈ 03:37, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Or, as I interpret them:

• six edits reverting various changes related to suicide prevention, including warnings against edit-warring out the information you were removing;
• reverting a new editor's copyedit of the lead (I agree with you);
• changing one word (female → woman); and
• removing a link to the main Suicide article from the first sentence. It's not a MOS:EASTEREGG violation, since the MOS explicitly says "A link's visible label does not need to match the exact title of the article being linked"; actual "Easter egg" violations "are links that unexpectedly hide relevant information underneath the link's label". And I'm sure it will be reverted as soon as someone else notices that the only link to Suicide in this whole article is in the description of Seppuku.

I see a clear pattern of bias against suicide prevention in your edits. You don't have to agree with me, and you certainly don't have to publicly admit that you agree with me, but I think my interpretation is not unreasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

No, now hold up. What you said, exactly, was that edits mostly involved removing prevention-related content that was subsequently restored over your objections by consensus. The operative portion here, which you did not even attempt to back up in your response, is that it was subsequently restored over [my] objections by consensus which is patently, obviously, and easily-provably false which I demonstrated beyond any reasonably doubt. Not a single one of my objections to prevention-related content (a very loaded term to what I actually object to) was restored, by consensus or otherwise. Here you are now changing the goalposts to claim that I am bias[ed] against suicide prevention, which is both inaccurate (I am "biased" against placing suicide-prevention disclaimers in the article, as has been determined and upheld by consensus -- not against "suicide prevention" itself) and not what you claimed or what I objected to. This is plainly casting aspersions and a violation of WP:AGF.

Again, WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs): I am suggesting that you strike both your patently incorrect statement that any of my objections were subsequently subsequently restored over [my] objections by consensus and your incredibly offensive claim that I am in fact bias[ed] against suicide prevention. wound theology◈ 06:02, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Are we agreed on these facts?

• You removed File:988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline logo - navy - square.svg from the article.
• There was a discussion that led to a consensus to put File:988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline logo - navy - square.svg back in the article.
• File:988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline logo - navy - square.svg is, in fact, presently in the article.

I call your removal of File:988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline logo - navy - square.svg "an objection". I call having File:988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline logo - navy - square.svg "being restored to the article". I don't really care if you want to wikilawyer about it not really being an objection, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I objected to the image being in the lede and acting as a disclaimer. I never objected to it being in the article. I was part of the consensus for that question (whether it is appropriate as an illustration). That is a single edit and does not constitute a bias against "suicide prevention". Even if I concede that it was "overturned", saying that most of my edits were similarly overturned is emphatically false.

You are just making offensive and factually-incorrect claims about my editing on this page. You're moving the goalposts from "everything you've done has been overturned by consensus" to "this one edit was sort of overturned" to "you are biased against suicide prevention" and refusing to admit your initial claim was just plain wrong. wound theology◈ 21:59, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

You reverted the addition of the image to the article. Reverting is "objecting". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted an image that was placed specifically and explicitly in the lede as a disclaimer, something the editor actually was very open about (adding HTML comments to explain why it was added and why it shouldn't be removed). That is what I objected to.

You have hyperfocused on a single edit I made that can only very shakily be called an "objection" (since, again, I never objected to the image itself as an illustration) and was never restored to it its original place or in its original function. All the while you have ignored the basic fact of the conversation: your initial claim was objectively wrong even if I concede that this was an "objection" that was "overturned" by consensus. This isn't a case of simply being mistaken, your claim was specifically deployed to discard my argument about your account of the page (which, similarly, is factually incorrect) on the grounds that all I do is try to make the page pro-suicide or some such. wound theology◈ 22:23, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I've never said that you are trying to make the page pro-suicide. I said that your edits to this page appear to me to be anti-prevention. There's a difference between being pro-suicide and anti-prevention-on-this-page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Again, hyperfocusing on one single point that is irrelevant to the issue at hand. wound theology◈ 02:42, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree fully with #2 and #3, and I think they would be very helpful to include in an FAQ.

I think the question for #1 should be changed slightly so as not to imply that it was the reason the page was created: maybe something like "Why is this article potentially valuable?" (from your comment above).

I also agree with you that appealing to internal guidelines or slippery slopes would not be helpful here. When someone is genuinely worried that a page could lead to someone's death, they're not going to be receptive to those sorts of arguments. Cadddr (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

As we have seen, time and time again on this page, by the time someone is not receptive to [these] sorts of arguments, they aren't receptive to any sort of argument. They make veiled threats of self-harm, begin to act uncivily, vandalize the page, and so on -- all of these are right here on the archives of this talk page. It's like a broken record. No reason we provide can be both true and convincing for this type of person. wound theology◈ 23:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I know that's not true because I'm one of the people who wouldn't be receptive to those sorts of arguments, but I am receptive to the answers given by WhatamIdoing. I'm quite sure I would never do any of the things you listed, since I have pretty good self-control. But I used to be depressed and have suicidal ideations. If I remember right, I even briefly looked at this specific article during one of my darkest moments. So if, right now, I believed a big link at the top of the page would make a difference for some people in that situation, I would be strongly in favor of it. The argument that convinces me is that there isn't good evidence it would make a difference.

And no, from what I've read, it doesn't seem to be true that the actual arguments made... invariably are policy arguments:

In recent RFCs, the most strongly supported argument against has been that independent research has found that these warnings have little benefit in actually preventing suicides and such, and Wikipedia:No disclaimers should not be overridden for such questionable benefit.
— WP:PERENNIAL#Proposals related to suicide and self-harm

There's a small appeal to policy in that sentence, but it's primarily an argument about whether these sorts of warnings make a difference in practice. I think you're also misrepresenting previous RfCs like this one, which did not end in an unequivocal rejection of a hatnote being placed at Suicide.

Frankly, I think you should try to have a little more empathy. Not everyone who disagrees with you about this is a bad-faith actor. Cadddr (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Wound theology I would suggest you walk back your claim that implies any editor who is concerned about the content on this page and its potential impact, but doesnt share your same interepretation of content guidelines will make veiled threats of self-harm, begin to act uncivily, vandalize the page, and so on. That's not constructive, is definitely not in line with WP:AGF, nor does it create any confidence that we can collaborate to arrive at solutions. There are many like myself who have worked on mental health programs and studied suicidology and have concerns about this page. But I do not engage in the behaviours you mentioned. Since you seem to believe that rigid adherence to internal guidelines is the most important factor, consider that your characterisation above pushes the boundaries of WP:CIVILITY, which is policy, not just a guideline. Dfadden (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I suggest taking a more charitable reading: I did not make any claims about all editors concerned about the content on this page and its potential impact. What I said regards someone by that is not receptive to these arguments.

If someone is not receptive to policy-based arguments, then they are incredibly unlikely to respond to the other arguments here, policy-based or otherwise. Both you and Cadddr (talk · contribs) are receptive to policy-based arguments in general, even if you don't agree with particular arguments made here. My statements here should not be construed as moral evaluations and as contradictory as it seems, veiled threats of self-harm, [acting] uncivily, vandaliz[ing] the page are not necessarily in bad faith if the people there genuinely feel that it is the best way to protect other humans. But it is still not something that should be allowed on Wikipedia.

If you would like, I'll rephrase: someone who is so concerned about this page that they would ignore policy-based arguments is not going to respond to logically-grounded arguments of another type.

---

On another note, I would very much like to stop hearing pointed claims about an alleged lack of empathy or hearing about personal experiences with suicidal ideation. This sort of argumentation is not only largely irrelevant but also pressures me into looking like I refuse to hear pleas from people with experience with suicidal ideation, or, conversely, pressures me into talking about my own experience.

If you must know, during my most intense OCD episode in my early 20s, I made a very stern and serious decision to commit suicide if it did not end after a certain amount of time, or if it ever happened again. Luckily I have more support and have largely healed from this part of my life, and I understand how and why it was not a healthy or useful decision to make. So please, for the love of all that is sacred, stop telling me about your own experiences or accusing me of lacking empathy for people going through suicidal ideation. Good lord. wound theology◈ 03:15, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for rephrasing. I still disagree with your position that someone who is so concerned about this page that they would ignore policy-based arguments is not going to respond to logically-grounded arguments of another type, but there is no guideline stating we must agree, only that we work together in a collaborative and respectful way! A page like this is always going to attract people with bias (either conscious or unconscious) and elicit strong emotion. Personally, I am aware that I place a lot of value on the professional ethics, best practice guidelines and peer-reviewed research i have been exposed to in work settings on this subject. Much moreso than I do wikipedia guidelines based on a consensus of anonymous contributers of unknown backgrounds and qualification. As such, I am aware I may respond emotively and push back on arguements solely rooted in wikipedia content guidelines where there is disconnect with my professional reality. Perhaps all of us can benefit from an awareness of how our own biases impact our tone and perception of other's responses? Dfadden (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I also disagree with the claim that someone who is so concerned about this page that they would ignore policy-based arguments is not going to respond to logically-grounded arguments of another type. In particular, it has been my experience for many years that editors who talk about WP:NOTCENSORED at this article are unconcerned about WP:MEDRS and do not seem to be interesting in having this article represent the mainstream medical viewpoint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining what you meant. Like Dfadden, I'm still not sure I agree, but it seems like you were making a much weaker assertion than I thought. It may have partly been a misunderstanding about what we each meant by the word receptive. Since your comment was a reply to my comment, I thought you were referring to the same set of people I was, and I had described that set as including anyone who was genuinely worried about the impact of the page on people's lives.

I think I'll disengage from this conversation now. I hope you're having a good week. Cadddr (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Cadddr, I like your suggestion on how to re-phrase that question. I think we've got several audiences with different goals and needs. Some of the complaints appear to be coming from people in/near crisis, or with a history of crisis. They're likely thinking about how this content affects them individually. Another group is people who are interested in prevention in general (e.g., after a mental health awareness week at school). And a third group is Wikipedia editors who would like to improve this page. My answer is mostly aimed at that last group. This page is much improved compared to a decade ago, but it still needs a lot work. Not everybody can do that work (at all), and almost nobody can do that work without taking occasional breaks. I see question #1 as a subtle sort of "If you want to help improve this page, then here's the general approach we've been taking". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing @Cadddr I also like the reframe and phrasing on why it is valuable. Generally i think the article up to the "List" subsection has value to all 3 of those groups. Almost everything in that list section is redundant anyway, as many of the methods listed have their own article already anyway, and the infobox at the top of the page also links to these, so including them here seems a bit gratuitous, especially as there is a notable difference in the tone of the sections preceding it. 02:43, 1 May 2026 (UTC) Dfadden (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we made good progress a few years ago on the early sections of the article. The list itself has always been uneven, though we got a few sections cleaned up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Wound theology that these answers are flawed (though I still don't think a crisis hotline hatnote counts as a "disclaimer"). The correct answers are that Wikipedia is not censored, no consensus, and no consensus again. On the FAQ for Talk:Trans woman for example, we do not say "Trans women are women and anyone who doesn't like it is a TERF" (or even an original argument as to why trans women are women) in the answer; rather, we point to the consensus decisions (2022 RfC) that occurred. OutsideNormality (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Saying that we decided it because of an RFC amounts to "We decided it because we decided it", and I don't think that is a helpful explanation to non-Wikipedians.

For question #2, the premise of the question (though common enough) is factually wrong. We have a positive consensus to include multiple elements in this article that lead people to crisis hotline numbers. Part of the answer to "Why doesn't this page have information about crisis lines?" is "We already did!" The hatnote has a link to Suicide prevention. The sidebar has a link to the List of suicide crisis lines. The lead has a link to the article Crisis hotline. The first image in the article is the 988 (telephone number), with a caption that links to the List of suicide crisis lines. And so forth. Maybe a FAQ that points out these elements would help some complainants notice that they exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with TyphoonHurricaneCyclone regarding question 1. To answer the question, I would just link to the article's past AfD discussions. Some1 (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2026 (UTC)