Template talk:Suicide/Archive 1

Disclaimer

This navigational template should not have a disclaimer. For an example of why, see voluntary euthanasia. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly Agree. No disclaimer templates check that out.
  • Unsigned comment by User:Jijinmachina, [1]
• Strongly Disagree. NDT does not apply, as this is not a disclaimer at all. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral Point of View. Wikipedia should not advance an anti-suicide point of view, no matter how much we may like to. IAR is irrelevant as NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. — Phil Welch 20:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? There is no reputable pro-suicide organization. Flat Earth. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

There are reputable right-to-die organizations that support the right to commit suicide under certain circumstances. It's not our business to decide what is "reputable", however. — Phil Welch 23:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Phil: You say "suicidal people can read a variety of different viewpoints". No suicidal person is going to do that - some might respond to this disclaimer. It's neutral and factual, and although its placement here seems a little POV, I think social responsibility overrides that. Hence, I've reverted. ~~ N (t/c) 23:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not neutral by any stretch of the imagination. It completely disregards the "maybe it's a reasonable idea to kill yourself depending on the situation" points of view. It forces a Western mental health point of view onto a reader who may have different cultural values. It is the epitome of a biased statement. Wikipedia's social responsibility is to provide an impartial, accurate, and comprehensive account of the sum of human knowledge to the reader—not to convince him not to commit suicide. And as for your first claim, I think that any suicidal person who looks up "suicide" on Wikipedia is looking for impartial, comprehensive, and accurate information about suicide, just like any other Wikipedia reader. Someone who goes to the trouble to read Wikipedia articles about suicide when they contemplate it is not going to be swayed by a three-line "don't kill yourself" public service announcement. Furthermore, if our social responsibility to prevent suicide overrules NPOV, then it follows that we should censor Wikipedia to remove all mention of seppuku or anything else that might "glamorize" suicide. — Phil Welch 00:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The earth is not flat. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

What? ~~ N (t/c) 00:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I see your point... it's a biased presentation of facts, and people probably aren't going to be reading WP for information on how to kill themselves. But IIRC (and this is not authoritative at all), it is very important and potentially effective that suicidal people be offered help. If the warning prevents one person from killing themselves (unlikely but possible), it's worth it. I find your statements on "social responsibility" a bit odd - the inconvenience and mild bias caused by this template are worse than the (highly unlikely but possible) event of someone dying as a result of it not being there? ~~ N (t/c) 00:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I was pointing out that "disregarding neutrality if it might save lives" would, if applied consistently, make a mockery of our attempts to build an encyclopedia. — Phil Welch 05:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Now, while I very much agree with "People seeking help on averting suicidal thoughts should refer to the above website", using an enormous text in place of it is completely out of question. ESPECIALLY one that brings up the idea that a suicidal person is sick. That question HAD been solved, so whatever you do, respect consensus and use either the short text version or the no-text version. --Sn0wflake 23:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the shorter one is, but would reinstate it if I did. I agree that a shorter, less judgmental-sounding message would be optimal. ~~ N (t/c) 00:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to something like the hurricane disclaimer, stating that if someone is considering suicide they should consult sources outside of Wikipedia, but it would have to be non-specific enough as to not bias one viewpoint over another. — Phil Welch 00:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Kind of makes sense, but I think it's less persuasive. ~~ N (t/c) 00:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not intended to persuade people not to kill themselves. It's intended to warn them not to make that decision based on Wikipedia information. — Phil Welch 00:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The "npov template" template consistantly being inserted is offensive trolling. The statement is supposed to persuade people not to kill themselves. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Please remain civil, and realize that there actually is an NPOV dispute, even if it seems silly to you. ~~ N (t/c) 00:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, see, that's not the point of having something there. ~~ N (t/c) 00:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's purpose to give personal advice about whether or not to commit suicide. Any disclaimer should state that, in so many words. — Phil Welch 00:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

What is your underlying goal in arguing this? Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

So you deny that Wikipedia has any responsibility to take small, unobtrusive measures to prevent harm? ~~ N (t/c) 00:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a loaded question. First off, telling someone "don't kill yourself" isn't unobtrusive, and it's biased to say that it prevents harm—I think in most cases it does, but I'm not going to impose my judgment on the reader. Secondly and more importantly, Wikipedia has the responsibility to provide impartial, comprehensive information. Any other consideration--such as telling people not to kill themselves--comes second. — Phil Welch 02:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Couple notes: JYolkowski, this is not a disclaimer (it doesn't say "Wikipedia is not liable for X"), and Hipocrite, please don't call something "vandalism" that isn't. ~~ N (t/c) 00:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, so making up a fake template like npov, including a huge hand on it such that the template is ugly and makes articles look hideous is Ok by you - it's evidence of someone trying to make the enyclopedia better? Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you are not being civil and you are trying to impose your ideas. If you continue to behave in an aggresive manner, you are going to be blocked. --Sn0wflake 00:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

What Sn0wflake said. There IS a neutrality dispute, and if you objected to the hand you could have just deleted the hand. ~~ N (t/c) 00:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Have a time, fellows. (you'll note I did exactly that) Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The note about seeking help strikes me as completely unencyclopedic. No matter how it's phrased or how much good people think it can do, an encyclopedia simply should not attempt to "talk" to the people reading it. When I come to an encyclopedia article on something, I expect straightforward factual information, not heartfelt messages from well-meaning but misguided editors scrawled in the margins. Encyclopedically-phrased information on this kind of information and on ways of treating suicidal tendencies might be appropriate in the proper sections of main articles, the same way we list treatments for obesity within its own section; but messages aimed at changing the world or saving lives certainly don't belong on Wikipedia templates. The neutrality notice is also silly. This is an encyclopedic-tone issue, not a POV issue; there's no need to worry about the POV of something that obviously shouldn't be there. --Aquillion 03:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I completly agree with Aquillion. We are building an enycylopedia here and we should not loose focus on that. These types of notices have no place here. --Clawed 05:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll go along with Aquillion on this too. Any objections? — Phil Welch 05:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I object. Is the small unencyclopedicity caused by an unobtrusive message worse than a small (very small but existent) risk of someone committing suicide who would have been prevented by the message? ~~ N (t/c) 12:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I just don't think that hypothetical arguments about saving lives have any place in making an encyclopedia. By your logic, any time anyone could construct a remotely plausable scenerio where a disclaimer added to an article could save lives, we would be honor-bound to add it. Our article on Obesity, for instance, could end up with a warning that "You may be fat. If you are fat, you should seek professional help to avoid health complications later in life"; all of our Gun articles would contain warnings on gun safety; and our articles on Tobacco smoking and Recreational drug use would all have a template at the top warning readers not to use those substances. Most of those things, after all, claim far more lives a year than suicide. I don't think we should have to make arguments to distinguish between these cases, either; according to WP:NOT, "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain 'how-to's." That ought to be the beginning and end of the debate. --Aquillion 15:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems like the majority of people involved here agree that the disclaimer should go. I'm going to remove it, but as always, the discussion isn't over—if you bring in some more people on the other side we can pick this up again. — Phil Welch 17:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Mild agreement. The disclaimer, while quite innocuous to my mind, and possibly helpful, would probably be a bad precedent, possibly leading to arguments for warnings on drug articles/templates, sex articles/templates, etc. — goethean ॐ 17:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I would agree to a general, "Do not make a descision on whether to commit suicide based upon information on Wikipedia" (phrased better) but certainly not one that says "do not commit suicide". It undermines what we are trying to do as a project here and goes against NPOV. --Celestianpower ^háblame 17:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

In the form "While social and religious perspectives on suicide are varied, the medical community believes that people with severe suicidal ideation should seek immediate medical assistance."? I believe that your form is a disclaimer. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

are we going to provide a citation in the template for "the medical community believes that people with severe suicidal ideation should seek immediate medical assistance"? I don't think that that statement belongs in a template. It belongs in the Suicide article, yes. Not the template.--Kewp (t) 17:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I can provide such a citation if it is requested as any more than a hoop-jump, yes, though I really doubt that the fact of that statement is even remotely disputed. Moving forward with the assumption that I can cite it, why not include it in the template? What is the concrete harm not balanced by a more substantial gain? The balance of equities favors the inclusion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

why not include it in the template? because it's irrelevant to the template, and is a disclaimer, no matter how you choose to word it.--Kewp (t) 18:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, I guess my previous comment was a "hoop-jump"--Meaning, generally citations and references belong in an article, and not on a navigational template which is meant to provide a consistent look for related articles. The addition of material such as you are suggesting, plus citations, would require the kind of depth that should only appear in an article.--Kewp (t) 19:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I ask again- "Why not include it in the template? What is the concrete harm not balanced by a more substantial gain? The balance of equities favors the inclusion." Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly Agree. The template should have neither a disclaimer, nor any disclaimer-like statement of fact about "current medical opinion" or the like. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Suicide methods

Self-decapitation, which I had added a while back, should be reinserted. I can tell you that people have tried this stupid method. Coolgamer 20:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Get Help/NPOV

Is there current NPOV disagreement with the statement "The medical community believes that people with severe suicidial ideation should seek imediate medical assistance." If there is such an NPOV disagreement, I would request a cite from someone inside the medical community stating that they do not believe that people with severe suicidial ideation should seek immediate medical assistance. Such a cite should be in a peer reviewed medical journal. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

As a seperate POV note, is it appropraite to include VE in the template? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Get Help/Disclaimer

Is there agreement that a statement about getting help (if such is NPOV - discuss that above) does not violate the guideline on Disclaimer templates, which are defined as

Disclaimer templates are templates that duplicate the information at one of the five disclaimer pages:

General disclaimer

Use Wikipedia at your own risk

Wikipedia does not give medical advice

Wikipedia does not give legal opinions

Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable

Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Get Help/Slippery Slope

Using the slippery slope argument in this case is a classical logical fallacy - to wit, no one has suggested that B will inevitably happen. I dispute that adding a statement of fact to a template where looking up information is a classic warning signal is at all analogous to a statement of fact to a template where looking up information is not a classic warning signal. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you study the difference between slippery slope and reductio ad absurdum. — Phil Welch 16:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that you do so as well. The argument was that this statement would lead to similar statements on article about drugs. I dispute that slippery slope, as looking for information on drugs is not a classic precursor to taking them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Readded statement

The majority of people here agree that the statement should not appear in the template. Even if you want to tally it up again, most of us would still be opposed to it. I think you're pulling a fast one on us, Hipocrite. — Phil Welch 16:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that you WP:AGF, especially considering that I brought all of the various points up on talk. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Well? I count three people in favor of having some sort of statement included, and six against. Your course of action at this point is not to edit war against the working consensus we have, but rather to file an RfC in order to get a larger number of opinions. I'm going to revert, but feel free to pursue this issue, and if you can start to either turn people or get more on your side than maybe we can change the template again. — Phil Welch 16:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I am attempting to address your NPOV concerns, as 33/66 is not even rough consensus. Please join me in trying to do so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you think your statement on the template page is more appropriate for the talk page? I do. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality isn't my sole concern here. I also agree with Aquillon's point above that the warning is plainly unencyclopedic. Additionally, 66/33 is only 4% shy of the level of consensus required to make major policy decisions. I'm not changing my mind about this--the statement is out, and the majority opinion is with me. Either leave it alone or file an RfC. As for the statement on the template, I think the reader should be warned when they are viewing a non-consensus version of encyclopedia content. — Phil Welch 16:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"I'm not chaning my mind about this" is far from an attempt to resove this issue. Could you explain your other concerns, such that I can address them? I would consider your addition to the template to be far more unencyclopedic than a brief statement of fact at the bottom - especially given that the insertion of the NPOV not-template should be more than enough to warn the reader that a dispute exists. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Since you asked so nicely, here are my concerns. First, the stated and sole purpose of the warning is to persuade the reader not to commit suicide. No matter how any warning toward that purpose is phrased, the purpose itself violates NPOV. Our job is to provide unbiased information. Our job is not to convince the reader that should not kill himself. Second, Aquillon's point above. The dispute as it is now is that you want a notice that will try and stop a suicidal reader from committing suicide, and I don't. In addition, considerably more people agree with me than with you. And no, I'm not going to change my mind about it because neutrality and encyclopedic tone are non-negotiable. — Phil Welch 16:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You are incorrect regarding the purpose of the statement of fact, and have confused the purpose and the goal. The attempt is not to convince people not to commit suicide, as that is nearly impossible over the internet. The goal is to inform the reader that the medical community believes that people with severe suicidal ideation should seek immediate medical assistance. Some of the readers of this will, in fact, be undergoing severe suicidial ideation, and may very well seek medical assistance - thus, informed readers will make intelligent choices. The statement, as long as it is worded factually, encyclopedically and NPOVly, will serve both your purposes and mine. While I believe my goal of saving people from suicide would be better adressed by replacing most of these pages with giant text saying SEEK HELP IMMEDIATELY IF YOU ARE CONSIDERING SUICIDE, that would not serve your goal whatsoever. I believe we can work together on this. Obviously, given that I have changed my mind, and you have changed yours (previously, you were arguing about POV, which I believe I fixed, now you believe the template at large is bad) you can change yours as well. Finally, WP:NOT a democracy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I still think there's a POV concern here, don't get me wrong about that. Still, you've again as much as stated that the purpose of the warning is to encourage readers to seek medical assistance, which is still advancing a particular POV. I don't think *any* statement will address my concerns here, Hipocrite. The only thing that will address both of our concerns is a neutral and factual series of articles about suicide that provides all the information about suicide in a neutral and encyclopedic way. I certainly sympathize with your goal of saving people from suicide, as I've done my share of that in the past as well. But that goal is misplaced on an encyclopedia. — Phil Welch 17:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Let's solve your POV concern, then. Without looking at my motiviations, which I was gracious enough to tell you of my own volition, what could be done aside from the complete removal of the bottom bit to return the template to NPOV? Let's focus on editing for the enemy here (which I would note, I did when I inserted the cultural and religious views bit before the medical views). You don't disagree that the medical community believes what I say they believe, right? I don't disagree that social and religious views are divided (though I believe I went a bit far - if I were in the mood to argue, I'd say that some fringe religions and cultures believe suicide to be acceptable, but I'm willing to give). I believe the current statement discloses all sides of the "dispute" as it were, which is the definition of NPOV. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"what could be done aside from the complete removal of the bottom bit to return the template to NPOV?" Well, other concerns alone, adding a note about the variety of views that might argue that suicide is a reasonable option would restore it to NPOV. But that would be sloppy and unencyclopedic. The only way to address all of my concerns is complete removal. — Phil Welch 17:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe I put such a note in there - did you review my second attempt at a statement at the bottom? I could have been more specific, if you would have liked - perhaps "The medical community believes that people with severe suicidal ideation should seek immediate medical assistance, while social and religious perspectives on suicide are varied. One society (you write text here)" Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

A stop must be put to this. Current consensus is for there not to be a disclaimer, and unless consensus shifts, that's how it will remain. The page has been protected. --Sn0wflake 17:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Under what Rationale are you putting this in WP:PP? Do you consider your prior statements to be involvement in an edit dispute? Do you not believe we were making headway? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The rationale of "do not protect pages you're in a dispute over" is to prevent admins from abusing their power in order to further their own views. If Sn0wflake is acting against his stated views here I think he's not only free of the spirit of that rule, but by the spirit of that rule he's a true Wikipedia hero. — Phil Welch 17:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not intend to discuss this with you, so sorry. I would like to hear why Snowflake protected a page that appeared, from my perspective, to be in a constructive dialogue, not an edit war. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I was just adding my own views. You are free to ignore them, as always. — Phil Welch 17:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not intend to make it seem that I am ignoring your views, or that I have always done so. I was certainly trying to incorporate what I think was what you wanted into what I wanted. I would just very much like to hear why Snowflake considers what was hopefully a productive discussion to be an "edit war." - oh, by the way - 6/4 now. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sn0wflake, if I'm not mistaken you actually think some sort of statement should be present, right? You said as much earlier on in the discussion, so if you still retain that view that would mean that you're choosing to respect a consensus you disagree with. I admire that :) — Phil Welch 17:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a similar discussion about this over at Talk:Suicide methods, I don't think the issue is resolved there yet. I don't think there should be a disclaimer put on any of the suicide pages for the simple reason that it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia except maybe in suicide prevention and common arguments for not committing suicide. Plus if there is a disclaimer on this template then Suicide methods will have two disclaimers. See also Wikipedia:Content labeling proposal. --Kewp (t) 17:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

To clarify things, yes, I do favor the insertion of a small disclaimer that does not imply the person is sick, etc, but I think the no-text version is neutral enough for everybody to be able to discuss the situation in a fair manner, without having to worry about edit-warring. In a sense, yes, I am doing a minor rule-bending, but I think that it's for the best of the discussion to not insert yet another admin in this situation. WP:IAR may be of some use at times. Of course, if anybody strongly disagrees I will probably have to undo the protection, but I sincerely believe this will help the discussion. --Sn0wflake 19:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Please do not enforce versions by page protection, which is what you appeared to be doing previously. Now that I understand you were not intening to do this, I have no problem with moving forward under protection, as long as there is actual movewment, which, of course, I do not believe there currently is. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

I don't see why you've started this poll when there is clearly no agreement to include a disclaimer at all. This doesn't seem valid to me at all. --Kewp (t) 18:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus to exclude any and all statements whatsoever. What we need, then, is a compromise, no? It's not a poll, it's a working area to work on stuff. (PS: if you disagree with my refactoring of your comment, please feel free to do whatever you want in terms of location and format. I apologize for any offense) Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, if you don't think my methodology to overcome the "edit war" is valid at all, what would you propose? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The question is whether to include some kind of disclaimer or not, not on the specific wording of the disclaimer. I don't see how there can be a "compromise" as you say, because a compromise would involve some kind of disclaimer: i.e. there is no middle ground between "disclaimer" and "no disclaimer". I would propose getting rid of the infobox altogether since there doesn't seem to be an agreement about its purpose. Perhaps on each of the individual suicide-related pages there could be a (continued) discussion about whether or not include such so-called helpful information. (But I would still argue strongly against that in those cases too). I also would suggest that we abide by Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates, which has been brought up many times by various editors. Maybe you should work on changing that policy, because it seems that you have run into quite a bit of controversy over these pages. I also am putting my comment back where I originally placed it, because you've set up a poll (even if you say it's not, in my opinion it is), I want to comment on its appropriateness. (but no problem, no need to apologize) Thanks, Kewp (t) 19:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Kewp. Incidentally, my proposed consensus option was to prominently feature the "Ethics of suicide" section, as well as retaining the link to "list of crisis hotlines." Of course, I just implemented that instead of being a dick and proposing it as a "compromise". As for consensus, Snowflake has accepted the no-text option (despite his own disagreements), and Kewp has newly joined the discussion, making it 8 to 3 by my count. — Phil Welch 19:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's 7:5 now, as you don't get to take credit for Snowflake, who proposed something I'd sign on to. The above paragraph reads to me as if you are accusing me of being a dick. Is that what you intended? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Five? I counted 6 to 3 counting Snowflake among the three. One person joined your side, one person joined my side, and Snowflake is tenable to both sides. That makes 7 to 3 with one person who will accept either. Incidentally, I didn't accuse you of anything, I just said that certain behaviors were incivil. Have you engaged in those behaviors? I haven't noticed. — Phil Welch 19:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

As voting is evil, this is my final statement on this. Your count is innacurate. I am glad that you were not accusing me of being a dick. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. It is very specific with respect to what it entails - "Disclaimer templates are templates that duplicate the information at one of the five disclaimer pages." The statement that people contemplating suicide should seek help does not duplicate the information at one of the disclaimer pages. While I disagree with your statement that there is no middle ground between disclaimer and no disclaimer (and, in fact, I believe that I have repeatedly reached for that middle ground, and the repeated unwillingness of anyone to consider alternative solutions is exactly the problem here). However, I am willing to poll on that instead, and I include such a poll below, having deleted the one above. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Either there's a statement, or there isn't a statement. I don't think any statement of any kind can be included, and I'm not changing my mind. I am not unwilling to consider "alternative solutions"--as I explained above, I implemented an alternative solution. — Phil Welch 19:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Would you guys have a look at my proposal? It's not a disclaimer, I would rather call it "a short informative text". --Sn0wflake 19:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Because I accidentally removed your proposal in getting rid of the poll which bothered two people - it was, and I agree to it as well - "People seeking help on averting suicidal thoughts should refer to a local crisis hotline." Though I would suggest linking crisis hotline to list of crisis hotlines by country. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

That's not informative. It's prescriptive. It's absurd to tell the reader what to do, absolutely non-neutral, and completely unacceptable. — Phil Welch 19:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It tells the reader how to do something they already want to do. Can I ask if you personally support suicide, in a completly non-accusatory way - and I don't mean VE? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I've spent a night trying to talk someone I love out of killing herself, Hipocrite. As I've already said, I'm against suicide in most circumstances. That's not my motivation here. My motivation here is to write an encyclopedia. We can both stop people from killing themselves on our own time and resources, but I, for one, will not compromise the Wikipedia to advance that agenda. — Phil Welch 19:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

For future reference, in the event someone confesses suicidal thoughts to you, the best course of action is not to try to "talk them down" without professional training. You should seek the advice of a medical professional while either restraining the individual physically or stalling them verbally. I do not believe that substantial damage is done by inserting one brief sentence to the bottom of one template on a handful of articles. Do you not see the substantial benefit? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, she doesn't trust medical professionals. I don't see any potential benefit—the information they need is already there if they're looking for it, and if they're not looking for it it won't stop them. Furthermore, I consider the goal of writing a neutral encyclopedia our only consideration—important enough that I'm not going to compromise that consideration just because I don't want people to kill themselves. — Phil Welch 20:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You raise two adressable objections - the first is that if they are not looking for it, it won't stop them. This is not accurate. As I've said before, and this here is an appeal to my authority (I volunteered at one of those hotlines nights for 4 years), the statement that thinking about suicide a lot is a condition that requires medical assistance is a shock to people who are considering suicide - they consider thinking about suicide a lot to be perfectly normal. They consider considering suicide to be perfectly normal. They are shocked that everyone else is not thinking it. The statement that considering suicide is a problem that requires medical assistance, while it seems perfectly normal to us, does, in fact, save lives. Period. You appear to be saying that including a one sentence fact at the bottom of the template ("The medical community believes that severe suicidial ideation requires professional help," ) which will save lives would compromise the goal of writing a neutral encyclopedia. I would argue that the slight impact on something that including an neutral, encyclopedic, factual, verified statement out of place is more than balanced by the fact that it will save lives. PS - it's not she that talks to the professional, it's you. You call the crisis help line and say you are on the other line with your friend who has said "what she said," and you ask them what to do, specifically. They tell you what to say. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Precisely. I think the above is the crux of this dispute - if the message (not a disclaimer!) will have no effect, we shouldn't have it because it's POV, but if it can have an effect (and Hipocrite, the one with experience, says it can), we should have it (in a neutral fashion, of course, like "is considered by the medical community to be"). ~~ N (t/c) 20:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

So the message does violate NPOV, but it's justified if it might save lives? In that case, talk to Jimbo. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable, so until you can abolish that bit of policy, we cannot have it. — Phil Welch 20:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Putting a neutral, encyclopedic, factual, verified statement in the wrong place is not a violation of NPOV. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"the statement that thinking about suicide a lot is a condition that requires medical assistance is a shock to people who are considering suicide". OK. They're going to find that statement in the article already. They don't need it in the template, since they're already going to read that statement in the article itself. "I would argue that the slight impact on something that including an neutral, encyclopedic, factual, verified statement out of place is more than balanced by the fact that it will save lives." You're not addressing my reductio ad absurdum. If the potential of saving lives is important enough to compromise writing a neutral encyclopedia then by that reasoning, we would h ave to do a number of things that would completely destroy the goal of writing an encyclopedia. — Phil Welch 20:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You do not present a reductio ad absurdum, because the statement that "the balance of equities on this topic requires" does not translate to "the balance of equities on all topics require." Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

There can be no balance of equities on the neutral point of view. NPOV is absolute. You would be better off disputing whether or not it is NPOV. As you assert, "Putting a neutral, encyclopedic, factual, verified statement in the wrong place is not a violation of NPOV." But that is plainly false. Making a factually verified statement outside of the proper context is a violation of NPOV. NPOV relates not only to statements themselves, but also the context in which they are made. If a point which would seem to support one point of view is made, points that support opposing points of view must also be made within the same context to maintain neutrality. Take the following statement: "Studies have shown that women who have abortions tend to experience a number of long-term negative emotional, psychological, and medical effects." That statement is a true, factual, and verified statement, but by making that statement out of context, I am presenting a significant bias. On the other hand, making that same statement within the proper context would be neutral. In other words, where a statement is placed in terms of context is very, very important to NPOV. — Phil Welch 21:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

At the moment there is a technical tie happening consensus-wise, so let's try to move forward a little... Philwelch, do you absolutely and completely reject the idea of inserting any text on the bottom of the template, even if we tweak it to a point in which it reflects all views and is essentially NPOV (let's assume for a moment that we will be able to do that)? --Sn0wflake 22:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"there is a technical tie happening consensus-wise " No, there isn't. Not if you count all the views that have been expressed here. You don't get to make an end run by waiting for the furor to die down and bringing up the issue again, and then pretending that everyone who disagreed with you before doesn't count anymore.

"Philwelch, do you absolutely and completely reject the idea of inserting any text on the bottom of the template, even if we tweak it to a point in which it reflects all views and is essentially NPOV (let's assume for a moment that we will be able to do that)?" I do not think there is any condition in which we can sensibly insert text at the bottom of the template. — Phil Welch 22:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

After taking a 5 day break from this encyclopedia to keep me from losing my head further, I changed the template and began discussions in talk, in attempts to reach a compromise that would be acceptable to all. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't think I don't appreciate that. But that doesn't nullify the opinions of those who were around five days ago. And as far as I can see, your "compromise" consists of you getting your way. Guess what: there already is a compromise version, that's the version it's edited to presently, and you're not accepting it. — Phil Welch 22:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's take this one step at a time. Philwelch, I will ask that you stop assuming bad faith on my part. The tie is happening on the current discussion, that's what I mean. Fuck, the template does not have any disclaimer, does it? That's what consensus decided in the past few days. Now we are trying something different, which is reaching a kind of consensus in which all parts can be satisfied. Without us trying to establish a point which is agreeable to all, this will need to be taken to a higher mediation proccess, which always takes a very long time and ends up throwing a lot of POV into the discussion, so what I am asking is that you try to propose something with which you would agree with. Something, anything which is not "nothing", so that we can try to work upon that. Could you do that?

I'm not assuming bad faith on anyone's part. I'm simply pointing out your fallacy. There isn't a "current discussion" and "past discussion", it's the same discussion that's had a few days of hiatus.

My proposed compromise is as follows: in return for not adding the warning at the bottom, I will not question or remove the inclusion of list of crisis hotlines by country. — Phil Welch 00:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

In addition, I would like to question why it is that my opinion—the opinion, incidentally, of the majority—is the opinion that must be compromised. I have seen no significant compromise on the other side, nothing to suggest that Hipocrite would be willing to accept an alternative to the warning, only different phrasings and different attempts to try and get the reader not to kill themselves. The fact is, a working consensus was established. I was the first to make a compromise on this issue. And now, I am being asked to compromise more, just so Hipocrite can get his way. — Phil Welch 00:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Cry more. I could write exactly the same thing about you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

If you don't agree with an intermediary solution, then there is nothing to be negotiated with Hipocrite and Nickptar in the first place. Disconsider my position at the moment, if you must. I'm just trying to do my job in the best way possible, and, as I see it — excuse me if I'm wrong — the best alternative is to see whether you would at all be willing to discuss the inclusion of a short informative text on the template. Then discussion regarding its contents could ensue and we could see whether this is workable. It is, however, true that I am in some level disregarding the first opinions given on this matter. The general idea has changed and the discussion now is much broader and different ideas are being taken into consideration. It is, regardless of the continuity sense that has been generated, an essentially different discussion, unless the sole reasoning of the user in question is an empty "No disclaimers allowed! See the rule!". The users are, of course, free to come back and give their opinions on the matter once more, to present their views on the discussion as it currently stands. --Sn0wflake 01:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I have proposed an intermediary solution: in return for not adding the warning at the bottom, I will not question or remove the inclusion of list of crisis hotlines by country. Yes, different questions are being asked. But we still haven't resolved the first question of whether there is to be such a notice at all. What is essentially going on is that you've skipped ahead to "how to we phrase the disclaimer" while ignoring the question of "should there be a disclaimer". It's a different discussion, but one that is structured to shut out opposing views. — Phil Welch 01:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

... well, I have tried. Both Hipocrite and Nickptar may proceed to a mediation/comment proccess if they wish to do so, and so may you. I have unprotected the template. --Sn0wflake 02:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Refactoring and summary of views

Main issue

Against warning text

Against (Uncompromising) There can be no warning text at the bottom (WTB):

1. Phil Welch 19:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Kewp (t) 19:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Clawed 03:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
5. DES ^(talk) 23:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Against (Compromising) While it is my preference not to include a WTB, I am willing for it to be included for the sake of compromise:

Against (Total) It would be better not to include a WTB (note, this is meant to be logically entailed by the above, so all who agree to either condition above also agree to this):

1. Phil Welch 19:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Kewp (t) 19:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Clawed 03:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Expressed opinion of User:Aquillion (see above)
5. Expressed opinion of User:Eequor (see above)
6. Expressed opinion of User:Jijinmachina (see above)
7. Expressed opinion of User:Goethean (see above)
8. Expressed opinion of User:Dolsson5 (see below)
9. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Expressed opinion of User:Wouterstomp (see below)
11. Expressed opinion of User:Jareth (see below)
12. Expressed opinion of User:Zoz (see below)
13. DES ^(talk) 23:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

For warning text

For (Uncompromising): We must include a WTB:

1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Derex @ 18:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

For (Compromising) While it is my preference to include a WTB, I am willing for it not to be included for the sake of compromise:

1. Expressed opinion of User:Sn0wflake

For (Total): It would be better to include a WTB (note, this is meant to be logically entailed by the above, so all who agree to either condition above also agree to this):

1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Expressed opinion of User:Sn0wflake
3. Expressed opinion of User:Nickptar
4. Derex (as above)
5. User:Edwinstearns (as expressed below)
6. User:Klonimus (expressed below)

For disclaimer specifically

An actual disclaimer should be used in place of any other WTB. Agreement with this statement does not constitute agreement with the use of a WTB in general, only the specific use of a disclaimer.

1. Expressed opinion of User:Celestianpower

Phil Welch (no longer hold this view due to Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates)

On the issue of compromise

1. There is, in principle, a middle ground where all will be satisifed:

1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
2. --Sn0wflake 19:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
3. There should be a message (not disclaimer!) on some articles, not on others. ~~ N (t/c) 20:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

On the term "disclaimer"

1. A WTB is "not a disclaimer. A disclaimer disclaims legal liability."

1. Expressed opinion of User:Nickptar
2. — Phil Welch 00:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

1a. Many of the proposed WTB stated so far do not violate Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates

1. — Phil Welch 00:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Expressed opinion of User:Hipocrite

Comments

1. Comment As I see it, and I'm not trying to be annoying here, there is no "middle ground where all will be satisfied," because I for one will not be satisfied with a disclaimer, no matter what its form. I apologize for sounding harsh here, but I see even a small disclaimer type thing to be inappropriate. I don't think readers need to see information about crisis hotlines and seeking medical attention when they are looking at the articles on Suicide bombing, Voluntary euthanasia, and Right to die (or any of the others). I think that it would show a particular judgment on the subject, is NPOV, and above all unnecessary. I also wish that Hipocrite would put the first "poll" back on the page so it's clear what my above comments are about. I really find the "refactoring" a bit hasty and confusing. --Kewp (t) 19:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Do whatever you want. You wanted it gone, I deleted it. Now you want it back. Reinsert it. You raise a good point, and as such I suggest two suicide templates - suicide and suicidenolist. The nolist can go on VE (which should be removed from the suicide template alltogehter, as I've proposed), Right to Die (also should be removed) and Suicide Bombing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that the poll should be deleted. I said that it was invalid. It should be kept on the main page so other parties can see the history of the discussion. But whatever, not a big deal!--Kewp (t) 07:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Right to die and voluntary euthanasia are both relevant to the topic of suicide. Someone researching suicide will be interested in those articles, and someone researching those issues may be interested in other suicide-related topics. Suicide bombing is also relevant. Why do you want them removed? — Phil Welch 20:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It is POV to include voluntary euthanasia and right to die in a template about suicide, as it would be POV to include an article about abortion in the template about murder. I discuss this far above here. If they are to be included in the template, they can be in an alternative template without whatever statement we hammer out added to it whatsoever. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

How is it POV? The right to die is an issue concerning suicide, and whether people have the right to commit it. VE is more questionable but in many cases--say, when VE takes the form of assisted suicide where the person to be euthanized takes positive action on his own part to bring about his own death--VE constitutes suicide as well. Your analogy fails. — Phil Welch 20:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Only because your POV believes that right to die is an issue concerning suicide, which is the nature of the dispute. We are getting sidetracked. You can have the last word below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Right to die is the belief that in certain circumstances people have the right to decide whether to commit suicide. How can that possibly be unrelated to suicide? — Phil Welch 20:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

FYI, this is not a disclaimer. A disclaimer disclaims legal liability. ~~ N (t/c) 20:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Why then, if a disclaimer only disclaims legal liability, does the guideline list "the exception" to the rule: i.e. "Template:spoiler is the exception." That template does not disclaim legal liability. I think the guideline as it stands, is ambiguous, but it does provide a general philosophy for these kinds of things, both risk disclaimers and others. Arguing about whether this is a disclaimer or not is besides the point, the proposed changes to the template, I believe are against the spirit of Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates--Kewp (t) 07:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC/Editing pact

I hereby propose to Hipocrite, Nickptar, and the other participants in this discussion, the following pact:

1. We, the undersigned, will jointly compose an Article Request for Comment to be posted so that other editors can come and join the discussion. Upon agreement over the phrasing of the RfC, the RfC will be posted.
2. Should the RfC process fail to yield a conclusive consensus, we, the undersigned, will decide jointly whether to escalate the issue to RfM and participate in a formal mediation.
3. Until a consensus is reached and agreed upon, we the undersigned, will refrain from making disputed edits to the template.

Signatures:

• — Phil Welch 03:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• - Kewp (t) 07:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC). I think it would be interesting to get some feedback about this matter.
• ~~ N (t/c) 14:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC) With reservation. I will not bring the question of "No disclaimer templates" to RFC, as I have not seen a valid comparison of what we have proposed and any of the five disclaimers which shows any overlap whatsoever.

Comments

In response to your comment, Hipocrite. I think that's fine if we don't mention the "No disclaimer template" issue on the RfC. The RfC page says to state "briefly and neutrally what the debate is about." Basically we need to come up with a sentence or two to put on the RfC describing the problem we're having here. It seems like we're basically in agreement about putting this issue on an RfC. So I'm going to propose an initial wording:

Template talk:Suicide Should this navigational template for suicide related pages include a short message encouraging readers who are thinking about suicide to seek medical attention?

What do people think about this? Also I think that we should put it in the style issues part of the RFC, unless someone thinks it would be better elsewhere.--Kewp (t) 16:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to propose "Template talk:Suicide Should this navigational template for suicide related pages include a short statement that medical consensus is that people who are considering suicide or undergoing severe suicidial ideation should seek immediate assistance?" Can we multipost the RFC? I would also like it in the relevent topic area - Maths, NS and tech. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think "severe suicidal ideation" is a bit unclear (although it may be the correct term)...is there a simpler phrasing, i.e. "suicidal thoughts"? I don't know what suicidal ideation is, so I think another phrasing might be clearer. Also I think the part "medical consensus is that people who are considering suicide or undergoing (severe suicidal ideation) should seek immediate assistance" should be in quotation marks since that is the part in question that you want to add to the template. Also, the RfC page says that it's okay to list the issue in two places, but no more than that. (why maths, ns, and tech though? these seem the most irrelevent to suicide...)--Kewp (t) 17:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, willing to go with suicidial thoughts. math, ns and tech is where articles about medicine would go - thus, individuals there would be able to more accurately evaluate the positive benefits of including the statement. Could you put forward what I think we both think the consensus statement is? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Template talk:Suicide-- Should this navigational template for suicide related pages include a short statement that "medical consensus is that people who are considering suicide or having suicidal thoughts should seek immediate assistance"?

I'm okay with this statement, but why don't we wait to see if it's okay with Philwelch and Nickptar before we go ahead and post it on the RfC. (Oh yes, and now I understand the math, ns, and tech idea).--Kewp (t) 17:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I largely agree with this consensus. I'm glad we can work together on this. — Phil Welch 17:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine. ~~ N (t/c) 18:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I added Template talk:Suicide to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, natural science, and technology.--Kewp (t) 07:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

I'm in favor of a message encouraging those considering suicide to seek medical attention. The message in the template seems very mild and NPOV. I would prefer a more strongly worded message, but I would accept it. — Edwin Stearns | Talk 21:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I am against the template message encouraging those considering suicide to seek medical attention. I think this is a dangerous precedent toward giving advice. We are an encyclopedia, not an advice site. Certainly within the article the statement could find a place, being after all factual. But at the navigational template level it constitutes advice. There are many suicide-related web pages available whose place is to advise. But not here. --Dolsson5 03:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Not for or against the statement itself, but I don't think it belongs to a navigational template --WS 10:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Dolsson5. We do not encourage suicide and by the same token, are not here to discourage it -- articles exist to discuss pertinent facts. If seeking medical attention is one of those facts, include it in the article(s). Navigational templates should be left alone to do their jobs without encumberance. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I am against the template message and completely agree with Dolsson5. Try typing "suicide" in Google: you'll find lots of advice and many subjective/personal web pages. In my opinion, if someone seeks advice on the Internet, he or she would use search engines rather than the objective Wikipedia whereas people searching for facts/information would find a navigation template without messages more useful. Of course, I'm not against the statement, I think that message may be included in the article. But not in the template. --Zoz 18:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that the warning makes sense and should be included, we have similar warnings on articles about explosives and other dangerious topics.If needed we can have the warning link to a list of suicide recources. Klonimus 03:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Could please show us an example of this as I could not find any.--Clawed 19:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

A fundamental question is whether it is possible to add such a message neutrally & usefully. I believe it is possible. It's a little hard from scanning the discussion to determine the exact wording of the various 'warnings'. However, scanning the edit history, it seems to be in the general spirit of "suicidal intentions are generally considered a medical emergency, here's a link to help" In virtually any other context, I would agree that such a warning is inappropriate for Wikipedia. In this case only, I do feel strongly that such a beast should be included, regardless of any general policy. I am well acquainted with suicide & suicidal thinking in people I have cared about. The fact is that many (depressed) suicidal people do surf the web looking for ideas & information. If there is any chance that one person will go to a hotline because of that disclaimer, then I believe it is irresponsible not to include it. I believe there is such a chance, and indeed a great likelihood, given the vast number of people at question. In short, there is much more at stake here than the aesthetic of a pristine encyclopedia. Further, such a 'warning' can easily be written from a NPOV. Derex @ 18:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks like we're pretty much maintaining a 2 to 1 ratio on this. This dispute continues to be intractable, but just on the off chance something might happen, I'd like to see more proposed warnings. I continue to doubt that I'll see one I can accept, but it's worth a try. — Phil Welch 18:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Again you are focused on the ratio of people (which, again, I totally dispute), but assuming you are sincere in your quest for proposed warnings, "While social and religious perspectives on suicide are varied, the medical community believes that people considering suicide should seek immediate medical assistance."

I've tried to count all opinions expressed on this talk page. If there's some I've misinterpreted or forgotten to count, I encourage you to point them out. The reason I'm focused on the ratio of people is that consensus in many cases amounts to supermajority, and to some extent we have that. As for your proposal, it still strikes me as a little POV, as it rather clearly emphasizes one point of view at the expense of others. — Phil Welch 20:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Propose an alternative. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't. Either I'm not creative enough to figure out a neutrally-phrased warning text, or there is no such thing. The best I can do is analyze what's wrong with all the warning texts we can think of until we find one that doesn't have any of those problems. If you don't find that useful, we can work on developing an alternative to the warning text. — Phil Welch 20:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You state that the template I pt above is "emphasizes one point of view at the expense of others." Please provide a version that has more weight on the point of view that you consider expensed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, omitting the entire "the medical community believes…" section would make it more balanced, although completely random and out-of-place. See? As soon as you satisfy one criteria you fail the other criteria. I'm not creative enough to get outside this paradox so I implore you to try again. — Phil Welch 21:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikiepedia is an encyclopedia, so let's be one: "Wikipedia and the contributors to this article have written this to look at and document the pheonomena of suicide- the taking of one's own life, without passing judgment on the act, or encouraging it. This article was not written to provide help for those struggling with this experience, however those looking for help or resources in dealing with it can find resources and links at the end."

Or something like that?

Sethie 09:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Again I'm reading an RfC that has something to do with political commentary. The disclaimer is out. Think of it like this If you picked up a bound encylopedia and opened it to an article on this topic would you expect to find disclaimers in it telling people not to kill themselves. No you wouldn't. If it isn't in the classic referance by what expectation would you have for it to be here? When I look to an encyclopedia I do not expect to find referances to suicide hotlines and links to pages that spout political propaganda telling what is right or wrong, nor do I expect the encyclopedic referance (it self) attempt to relive itself from liability by use of diclamers. Here is the point boys and girls if a referance document such as this only presents fuctual information and excludes all opinions then their is no need for a disclaimer because the publisher cannot be held liable for stateing facts. You cannot sue GE because light illuminates things. That is a fact GE makes use of by producing lightbulbs for profit. Documenting a fact is free from liability. Only when you begin to state opinions you open your self for liability. So in conclusion I say this if their is need for a disclaimer then the editor has not done his/her job in presenting facts.

What's wrong with relevant links?

For example, the template (unless it's been vandalized since I last looked) included a link to "List of suicide hotlines" or something like that. A few links within the template (without commentary) to articles relevant to dealing with suicidal thoughts seems perfectly appropriate; and I cannot for the life of me see why it doesn't satisfy the concern of the disclaimer proponents. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the entire "ethics of suicide" section under that same rationale. Hipocrite's main concern is to convey to suiciders that the medical community considers severe suicidal ideation to be a medical emergency--maybe we can fork off an article called "Suicide as a medical emergency" and link it with the suicide hotlines, and section them together? Would that work? — Phil Welch 21:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: I might even be willing to accept some sort of indication that those articles are provided for the benefit of people suffering from suicidal ideation. — Phil Welch 21:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Suicide
other entries
Resources for dealing with suicidal thoughts
Crisis hotline
List of crisis hotlines by country
Suicide prevention
Medical views on suicide

OK, here's a proposal. What do you think? — Phil Welch 21:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Philwelch's proposed template box looks good to me. Even the section title, which indeed describes the type of articles listed below it. Of course, someone needs to write the page Medical views on suicide, but maybe Hippocrite would want to do that. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Resources for those suffering from suicidal thoughts, please? (medical views on suicide are rightly included in Suicide at large) Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I prefer medical views as part of "resources"; but hopefully that's a minor matter and a compromise on these lines can work. I also tried to reword the section name for brevity.

Most of suicide right now describes medical views of suicide. We can just fork it off. — Phil Welch 21:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think most of the first two sections of Suicide could move to a subarticle, with just a brief synopsis and a link (i.e. "Suicidal thoughts as a medical emergency" and "Treatment"). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Done, in a rough-draft sort of way. Hipocrite, I think that medical views on suicide can be repeated in the template, possibly in a slightly more coy fashion (say, a "views on suicide" section with links that simply state "legal", "religious", "medical", etc., all linking to separate articles.) — Phil Welch 21:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

This looks fine to me. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 22:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this model, but I would prefer "dealing" in place of "treating". Otherwise, I give it my ok. --Sn0wflake 22:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that this is acceptable. — Edwin Stearns | Talk 17:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Final assent

OK, now that Medical views on suicide exists and is linked to from the template under "Views of suicide", I propose we replace the Crisis hotline section with the section above if there are no counterproposals or objections. This replacement would provide two separate links for Medical views of suicide, but it would be formatted so that this did not look ugly.' I also hereby propose that a consensus acceptance of this issue would constitute a resolution of the dispute, so that we could edit the template proper with this compromise solution. Fellow editors? — Phil Welch 22:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Suicide prevention should be included. Derex @ 02:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. That's not really a resource for the suicidal person themselves, but perhaps we could call the section "Resources for treating suicidal thoughts" which would make it more relevant? — Phil Welch 22:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, that's good. The heading shouldn't be limited to the sufferers. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 22:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Avoids the bad precedent of a disclaimer, which was my concern. — goethean ॐ 22:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure. It's not as forceful as I think it really should be, but it serves its purpose. ~~ N (t/c) 23:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that that section ought to be arranged in order of interest from someone with suicidal thoughts. Klonimus 23:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free, I'm not sure what you were thinking of doing, but it seemed to be roughly in that order already. — Phil Welch 23:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It looks really good. Avoids direct message or comment but groups articles so that a person seeking assistance finds relevant articles quickly. Cleverly done. --Zoz 00:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Much better than the disclaimer; good call Phil. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Derex @ 02:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no great objections to it. I would prefer a simpler heading for the section (something like "Suicide and depression resources", which is essentially what they are). I also don't really see the need to repeat the "medical views on suicide" link in a section devoted to resources--the purpose of a template like this is to assist in navigation, and presenting one article in two places can only make navigating with it slightly more confusing. But those are relatively minor issues. --Aquillion 02:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Aquillion's section title is better, IMO. But agreed that it's a minor issue. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a little too generic, though. --Sn0wflake 03:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Aquillion's proposed title is too generic. And I agree that the "medical views on suicide" link shouldn't be repeated. --Zoz 14:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm mostly away from my computer for the next few weeks, but I just wanted to say that this seems like the right direction to go in. I think Phil's proposal would work well, and would hopefully satisfy those who would like to see a helpful "disclaimer" (I know it's really not one...). As to the title, I agree with Snowflake, I think something like "Resources for treating suicidal thoughts" or the original one would be clearer and more helpful for someone who needs help. I'm glad that we're making progress on this.--Kewp (t) 13:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine with me. I prefer the version exampled in the section above to Aquillion's version. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Implementation

So this is the face of consensus. I'm very pleased. Since there's obviously a consensus, I'm going to be bold and edit the template thusly, having satisfied the editing pact. Thanks, everyone, for your cooperation! — Phil Welch 21:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I wanted to add, if someone wants to make minor changes we can discuss that here too, I don't think we've reached a final form yet. — Phil Welch 21:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Internet suicide

I find the combination of two phrases under the "suicide pact/internet suicide" really ugly looking. I'm not really convinced that "internet suicide" is a sufficiently distinct concept to merit being in the template at all; but if it is to be there, it should really, really be as its own item (even if that item redirects; as I made it do). The items in the template should actually tell you what they are linking to, not try to incorporate some indirect commentary or forshadowing of what you'll find at those articles. I'm changing it back to something non-ugly. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't! I forked the two articles just now! — Phil Welch 00:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

What I was going to do was exactly what you did (actually, I had done it before, and was reverted to the ugly version)... but happily, you beat me to it. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright :) — Phil Welch 02:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for taking the time to consult with, and consider the concerns of, the actual author of the article before butchering it. Not a great way to keep new contributors around... but maybe that's the aim.... --Victoria 21:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

In defense of the editors, you jumped into the middle of a quite fierce discussion at a point in which everyone wants to get things done and solved for good, so you just didn't have much luck. Keep around, this is the exception rather than the rule. --Sn0wflake 21:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you thought your article was "butchered", but it's not all that helpful to have a possessive attitude towards articles around here. To quote the edit page, "If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, do not submit it." That seems a little callous but if you think the article is better your way (and you'd be willing to accept not having an explicit link to "internet suicide" in the template), then Lulu and I would probably accept that too. Sorry. I will say that now that we've resolved the other issue I, for, one, have more time to address this problem. — Phil Welch 21:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't even figure out which article Victoria is talking about. If Internet suicide, how could Philwelch (or anyone) "butcher" an article that had not even existed until yesterday?! If this is about the article Suicide pact, it's definitely a lot better with the internet suicide moved to a separate article (the topics are only loosely linked, and suicide pacts predate the internet by thousands of years).

In any case, there's no such thing are "actual author" of WP articles. There are only editors; an earlier editor has absolutely no priority over a later one, and no special deference is due based on editing sequence. Philwelch did very good in sorting out the proper articles (and in improving the template). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Philwelch: As I previously stated to you, I greatly REGRET having introduced the "internet suicide note" if this is what it has led to, and would HAPPILY drop the whole matter if you would restore the piece to its original unified version. Thank you for reconsidering this issue. --Victoria 22:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. You can actually restore previous versions yourself, check Wikipedia:Revert for instructions. That said, you should probably talk it over more with Lulu before actually doing so, because reverting can get pretty contentious on Wikipedia. I hope you stay and keep working on Wikipedia. — Phil Welch 22:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Lulu: I have no problem with others editing my work. I simply do not agree that PhilWelch's division of the article represents an IMPROVEMENT, and ask that my opinion be considered. I believe it was done unnecessarily, in haste, and that the article was not carefully read and understood before doing so. --Victoria 22:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

PhilWelch: To further clarify my position: What you are referring to as "internet suicide" ARE "suicide pacts" and therefore should not be treated as a SEPARATE subject. In the same way that an "internet suicide note" is still a "suicide note" and therefore should stay within that subject heading. This is NOT about my simply objecting to any changes to my contributions (which I agree would be unreasonable). This is a very specific objection motivated by what I feel would be a LESS CONFUSING way of presenting the issue. --Victoria 22:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Philwelch's changes improve both articles, but this is the wrong place to discuss it. Bring the matter to the talk pages of Internet suicide and Suicide pact, see what editors there think. Generally, reverting is a bad idea, but expanding/improving is a good idea. I probably won't participate in editing either article (I could be wrong). I just don't want links in the template to be to something other than the actual article titles (i.e. no annotation of "what you'll find if you go read the article"). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I realize that, Victoria. It's just that on Wikipedia we have lots of articles where different aspects of the same subject are treated under different titles. — Phil Welch 22:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

See particularly Wikipedia:Summary style Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, as per Lulu's request, I am continuing the discussion of this issue at the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suicide_pact -- and I will consider all opinions posed there before deciding whether or not to revert the article. --Victoria 22:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Table reformatting

I took the initiative to reformat the content in the table itself (a 25px widening allowed for 40% height reduction) because of this height reduction I resectioned it more along the style of Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar (my example) If you folks feel I've overstepped here, feel free to discuss this and/or revert.  ALKIVAR™ 22:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Good move. I like it this way. --Sn0wflake 22:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)