Talk:Suicide methods

Suicide Helplines

See also: fr:Discussion:Moyen de suicide § Bandeau d'avertissement

I know that wikipedia believes that people have the right to search everything and I am for that. However, I think it would be best to at least show at the top a suicide prevention hotline warning. People who are searching for this may be conspiring to end their lives and we should do the best we can to stop that. 177.18.225.191 (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes please do this. I am in a dark place and this article is not helping. 172.92.9.6 (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed countless times before and the consensus was to not display the hotline on the article itself. However, the talk page contains various resources. It has also shown that most people arrive here through a search engine, which will most likely already contain hotlines/resources. -- ChamithN (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be best to at least show at the top a suicide prevention hotline warning

Yes please do this. I am in a dark place and this article is not helping.

Agree with IPs 177 and 172. And I don’t think we should use old consensus to suppress / deny (the formation of) new consensus. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

If you feel you may physically harm yourself, or others: Click here for a list of crisis support resources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Why is there no help line provided

There should be a help line provided at top of this Wikipedia site 2003:C6:3F2A:ED00:5D7A:A8F0:A38B:1E8A (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a link at the top of this page, where it says "The Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety team maintains a list of crisis support resources."

Additionally, it looks like 95% of people who arrive at this page are coming from web search engines, which means they have likely seen a message about their local crisis line(s) in the last few seconds. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they may have seen a message with one telephone number, but our list has much more detail and is more comprehensive. It offers more than one number for each place (and some numbers maybe specific for different people, e.g., youths, pregnant women, drug abusers, victims of violence, etc.). Further, a sad truth is that, in some places, the local crisis line returned by search engines is usually busy. It’s just a recording machine with no one answering the calls. It’s important to show people the other numbers. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC); 02:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

BTW, for those who have concerns about the 988 suicide crisis line, from this report: “Some advocates and people who had experiences with the mental health system took to social media to voice concerns about 988 and warn people not to call it”.

But that NPR report also found that:

• 988 cannot geolocate callers
• the person who authored the Instagram post calling 988 "not friendly" hadn't called the hotline herself.
• ”Only when the caller cannot or will not collaborate on a safety plan and the counselor feels the caller will harm themselves imminently should emergency services be called, according to the hotline's policy.”

P.S. The WMF list of resources is missing information for some places. Also, I can’t see it showing up on the top (or is it just me?) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok I see the WMF list of resources now. It’s hidden in the “sea of boxes”. And I thought you meant it’s on the top of the article too, but I misread.. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

988 -beefbaby182 (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

There should be a help line provided at top of this Wikipedia site

You are right. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Typo on number of deaths

Under List > Pesticide, it says in US pesticides are used in about 12 suicides. Based on the cited source information, I believe 12 million was meant. 172.102.168.219 (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Please elucidate. Suicide by pesticide is very rare in the US; it's far more common elsewhere. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

There can't possibly be 12 million suicides by pesticide each year in the US; there are only 3.5 million deaths each year in the US, and only 0.05 million of them are any kind of suicide. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this comment and I must say I’m baffled by the assertion that more people than the population of New York City are deliberately killing themselves with pesticides. Dronebogus (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Not in the United States, no. "Pesticide ingestion is one of the most common methods of suicide worldwide. It is responsible for an estimated 14 million deaths since the Green Revolution in the 1960s, when pesticides became widely used in small-scale farming." The Centre for Pesticide Suicide Prevention --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Nobody else believes you but I do 172. If it was 12 million in 2023 its probably closer to 20 million in 2024 LOVECEL ^🤍 16:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Based upon what data? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought 172 was a medical statistician but I'm having trouble finding a reliable source, perhaps it should be removed? LOVECEL ^🤍 18:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Why would you think a one-time contributor making ridiculous claims would be a medical statistician? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I had a vision that 172 was a medical statistician and he told me things that only a medical statistician could know LOVECEL ^🤍 20:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALANCE and general WP:NPOV issues

The article's primary topic is suicide methods, but there is too much unnecessary covering on prevention, which should be on the suicide prevention article instead. Also, there is no need to have a purpose of study section to "justify" the article; if there are enough reliable sources on the topic etc it already passes notability criteria. The "List" section should be at the top as well.. Yhyhyy (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Part of writing an encyclopedia article is to provide the reader with context for the article. I think that understanding why academics care about this particular niche helps people understand the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The way the article is written, including the lead section, is covering a topic that is not primary topic for Suicide Methods. It is covering wider aspects of suicide, and not suicide method per se. The "purpose of study" is NPOV, as it is biased towards prevention itself, little to do with suicide methods.

On the first paragraph on the lead section, only the first sentence describe suicide methods. And then, its third paragraph is again on suicide prevention. This article, as it is today (differently from years ago), clearly got censored (against WP:CENSOR) and biased towards suicide prevention (against WP:BALASP) instead of focusing describing the primary topic of the article, that is suicide methods, and NOT suicide prevention or suicidology. Yhyhyy (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I moved some content to improve the article to cover what is actually WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I would like to further reduce content on suicide prevention etc which is not topic of Suicide Methods, and move such content to their respective articles. Yhyhyy (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic is relevant? This is not a disambiguation page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

We have to be cognisant that descriptions of suicide methods encourage suicide, and Wikipedia, while seeking to be an unbiased encyclopaedia, should not be encouraging what is usually a mental health problem. By couching discussion of suicide methods within a wider context, we are literally saving lives. A bias towards prevention is a good thing. Bondegezou (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: What are your sources, data and statistics on "descriptions of suicide methods encourage suicide"? On Derek Humphry's "Final Exit" 2020 edition page 13, it clearly states "Fortunately, only a tiny portion of Americans commit suicide - approximately 31,000 a year out of an annual death rate of 2,250,000. That statistic has not increased since the publication of this book,". "The Peaceful Pill Hankbook" by Dr Philip Nitschke and Dr Fiona Stewart also states "There has no rise in the suicide rate. Providing people with information does not incite or encourage people to die."Yhyhyy (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe either of the two books you cite would meet WP:MEDRS criteria for being reliable. Indeed, Final Exit, as a book that provides information on suicide methods, clearly has an interest in saying this is not a problem. No, we should consider what the academic literature says instead.

Florentine & Crane (2010, doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.029), a review article, wrote, "It is concluded that in appropriate contexts, where substitution is less likely to occur, and in conjunction with psychosocial prevention efforts, limitation of both physical and cognitive access to suicide can be an effective suicide prevention strategy." ("Cognitive access" here meaning "mainly with regard to the media in terms of providing access to technical information and sensational or inaccurate portrayals of suicide.)

Gunnell et al. (2012, doi:10.1016/j.jad.2012.04.015), a primary study, found, "Easy access to information about suicide methods and pro-suicide web sites on the Internet appears to contribute to a small but significant proportion of suicides."

Eriksen et al. (2020, doi:10.1027/0227-5910/a000701), a primary study, begins, "Information on methods of suicide is available online, and access to information on methods of suicide appears to contribute to a small but significant proportion of suicides." Bondegezou (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, attempts to sustain ignorance are fundamentally disrespectful of human ingenuity, and counterproductive because they deny information to the majority of the population who are socially responsible and use such information to identify individuals at risk and take appropriate corrective actions. Thewellman (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I think of this from a completely different angle: There have already been nine failed attempts to get this article deleted. Whether any given editor likes it or doesn't, we seem to be stuck with it. Therefore, we should write the most encyclopedic, policy-compliant article we can.

IMO that means, among other things, that it must not be written like a how-to guide, that it must provide context for the reader (e.g., why specific methods matter in the real world, how specific methods connect to suicide prevention), and that it must not express unencyclopedic viewpoints (e.g., by promoting any specific method as "best" or "good", by omitting ugly facts like pain and vomiting, or even by endorsing the idea of suicide).

(Also, the numbers that book are wrong. In 2020, about 46,000 Americans killed themselves.[1] Compared to 31,000, that's about a 50% increase, though there's no particular reason to blame the change on the book.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: Alright, I now notice the sources I gave are biased and hardly scientific, and after learning more about, I conclude that detailed descriptions of suicide can influence on people's behavior towards suicide, and thus shall be avoid. But I still think it is an issue that this article does not follow Wikipedia standards of encyclopedic article, against WP:NPOV (note that WP:NPOV "is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus") and WP:CENSOR. I edited the article to better suit those policies, but it was reverted without clarification on how this in agreement with NPOV. I believe suicide prevention on this article should be done differently, for example having a banner or similar warning users to seek professional support and hotlines in case of suicidal ideation Yhyhyy (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

"Neutral" is our wiki-jargon for an article that fairly and proportionately represents the viewpoints of high-quality sources. To give two made-up examples:

• All the historians say X, and some political campaigns in one country say Y: The article is neutral when it says X. The article is non-neutral if it says X and Y.
• Half the economists say A, and half the economists say B: The article is neutral when it says A and B. The article is non-neutral if it picks either side.

In what way do you think this article presents something different from what you would get if you read the medical literature?

If you're not familiar with the medical literature, then here are a couple of high-quality recent sources you could look at: PMID 34953923 and PMID 35977165. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

About the claim that "Providing people with information does not incite or encourage people to die": It's probably more complicated than that.

I read https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-11-30/dead-at-16 the other day, and it sounds like there are two competing things, both of which are simultaneously true: talking about suicide to a typical person does not prompt suicidal thoughts, but talking about specific deaths can sometimes trigger Suicide contagion, especially in already-vulnerable teens/young adults who have a small connection with the deceased. My overall takeaway from the article is that Postvention is hard (and our article on it needs a lot of work), but the smaller one is this: It is probably not true that you can provide just anybody with any information without anyone ever being harmed. It's probably safe to provide the information (as this article does, and IMO should) that the three most prevalent methods are hanging, pesticides, and firearms, but it may not be safe to say to just anyone "Hey, you remember that girl in your English class last year? Well, let me tell you all the details about her death..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request

The original:

A drug overdose involves taking a dose of a drug that exceeds safe levels. In the UK (England and Wales) until 2013, a drug overdose was the most common suicide method in females. In 2019 in males the percentage is 16%. Self-poisoning accounts for the highest number of non-fatal suicide attempts. In the United States about 60% of suicide attempts and 14% of suicide deaths involve drug overdoses. The risk of death in suicide attempts involving overdose is about 2%.[verification needed]

Edit: A drug overdose involves taking a dosage of a drug or drugs that exceeds safe levels. In the UK, in 2013, drug overdose was the most common suicide method among women. For men, as of 2019, the rate was 16%. In the United States, about 60% of suicide attempts and 14% of suicide deaths involve drug overdoses. Self-poisoning accounts for the highest number of non-fatal suicide attempts. The risk of death in an overdose related suicide attempt is around 2%.[verification needed]

There are a number of grammatical issues in the current edit. Dstryker120 (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. I understand that dose, in its more technical use, is only how much of a drug ("500 mg"), and dosage includes how often it is given ("500 mg twice a day for two weeks"). See https://www.goodrx.com/drugs/medication-basics/pharmacy-medical-glossary#d

If memory serves, the UK source doesn't include Scotland or Northern Ireland. If my memory is correct, then we might need to mention that. It'd be better to find a more up to date source, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

To go through each point,

You are not correct about the term "dose" or how you are using it. I provided this in medical terms, and they are the ones most qualified to define the usage of the terms. Any other phrasing would not meet the medical definition.

The UK includes: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, it wouldn't even matter in this context. No matter what is included, saying "in the UK" means, within the parameters of the UK. If the UK meant only the city of London, it's still the same meaning when saying "in the UK." It's like saying "in Asia" and you say, I don't know if Asia includes France, so maybe you should mention "in Asia, which doesn't include France," And again, yes, the UK includes: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Lastly, I used the sources I did because those were the most up-to-date ones from legitimate and medically based records. This has likely changed since the original edit. If you would like to change or add newer sources that have more recent numbers, I would support you going ahead to do that. Staying up to date is important. Dstryker120 (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

To summarize, the main changes you want to make are:

• use men and women instead of males and females
• change dose to dosage
• remove England and Wales (i.e., imply that the numbers are the same for Scotland and Northern Ireland)

Is that correct? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) regarding the use of suicide crisis telephone numbers. The thread is Suicide hotlines.  Thank you. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Lead image

The suicide and crisis lifeline for the North American Numbering Plan, which includes the United States, Canada, and other countries.

@Dustfreeworld put this image in the lead about two weeks ago. @Wound theology removed it today.

I wonder whether this article should have a lead image at all. I thought Dustfreeworld's placement of the firearm-specific Manet painting in the ===Shooting=== section was a good choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a suicide crisis line for N America is going to fly. A montage of crisis lines for several countries might work, but might still be problematic.

I don't mind the Manet painting in the lead. Bondegezou (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind the painting either way, but I'm thinking that if we have artwork depicting hanging in ===Hanging=== and drowining in ===Drowning===, then we should probably have shooting in ===Shooting=== instead of in the lead. Worldwide, shooting is not the most common method, so it doesn't make sense to me to elevate that one (I mean that literally: putting it "above" the rest of the article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking back in the history of the page, I am not the first to remove it, many other users have reverted the crisis lifeline in the lead. It's clear that this is a work-around for the "have a suicide disclaimer on pages!" that has no consensus and is currently being debated. wound theology◈ 06:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

You may be right about the motivation. I think the images of the ads for the method-specific crisis lines in ===Jumping=== are very relevant to the article, but I'm not sure that a general line is relevant to any particular method. I think it could, however, be placed in Suicide methods#Media reporting, with a caption like "When when news organizations report on suicide-related events, media guidelines encourage them to provide information about local suicide crisis phone numbers, such as this number for North America." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing; “I'm not sure that a general line is relevant to any particular method”

You are right. That’s why it belongs to the lead. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

What kind of caption would you give it, to show a clear connection to suicide methods? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suicide_methods&diff=prev&oldid=1222207513 --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s a combination of the text from 988 (telephone number) and the caption you proposed above. So thanks for posting that. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to placing the image in "Media reporting." Images are for illustration, not urging people who might be suicidal to seek help. wound theology◈ 10:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think the image I added is “urging people to seek help” as you said. Both the image and its caption aren’t. What you said is simply untrue. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to placing the image in "Mediareporting."

Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Now that it’s very clear that everyone in this discussion agree that we can have the suicide crisis line image in the Media reporting section, I’ve added that to the article (the page has a high page view that's almost 8000 per day. Their lives are precious and shouldn't face higher risk because of the time wasted here). Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It is comments like these that make it obvious you are adding this image not for illustrative purposes, but in order to right great wrongs. We are an encyclopedia, not a repository of resources for at-risk people. wound theology◈ 18:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Please stop commenting on my comments. It’s this kind of comments that ___. Also, please don’t comment on other editors, focus on content instead. Thanks.

It’s not “right great wrongs” as you said. It’s because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which is not supposed to “be evil” (“wrong great rights”) by providing people with readily available / easily accessible information on how to kill themselves while hiding helpful relevant information somewhere else. This article is far from “repository of resources” for at-risk people as you said. Instead, it’s lacking that crisis lines information (especially before my recent edits), and that information had been deliberately removed repeatedly by editors like you.

We aren’t “urging” them to seek help. How do you know that 100% of the people who come to the article 100% don’t want the information of suicide crisis helplines? Aside, I can tell you personally that long long time ago I’d tried searching for counselling hotlines but couldn’t find what I want at Wikipedia, but did find a lot of information about suicide/ suicide methods instead.

We aren’t “urging” them to seek help. We just show an option by providing the information, while at the same time following strictly to our core policies WP:NPOV, which states that:

“..a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views..”

That means, omitting the suicide crisis lines information *is* a violation of our policy. Not to mention that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.

As you said, “we are an encyclopaedia”, not a repository of information for killing oneself.

Further, the lead is a summary of the whole article, if you agree that a particular suicide method can have an image about the crisis lines specific to that method, you should also agree that the lead has an image of the general line. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s double standard that you don’t object to the left edit below (to the Media reporting section) while you strongly oppose to the edit on the right (to the lead):

• 
  When news organizations report on suicide-related events, media guidelines encourage them to provide information about local suicide crisis phone numbers, such as this number for North America.
• 
  Most search engines return information about local suicidecrisis phone numbers, such as this number for North America, as the first result for searches related to suicide methods.

While the caption on the right is adjusted based on text copied from 988 (telephone number), which obviously shows the relationship between suicide crisis lines and suicide methods, and that crisis line is one of the significant view related to suicide methods, and should be included to the lead per WP:NPOV. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

First (and again,) you do not understand what a personal attack is according to Wikipedia policy. Second, WP:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. Third, the page is not a WP:HOWTO guide as it stands, and placing hotline information to "balance" the page would not actually solve the issue of the page being a HOWTO guide. Fourth, there is not "point of view" to even speak of here; it's a page about methods people use to off themselves, not a discussion of why suicide is good or bad. wound theology◈ 19:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t agree, but I don’t have time for the discussion now. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Wound theology. “...many other users have reverted the crisis lifeline in the lead”

What does that mean? That means:

many users have *added* the crisis lifeline in the lead.

And I’m one of them; again. Please see my edit summaries. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm mainly referring to being pinged here; there is a rough consensus among editors that a suicide hotline is out of place. wound theology◈ 10:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I was not asking what do *you* mean. I’m stating what you’ve actually implied. As I’ve said, “many users have *added* the crisis lifeline in the lead.” I don’t see any “out of place” “rough consensus” as you said. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

As for your edit summaries: WP:NOTHOWTO does not apply, because the page does not give instructions how to commit suicide. Even if it did, a suicide hotline would not solve the problem. Arguably, WP:NOTHOWTO is contradictory to such an image in the lede, because we aren't teaching people how to get help either -- not to mention WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We're not whitepages. wound theology◈ 10:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

You didn’t response to my edit summary about moving the firearm-specific image back to its own section. As another user already mentioned, there are many other types of suicide methods, and prevalent ones are different for different places. I told you twice already in my edit summaries that the image is undue for the lead. IMO repeatedly putting it back to the lead is a violation of our core policy.

Let’s be honest. The whole page is about suicide methods, i.e., “how to commit suicide”. Without some balance, it will easily straying into that HOWTO territory. There’s why the article has been taken to AFD many times. Even you yourself said that “Even if it did”. If you think linking to a list of worldwide suicide hotlines won’t solve the problem, I don’t mind you bring the article to AFD again.

BTW, I really don’t think just an image with a neutral description is “teaching” people to seek help as you said.

I don’t think you cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY correctly. We are talking about adding one or two wikilink to an article, which in no way will turn it into a “directory”.--Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not a firearm-specific image, it is one of the most famous depictions of suicide ever produced. You can say twice that it is "undue" for the lede, but that's wholly irrelevant here. It's for illustrative purposes.

You keep referencing HOWTO without clearly understanding what it means. Listing methods does not mean it is teaching people how to commit suicide -- it means listing the methods people use to commit suicide. With that being said, you can't argue on the one hand that this page is about how to commit suicide and it needs balance, while on the other hand stating that the hotline image is not how to get help (i.e., what would balance a HOWTO article on suicide.)

Lastly, stop using comments as you are. Listing a bunch of random policies, some of which don't even apply, and saying "do not remove this because policy says so!" is wholly inappropriate, especially for something like this which is controversial and currently under discussion. Leave the article as it is according to the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. wound theology◈ 04:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Please stop making the untrue claims. Also, I don’t think you have followed BRD. You removed the content that me and another user added (they changed the caption), which had stood for about two weeks, without starting any discussion beforehand or after being reverted. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I thought Dustfreeworld's placement of the firearm-specific Manet painting in the Shooting section was a good choice.

Agree, of course. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we do have to be sensitive to Wikipedia guidance, like WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but I am also happier to WP:IAR here than practically anywhere else on Wikipedia given that we know information about suicide methods, depictions of suicide and provision of support for people feeling suicidal all have very real world impacts on people’s lives. I like WhatamIdoing’s thinking above. Bondegezou (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

This is something currently being discussed and there is no clear consensus yet. wound theology◈ 13:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes you said “no consensus”, sometimes you said “rough consensus”, so that’s completely “at your discretion”. If you want to discuss the definition of consensus this doesn’t seem to be the right venue. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus for adding the hotline image to the lede. There is a rough consensus, according to the edit history of the page, against doing so. wound theology◈ 04:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s your personal opinion only. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know this is something currently being. That was me contributing to the discussion! Bondegezou (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

we know information about suicide methods, depictions of suicide and provision of support for people feeling suicidal all have very real world impacts on people’s lives.

Totally agree. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Would it be possible to find an image that depicts a suicide method, but also depicts something being done to minimise suicide? I'm sure others can do better, but I found:

Bondegezou (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Any of these are fine. I'm not opposed to showing an image of suicide prevention signs for illustration purposes, I'm opposed to actually installing suicide prevention signs on the article. wound theology◈ 11:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Bondegezou, I like what you’ve found and have added it to the article :-)

P.S. Wound theology, IMO you’re edit warring [2] because of this. I think my notes for editors are *very* appropriate. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring does not apply to flagrant violations of policy. Attempting to stop others from editing, or from removing something you think should be in the page, with comments that state they would be in violation of policy for doing so, is one such flagrant violation. This is why these comments are incredibly inappropriate: you do not get to decide what other editors cannot remove if they see fit. If you feel I am edit warring, then make a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. wound theology◈ 18:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

My notes for editors is a reminder to others of our core policies. IMO your comment above “Attempting to stop others from editing, or from removing adding something you think should not be in the page.. you do not get to decide what other editors cannot remove add if they see fit”. Please stop commenting on other editors, focus on content instead. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the core policies here. None of what I said was a personal attack, and your comments remain inappropriate. wound theology◈ 08:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t agree, but I don’t have time for the discussion now. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

If we can move on from the distraction of the above dispute, I just wanted to say that I think the article is looking better now and would like to thank everyone who inputted into the discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I think we've made some useful improvements. Thank you to everyone who helped get us there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)