Talk:Sanctioned Suicide/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Articles used to establish first sentence

Sock of WMF-banned user. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
F4U has incorporated many good and policy-driven changes to the article recently, including implying that the forum has received negative publicity in the lede, which is in line with Wikipedia policy given all the reliable sources on the site are negative. There are no sources which name the site which describe it primarily as a controversial site rather than a notorious site however. So I feel it should say 'notorious' in the lede, or not have any qualifier like 'notorious', 'controversial' etc. Establishing controversy or altering in the name of neutral-point-of-view requires there be positive information about the site. The reliable sources do not establish any notable "other side" to any debate, they are exclusively disparaging of the site. With all the commentary and news articles published, the neutral point of view is that it is a notorious site. If people don't like that they can rally publishers to publish different pieces. People read them more than this article anyway. But there is no policy or source reason to tone down the exisiting sources and assert what isn't there. The article titles alone are "Disturbing website encourages vulnerable users to die by suicide. What's being done about it?" Incels Are Running An Online Suicide Forum That Was Blamed For A Young Woman's Death". . "Where the Despairing Log On, and Learn Ways to Die" <------- (goes into detail about active moderation which decides what stays or not on the forum, ie not unmoderated) "People Are Dying After Joining a 'Pro-Choice' Suicide Forum" "Bill Outlawing Online Suicide Assistance Would Open Sites to Liability "First conviction for man who encouraged women on website to take own lives" . "There is a pro-suicide website linked to deaths in Australia. Getting it shut down is not so simple" "Mother speaks out against suicide forum after son's death". BBC Northern Ireland. In just the article titles, alone, the articles describe the forum primarily as a suicide assistance, suicide encouragement, and suicide discussion forum. They are specifically focused on the extreme harm caused by the forums and their publishing has led to government action against the site and investigation into at least one founder. That's not controversial, that is fact, and the sources do not establish controversy, the only potential fact-based limiting factor in their wholesale and unanimous assault on this site is section 230, which they explicitly state in their articles. Additionally about the 'open forum' point. They do not describe it as an "open forum". The investigative article "Where the Despairing Log On, and Learn Ways to Die", which people have decided is notable enough to insert images over, goes into detail about how the site has active regulation of content which decide which content stays or not.r Additionally as this has been an issue since the beginning of the page, we could also alter the lede to not incorporate any opinion at all and just say 'has staff-reguolated discussion of suicide and suicide methods' so as not to insert opinion into the lede. While the articles are fact based, they all disparage the site and focus exclusively and the danger and extreme harm caused, and also ties content regulation into it in the investigative articles. 2600:4040:403F:BF00:1034:A6D2:44E7:F4F6 (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Lets take a look at your proposed changes. And let's not shout. Your first proposal is to make the following change: Sanctioned Suicide (SS) is a controversial internet forum known for its open discussion of suicide and suicide methods. Sanctioned Suicide (SS) is an internet forum which contains staff-regulated discussion of suicide and suicide methods. For one, article titles are considered unreliable sources (see WP:HEADLINES). Secondly, the word "controversial" (meaning causing disagreement or discussion) is perfectly accurate and I don't think sources reporting on the fact that people are dying is them "disparaging" the site. This is particularly true with regard to the academic sources on this subject, which is what Wikipedia should be attempting to reflect. Regarding the word "open discussion" - This reason this website is notable is because of its lack of censors on discussion of suicide. This is noted both in academic coverage: These include prosuicide message boards like Sanctioned Suicide where the desire for death goes largely unchallenged (Alvarez 2022) we analyse the online discussions on Sanctioned Suicide, a forum where users discuss suicide-related topics freely. (Sartori, Pajola, et al.) As well as general news coverage of the website: Throughout their lifetimes, Suicide Solution and similar communities have differed in a substantial way from other online forums: They are lenient in allowing users to talk about how exactly to kill yourself. Vice It came online after Reddit shut down a group where people had been sharing suicide methods and encouraging self-harm. Reddit prohibited such discussion, as did Facebook, Twitter and other platforms. NYTimes (this is closer to my original wording of the lede, which was known for its unrestricted discussion of suicide and suicide methods) Regarding your second proposed change, which is to add the following sentence: The forum is primarily reported on in terms of the harm it has caused to users of the site and the resulting legal responses. This is just synth/OR. The paragraph already states that Sanctioned Suicide has generated widespread scrutiny from news outlets and government officials for the encouragement of suicide by members on the site We reflect what the sources say, we don't analyze them. :3 F4U (they/it) 13:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC) "I don't think the sources are disparaging them" -F4U At this point you're just plain being dishonest, because you've already demonstrated you've read the sources. This leads me to question the moral integrity you and other who may side with you have if you continue to be dishonest about this to use the first sentence to depart from both the sources and the rest of the article. Nothing in the sources establishes controversy the coverage is exclusively negative. Virtually every journalist, government official, and safety expert who commented/reported (or anyone quoted or mentioned in the news) are aiming for the site to be shut down or regulated away through the way they report the facts as well as their own commentary. The only competing voice was a single site founder in a pre-investigative-articles Vice article, which you've used wikivoice now in three different ways in the first sentence. Using wikivoice from a founder is neither encyclopedic and is also highly innapropriate on this topic. Here is how reliable sources frame the site: From journalist Michael Barbaro: "I spoke with my colleagues Megan Twohey and Gabriel Dance about why the site is so uniquely dangerous and why it’s proven so difficult to shut down." https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/09/podcasts/the-daily/suicide-investigation.html?showTranscript=1 From journalist Megan Twohey: "So, it's — in addition to this very explicit — these very explicit instructions, there's all of this interaction on the site, which really facilitates suicide and people following through with their plans." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-a-website-with-explicit-directions-for-suicide-remains-active "And after these conversations, our editors made the call that we would include the name of the site. We would do it only once, and, as you said, further down in the article. But without naming the site, it would be very difficult for legislators and lawmakers to have any sort of accountability for the site." "“We really felt like this site was very dangerous for vulnerable people, especially for young people,” she said. “All these people who should know about it — from mental health professionals to school officials — didn’t know it existed.” https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2021/how-the-new-york-times-handled-life-or-death-ethical-issues-while-reporting-on-a-popular-suicide-website/@ "There are some users on the site who prompt conversations about prevention resources and reasons to keep fighting. But those get outweighed by the onslaught of posts promoting reasons to die. The site was “purposefully designed” to support the latter, she says." https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2022/01/18/suicide-websites-caution From Inman Grant, Australia esafety commissioner in the news "Ms Inman Grant says the website “incited” people toward suicide in multiple ways." https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-16/fight-to-block-pro-suicide-website/101530766 From the families involved "families in the U.S. begged Congress, law enforcement and tech companies to look into criminal activity on the site" https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2022/01/18/suicide-websites-caution From seven congresspeople to the DOJ "Does the DOJ have the statutory authority to pursue a criminal case against Diego Joaquín Galante and Lamarcus Small, for their alleged role in operating or as members on the website? If not, why not? " https://trahan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/doj_sanctioned_suicide_letter_final_dec21.pdf From journalist Gabriel Dance "But this Web site doesn't really help people with interventions, as much as it helps them carry out any kind of plans they have to kill themselves." "The reason I say it was very exciting to call them is because Megan and I are in this for accountability,” he said. “Here, you have these two shady guys who’ve been running this website for three years, (linked to) we think hundreds of deaths including kids, and we’re excited to say you know, ‘Tell us why, tell us the reason you’re doing this." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-a-website-with-explicit-directions-for-suicide-remains-active Also the reason for the synthy second setence is because of your insistence to put your own uncited assertion In the first sentence. The second sentence draws the readers to what the media actually say. The first two sentences as it is mid-July 28th, without the word 'controversial', and the recognition it is a moderated user-account forum rather than a chan board is a compromise. A fully descriptive first sentence, which I advocate for inclusion as the first sentence, would say, as per quoted media above, SanctionedSuicide (SS) is an internet forum which facilitates suicide and is purposefully designed to promote suicide. This is not lost on many if not most of the veteran Wikipedians who have commented on this page so far. Wikipedia controversy isn't reliable source controversy. The reliable sources are exclusively no-stated-opinion and/or explicitly negative. This page isn't a referendum on libertarianism or euthanasia, this is a page on a single online forum. Just because a reddit user titles something doesn't mean they and their descendants own the topic. Although I don't think you are a user of the site, or connected to it, you are using the first sentence as a personal, uncited soapbox, which you previously said on the edit summaries was inspired from a post you read on 8chan. If you want to use another suicide page to highlight your own, properly cited pro-euthanasia personal opinions (which I probably agree with many if not all), there's other pages on non-predatory-websites to do so on. This website is reported in the media to be trying to encourage/facilitate a very broad population to kill themselves, including those with reported very curable conditions, at the website level. 2600:4040:403F:BF00:1521:C7C0:9329:DD0D (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC) IP editor, you are failing to separate fact from opinion (and I suggest you strike the personal attack that I'm being dishonest). I also strongly suggest that you self-revert while this discussion is going on per WP:STATUSQUO. The very first sentence should identify what the site is and what the site is notable for. Your suggestion of stating staff-regulated discussion is entirely nonsensical. The site is first and foremost notable for being a forum where users freely discuss suicide and suicide methods. Not for having moderators. Regarding the second sentence, the fact that the site is widely condemned and is associated with suicides is already covered by the lede. The sources also do not state as a fact that the site is intentionally trying to kill people, they state that as an opinion, and that can be added to the article, simply not in wikivoice. :3 F4U (they/it) 22:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC) You are again arguing about stuff that is not in the sources and ignoring the hours of work I put into sourcing how your 'controversial' word is not only uncited, but against the sources. The esafety commissioner and at least 2 pulitzer-prize winning journalists saying the site is purposefully designed to promote suicide to their (reportedly often young, vulnerable, having very curable minor illness) users is not offered by them as opinion. Additionally, there are no RS counter-opinions stating this didn't happen, hence no RS controversy. The only stated controversy in news is not what happened or what the site is, but if federal (note, not state) US or (federal) Uruguayan law allows to prosecute solely with what is on offer from a Twohey story. The insights about SS itself being designed to promote suicide to users were offered publicly, in audio and print RS, by the original investigative journalists and an esafety commissioner as a fact they found as part of hard work and investigations. At least one of the large WP:RS published investigative articles publicly describes site staff as purposefully keeping users from publishing contact info so as to complete suicide more efficiently. Here is the most descriptive, relevant WP:RS source which contains this fact and related ones. By default, it's an investigative journalists job to investigate and offer fact, not to offer opinion. So unless it is stated what they say is opinion, or it is reported in something like Poynter, we can't just haphazardly declare everything they say in news/investigative articles implicating SS itself is automatically an opinion... And yes of course I need to question the motivation or morality of someone attempting to do this consistently with what is on offer. By default, they investigate and offer facts. Those facts are backed up and originally offered in an impressive 30+ page article and many inspired articles from other outlets. On your uncited side tangent, where you want to argue about what the site is 'known for' in recent years or even this month, just plug in 'sanctioned suicide' into twitter or any major social media website and sort by latest. Not much controversy, it's all moms of dead children recently screaming at the founders/staff for having been registered on sites with names such as 'abusewith.us', indiscriminately informing their broad userbase about how to best obtain 'N', and trying to normalize the site as you are today (on the the last point).2600:4040:403F:BF00:1521:C7C0:9329:DD0D (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC) If anyone is curious, I think this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanctioned_Suicide&oldid=1167329409 is what the IP means by the 8chan bit. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC) So I've offered about 11 quotes from 7+ sources, now I'll offer a fictional analogy but IRL. Lets say someone named Jeff creates a whiteboard so people can write their thoughts about suicide on. Jeff doesn't touch this whiteboard. He doesn't direct users to it. He doesn't keep users from it. That is indeed an open space. Now let's instead imagine Jeff and his buddy Zach were holding a public library meeting called 'sanctioned suicide' where Jeff called himself "Marquis the Master of Ashes", told people not to come in the room if they wanted recovery, kept an ocassionally locked room for established users, allowed teenagers with curable illnesses in, directs stacks of detailed instructive booklets to the front of the meeting telling people it is safe to die from a painful and unreliable meat preservative, let a masked person named cake123 to roam about and encourage people to kill themselves, and lied about his mothers name to reporters. And also Zach told people not to give their names to strangers so that the law enforcement outside the library wouldn't do anything. Yea I think that meeting would be greeted with a particular set of responses from the rest of the library and from law enforcement if they found out. And defenders would be met with extreme suspicion if they knew the facts, as well as anyone defining that as 'controversial' and 'opinionated/undue, when implicating the organizers/directors'. Especially when the only people publicly discussing it afterward are the moms of dead children from the meeting screaming at the founders. That type of meeting setup is sadism and sociopathy, RS calls it encouragement and facilitation, I think we can at least call it the latter two. 2600:4040:403F:BF00:E14F:A6D8:6E71:4ACD (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Lede sentence

@Justanotherguy54 I agree with the inclusion of "encouragement" in the lede, but adding it like that introduces a grammatical error, as the sentence can be read as stating Sanctioned Suicide is known for its encouragement of suicide methods. In addition, this phrasing would suggest that the website itself is encouraging suicide, rather than members of the site. As well, the lede already states encouragement of suicide by members on the site so I do think this is somewhat redundant. :3 F4U (they/it) 23:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Potential citogenesis incident

I'd like to point out that the following source: [1] is a potential instance of citogenesis. The source, which was published in July 2023, states the Sanctioned Suicide website drew over 10 million page views in September 2022 and as of March 2023, the forum has over 30 000 members, which is close to exactly the same language used on this article until very recently. :3 F4U (they/it) 00:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Great observation! I agree that this might be citogenesis. Edge3 (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing court case which is relevant to this article

Adding here that there's an ongoing criminal case in Ontario regarding a man who was arrested for allegedly selling sodium nitrite via the site. [2] [3] [4] Unsure whether this should be incorporated now or following some outcome. :3 F4U (they/it) 05:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Johnj1995 I've reverted an edit of yours (diff) which suggested that a non-public figure had committed or had been accused of committed a crime per WP:BLPCRIME. Without a conviction, I don't think its not really justifiable to include this case or name the person within the article. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 02:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with removing the name (and, incidentally, the YouTube external link). Do you think maybe the content could stay without naming the individual? Maybe a mention of an arrest associated with the site is due? I don't have the same sens for the body of sourcing as you do. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe with the current sources that cover the case, there is not enough out there to justify inclusion here. The reference Johnj added CTV News (along with this reference that also mentions him CBC) only briefly mentions Law's connection to the site and is very cautious about potentially suggesting that Law is guilty. In addition, the CBC source primarily present him as a seller of sodium nitrite, rather than someone directly affiliated with the site, stating that he marketed the substance on multiple websites. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 02:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you. Edge3 (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Sock of WMF-banned user. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This was brought up before on main. Given you are the only major writer for the article, it's basically your decision whether or not to incorporate it. People mostly only come to this talk page when this page is posted on a Wikipedia noticeboard. The last sentence change about US Law (section 230 of Communications Act) on main is not accurate as it ignores statutory exceptions including web operators illegally inducing, developing, or contributing to illegal user-generated content/activity (eg Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com (2008), FTC v. Accusearch (2009)) and suits based in federal criminal law. The WP:RS used for sentence change says 'most content' on SS, in their analysis, does not federally implicate US SS operators per US federal law, not that all content doesn't. However, I have seen the relevant journalists, in public, give multiple conflicting opinions about the above, in published reliable sources. 2600:4040:403F:BF00:1034:A6D2:44E7:F4F6 (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Addressed your second point and added the word "most" into the sentence. As for the first bit, I'm concerned about WP:BLP, which I'm not entirely fluent in and there's 38 page watchers here who could lend a hand. :3 F4U (they/it) 02:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC) The main issue imho (if it even is an issue) with incorporating Kenneth Law or any future material into this page is that the SanctionedSuicide-as-a-singular-topic news cycle seems to have (temporarily?) died after the story went into South America and stimulated a criminal investigation there. That was the direction the news cycle went to, down South into foreign languages. After that, most US and Canadian news prefer to omit entirely the site name (not just the URL but even 'sanctionedsuicide'), even if they have to seemingly misquote sources to do so with [this type of text]. It is right now a very small forum, and they presumably are worried about driving traffic to it. However, given the Vice article doesn't name the site and is used as the sole justification for the first sentence, there isn't much precedence on this page to caring about this issue. 2600:4040:403F:BF00:1034:A6D2:44E7:F4F6 (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC) I don't see how "a man in Canada arrested for allegedly selling sodium nitrite internationally etc" would break BLP though with the sheer volume of sources about it, it's the site naming issue that also applies to the first sentence that seems what people would debate about if this were a very active talk page of people actually reading all those sources (which I'd estimate no more than 4 people total have even attempted to do despite wanting to weigh in with unrelated opinions or feelings). 2600:4040:403F:BF00:1034:A6D2:44E7:F4F6 (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC) There's also now another seller arrest in the news, Alex, from Netherlands, which perhaps has ties to SS but waiting to confirm in RS. Authorities report an investigation found the chemical sold was an unnecessarily painful and nasty method of suicide, perhaps it is SN, the chemical is unnamed. The canadian seller arrest is tied to the site in RS however. 2600:4040:403F:BF00:4930:F1DB:680D:DFCB (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hatnote 2

Moved from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

 – ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 13:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• At Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 161 § Proposal to add suicidal disclaimer at Suicide there was consensus to partly ignore all rules with respect to WP:NODISCLAIMERS and place a hatnote at the top of that article (and later Suicide methods). I've been bold here and done something similar at Sanctioned Suicide. BRD welcome, but I hope this will stick.
  For what it's worth, I'm not a mental health professional, but do have significant experience on the other side of the equation, and am proud to have stopped at least four people from committing suicide, including two cases where I had to physically intervene. My stated view, which has been on my userpage for years, is that NODISCLAIMERS is overly strict and we should follow the standards of major media organizations in deciding what to put warnings on. Until that day comes, though, I don't see a basis to exclude this hook when we do not police other topics with public-health implications (e.g. mass shootings, where a "contagion" phenomenon is well-documented) the same way. Such disparate treatment of suicide can be problematic in its own way. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  I believe I boldly did this before, but it was reverted by another editor, but I didn't notice that it was. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 10:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Tamzin See Talk:Sanctioned_Suicide/Archive_1#Hatnote for the relevant discussion. I don't think it was thoroughly discussed though. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 10:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ah it was removed in this edit by Mitch Ames. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 10:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  And I continue to strongly assert both that is not the purpose of {{for}}, and that we ought not ignore WP:NODISCLAIMERS - we ought not have a hatnote pointing to "prevention" or similar, because that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. (Likewise I am more than a little annoyed by ABC news giving me the phone numbers and website for Lifeline and Beyond Blue after any news story that mentions anything to do with suicide or mental health.)

  That being said, if the consensus is against me, and the consensus is to IAR and put a hatnote, I suggest that it should be {{hatnote}} instead of {{for}}, because {{for}} is not semantically correct - "suicide prevention" is not an "alternative meanings of [the] term" Sanctioned Suicide (it is, in fact, the reverse). Mitch Ames (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Mitch Ames In this context, you're correct that it's "the reverse". But the word "sanctioned" is actually an auto-antonym because it can refer to something that is either "prohibited" or "permitted". So, a new reader (who is not yet familiar with the website) could interpret "sanctioned suicide" as either pro-suicide or anti-suicide. Hatnotes are meant to resolve ambiguities like this one. Edge3 (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  I could see no reason to expand the hatnote to a more general viewpoint, as seen at Suicide, so I've done that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, I'm a fan of that. Dunno why I didn't consider just taking that yeah ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 15:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  I've updated the disclaimer to use the hatnote template, but I'm unsure as to the wording. I believe it is correct to link to suicide prevention (rather than suicide intervention which was originally linked by Tamzin), since that was the outcome of the village pump discussion and the discussion here.

  The current wording (my own creation) is For information on suicide prevention, see Suicide prevention, which I'm not a fan of because it repeats "suicide prevention". The wording used by Tamzin is See also: Suicide prevention, which I don't like because it doesn't introduce its relevance to the article.

  The article has also previously used For information on methods of suicide prevention, see Suicide intervention. and For information on methods of suicide intervention, see Suicide prevention and List of suicide crisis lines.

  Writing this comment out, I've thought maybe the following might make a good hatnote: This article is about the internet forum. For information on methods of suicide prevention, see Suicide prevention. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 14:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Tamzin: If this hatnote sticks, it might be worthwhile to add an additional exception to WP:No disclaimers#Additional disclaimers to reflect the consensus on such hatnotes. Edge3 (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  add an additional exception to WP:No disclaimers — I think that's a bad idea; it's already covered by WP:IAR and just invites further exceptions. Note in particular the 4th bullet point of Wikipedia:No_disclaimers#Why_disclaimers_should_not_be_used: "It is hard to define which articles should have a disclaimer ... Allowing some disclaimers would generate a significant overhead of disputes regarding where to draw the line." If we were to follow the practices of some media outlets we'd have a hatnote at the top of almost every article under Category:Suicide. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Mitch Ames We're already allowing disclaimers regardless of what the guideline says (Suicide and Suicide methods are the ones I'm aware of, and now this article could be the third). Amending WP:No disclaimers would merely codify the fact that a limited number (not necessarily all) of suicide-related articles may have a disclaimer. Edge3 (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Master's thesis

I've been contemplating this for a while, and I guess now would be a good time to ask this given the temporary attention this article is receiving.

Way way back when the article was first published, an editor added an NPOV-breaching edit while citing this master's thesis. I removed it, citing WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which states that Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Now the reference itself would be very useful because it covers a lot of information that hasn't been covered elsewhere. The author herself, Elisa Sartori, has also already been cited in the article for a different paper—"The Impact of Covid-19 on Online Discussions", which was presented at The Web Conference; Sartori is also currently listed as a "research fellow" at the University of Padua. Given this, I'm wondering what other people's thoughts are on potentially using this reference, and whether it would be reasonable to use for uncontroversial claims (Footnote c; examples 1 and 2) and/or potentially controversial claims (Footnote c; example 3). ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 16:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the source is appropriate in this case. Although it's a master's thesis, it appears to have been reviewed by faculty, therefore this source is arguably just as valuable as any of the news sources that you have already cited. Personally, I think applying WP:SCHOLARSHIP so strictly is not warranted in this case, since SS is unlikely to be covered in great depth by academic literature. Plus, you've already cited Sartori's other article from ACM, so she seems to have the appropriate level of expertise for this article. Edge3 (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:Errors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors § Errors in "Did you know ..."

 – Edge3 (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• ... that the decision to name an internet forum dedicated to suicide was described by journalist Megan Twohey as one of the "biggest ethical issues that we had ever dealt with"?

Note that Wikipedia has no ethical issues with promoting it on the main page? Clicks come first? Secretlondon (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Note that ethical issues were extensively discussed at the nomination, Secretlondon. AGF doesn't come first? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Ethical concerns were also raised at WT:DYK#Sanctioned Suicide (nom), and immediately dismissed because of course we know better than literally everyone who has ever reported on the subject. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

That did appear to be the WP:CONSENSUS, yes. Of course, if you wanted to start an RfC carving out a Main Page exemption for WP:NOTCENSORED, then feel free. As a point of comparison, if Islam passes its GAN and comes DYK, we'll have an article containing content deeply offensive to billions on the main page. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that hypothetical (for now) scenario. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Or, perhaps dog meat. I seriously considered writing an article on a dog meat or cat meat dish, but figured reactions wouldn't be pleasant. BorgQueen (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

As I said in that discussion, I don't think NOTCENSORED applies here; I'm not saying that we shouldn't run this article because people may find it offensive, but because people may die. I entirely agree that the Main Page should not be censored, but editorial decisions about reducing the risk of real physical harm to living people are not censorship. This is why outlets such as BBC News, ABC News, etc., none of which are censored, do not give the name of this website. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

To get a true sense of the absurdity of this, look at this discussion about a Spongebob Squarepants hook. DYKers are more concerned about potentially embarrassing some cartoonists than they are about driving people to a forum which encourages its users to kill themselves. And why? Because we have a rule that says we shouldn't do the former, but we don't have a rule about the latter. And because we don't have a rule that says we can't promote a suicide website, that means we have no choice but to do it. Even an obligation to do it, according to Edge3. This is absolutely bizarre. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "more concerned", seeing as the cartoon hook was on the Main Page for 24 hours. All of those news websites are absolutely censored—none of them would dare post even one picture of Muhammad, while we have dozens freely available scattered across articles (try and find the image we have at the top of Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1011 in any reliable source, despite how mich it has been discussed in them). Any "editorial decision" which suppresses information because you think it is politically or socially unacceptable is indeed censorship, as defined in any reliable dictionary. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per the above, mentioning that something exists is not promoting something, anymore than refusing to acknowledge it somehow makes it go away. The blurb is tasteful and not problematic in any way, and does not "promote" anything at all. It's just reporting information, in a quite bland and unremarkable way. And yes, it is censorship to assert harm as a reason to remove information (think of the children!). This is not presented in any way likely to cause harm, and merely asserting that it is harmful because it bothers you personally is not going to win any points with me. Leave it up. It's fine. --Jayron32 12:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to think we wouldn't put a picture of Muhammad on the Main Page if there was reason to believe that doing so would cause harm to living people (see WP:Picture of the day/Unused for precedent). And okay, I don't want to get into an argument about the technical definition of censorship; I'm talking about how the word is used in wiki-speak. We generally don't consider the removal of BLP violations, for example, to be censorship, and I don't see why this is any different.

In answer to Jayron, I'm not "merely asserting" anything; here's a reliable source which explains at length that even mentioning this site in passing has a high potential to cause harm. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The Poynter Institute is a reliable source on journalism studies, not on mental health. The article is about why the New York Times made a decision to report the matter as they did. That's fine and well, the New York Times is a different organization with different purposes and different goals and a different audience, and they are free to make decisions based on their own ethos and whatnot. I applaud them for doing so in a way that aligns with their values. Still, we are not the New York Times, and are not beholden to what they decided to do. And again, the Poynter Institute is not an organization with expertise in mental health. So, nice redirect, try again. --Jayron32 15:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Going by the very discussions linked in POTD/U, we have in fact ran Muhammad POTDs. The three arguably 'censored' POTDs comprise one image on the bad images list (a justifiable policy IAR), one giant clusterfuck of several arguments across several years where I have no doubt there'll be another someday, and one rejected-TFA on the basis of concerns about the...creator?author? That article is one of the ones no one is ever willing to give a straight answer about, but it fairly consistently seems the model question is secondary at best. (This is a statement about the applicability of POTD/U to "anything but internal POTD drama", not about the broader case.) Vaticidalprophet 13:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Did we read the same article? It states She said the team came to an understanding that it was more important for those people to be aware of the site, the method and its potential for harm than it was to withhold reporting over fears of driving vulnerable people there. I see a clear benefit in discussing the forum in the same distanced/encyclopedic tone academic sources do (which all name the site). -- F4U (they/it) 13:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

They balanced the risks and benefits, and came to the compromise of mentioning the site once, "deep in the article", and adding a full-screen disclaimer. I think there is a clear benefit to having an informative Wikipedia article about the site, and this benefit outweighs the risks; what I don't understand is the benefit of putting the link on the Main Page. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

As I stated in the nom page, the benefits are listed in WP:DYKAIM. Putting the link on the Main Page fulfills the goals of DYK by educating readers on this important topic.

By the way, the Vice article suggests that withholding information wouldn't be as effective as it may seem. That article cites expert commentary from the American Association of Suicidology, saying that such censorship could backfire by driving the community back into the Dark Web. Edge3 (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty disingenuous argument since the Spongebob hook ran with no changes. -- F4U (they/it) 12:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

There's a massive difference between "having an article on it", and "linking to that article on the Main Page where millions of people will see it". Frankly, as someone whose work involves dealing with the mental health of young people, I'm still unhappy about this being on the Main Page but I realise that apparently NOTCENSORED overrides ethical concerns here. Black Kite (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

That's the same response I got from theleekycauldron: "I agree with you, but our hands are tied" (that's a paraphrase, not an actual quote). And I'm sorry, but I honestly don't see why the rules we made up for our website can in any way override our real-world ethical responsibilities. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Probably because you can't think of another result other than at-risk people clicking on the link. Not, say, mental health professionals, friends and family, school teachers, literally anyone else learning about it on a very real-world website. Those possibilities aren't covered by your ethical responsibilities, but they are sure as hell covered by mine. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC) (EDIT: Apologies for the testiness; I was not a fan of the underlying assumption behind "our ethical responsibilities" ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC) )

This mental health professional is more concerned about her patients. Secretlondon (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that this kind of censorship is actually beneficial to patients? Charcoal feather (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

If we were censoring the website we wouldn't have an article on it. This is not a censorship issue. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

What? Oh, so it's OK if there's a little collateral damage through people that are suicidal actually finding this website through the Main Page link. Gotcha. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

To both Secretlondon and Black Kite: this former patient is more concerned about mental health professionals, as opposed to the patients who are probably smart enough to type the words "suicidal community/forum" into Google or Reddit search (I know I was). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for being concerned about me (and, apparently Secretlondon), but it appears that both of us are more concerned about others. Meanwhile, if I type "suicide forum" into Google, do you know what the only hit I get for SS in the first 20 results is? Yep, the Wikipedia article. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is relevant to the DYK hook 〜 F4U (talk • they/it) 19:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

There you go. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the NOTCENSORED argument (though RFC consensus has been that there is nothing stopping it from being applied to DYK); I rather base my view on this hook from the DYK aims and objectives, which this hook clearly fulfills. In addition, as articulated by AirshipJungleman, this hook provides attention onto an already highly-trafficked website (this article itself already gets ~20k monthly views). -- F4U (they/it) 14:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

They're not just "rules we made up for our website", as if we're just talking about internal WP policy. Even WMF has weighed in foundation:Resolution:Controversial_content. Edge3 (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

...apparently NOTCENSORED overrides ethical concerns here: I don't believe it has to necessarily be an unconditional override. IIRC, we don't just allow nude pictures on the Main Page merely for effect. If there were MP restrictions on this article, the page would still be allowed to exist on WP. It seems like a specific guideline on MP content w.r.t. suicide would give the concept more weight, if there is consensus. Otherwise, there would need to be support for IAR on this matter. Currently, MOS:SUICIDE describes how to write about the topic, not about when its mention is suitable for the MP (or not). —Bagumba (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean you see the discussion that @Sojourner in the earth linked as consensus? Justanotherguy54 (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U I’m curious, why did you reject the hook ALT3a: “... that after U.S. lawmakers released a statement against an internet forum dedicated to suicide, Microsoft Bing responded by lowering the site's ranking in its search results?”? I don’t think its much more wordy than the current hook. Perhaps it could be rewritten/improved slightly, but I believe it shows the reader an impact of the reporting and publicity on/around that site and is a potential alternative. Though I don’t think this should run at all as a DYK on the main page for the various reasons others have stated. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

To be honest I don't quite remember, it's been a month since the hooks were first discussed now. I believe I stated that the hook was too wordy, but looking at the hook with fresh eyes I don't think it was that bad.

The original hook 3A stated the name of the website instead of an internet forum dedicated to suicide. The former was a lot more concise/easy to read, which is probably why I felt that 3a, in contrast, was too wordy/complex as a hook. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 04:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I was the admin that moved the hook from prep to queue (the last check at DYK before a hook goes on the Main Page). Before approving, I read through the hook's nomination and followed the WT:DYK discussion about the nom as it was happening. I approved this hook because I felt that the Main Page should not be censured unless there is consensus to do so, which I did not find. Also, the hook was highlighting the ethical issues of reporting on the site, which in my opinion did not promote or encourage suicide or the site. I do not agree with the argument that posting the site will promote the site, as avoiding talking about a topic will not make it go away, but highlighting the topic might cause some to seek help. If consensus is to remove the hook, I will not be against that. Z1720 (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Highlighting the topic - absolutely. Highlighting a website that is described as "pro-suicide" and has been found to been involved in multiple dozens of deaths? No. Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I oppose running a hook on the main page that draws attention to this website. It causes harm to vulnerable people and we should stay away from that. It’s just plain wrong. Schwede66 18:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that running a hook "causes harm to vulnerable people" and I would point towards the Poynter article as evidence that raising awareness over the site's existence is more beneficial than not. Quoting, She said the team came to an understanding that it was more important for those people to be aware of the site, the method and its potential for harm than it was to withhold reporting over fears of driving vulnerable people there. [5] 〜 F4U (talk • they/it) 19:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I see no good reason not to run this hook. The blurb is tasteful and NOTCENSORED is a core policy. I also see no evidence that it would cause harm. Charcoal feather (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Charcoal feather (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Given there's been quite a few people voicing concerns – what's the harm in pulling this one from tomorrow's set so it can be discussed further? I think ERRORS adds an element of time pressure here that's unnecessary and counterproductive. – Teratix ₵ 00:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

...and of course as soon as I post this it's already gone to the Main Page automatically. Welp. – Teratix ₵ 00:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The hook just got posted onto the mainpage, but I wouldn't mind moving it to tomorrow, though I'm not sure if more discussion would necessarily be more productive. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 00:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I also don't see a need to pull from the Main Page at this point. Several editors have already weighed in, and there's no consensus to exclude the article from DYK. Edge3 (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree there may not be consensus to exclude, but there is clearly no consensus to include, and given the serious concerns raised it seems prudent to err on the side of caution. Again, what is the harm in waiting until consensus emerges? If there is consensus to include, then the hook will go on the Main Page anyway, but if there is consensus to exclude then we've avoided unnecessary damage. – Teratix ₵ 00:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Usually, when there is no consensus to do something, we default to the status quo, which in this case means that we keep the article featured on DYK. In any case, I don't think it was premature to run this on the Main Page today. A thread on WT:DYK gave ample notice to the community that this article was going to be posted, and the DYK nomination itself was open for more than two weeks. I really don't think extending the discussion for a few more days would have changed the outcome. Edge3 (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm a cautious person, and I think suicide is a topic to be extra-cautious around. If I were Dictator of Wikipedia, I'd have pulled the hook by now and found some way to reimburse all the volunteers that worked on it for their time. As it is, this is a main page entry that fully qualified for its spot by all the rules, guidelines, and processes that apply. It received more than the needed scrutiny and passed through several layers of community discussion. I do not feel empowered by this discussion to pull the hook.

That said, if I were a betting person, I'd wager against the hook surviving 24 hours. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Sanctioned Suicide § Hatnote 2

 – Not an error.~ F4U (talk • they/it) 13:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Restoring my second paragraph, since it was related to the question of whether to pull: For what it's worth, I'm not a mental health professional, but do have significant experience on the other side of the equation, and am proud to have stopped at least four people from committing suicide, including two cases where I had to physically intervene. My stated view, which has been on my userpage for years, is that NODISCLAIMERS is overly strict and we should follow the standards of major media organizations in deciding what to put warnings on. Until that day comes, though, I don't see a basis to exclude this hook when we do not police other topics with public-health implications (e.g. mass shootings, where a "contagion" phenomenon is well-documented) the same way. Such disparate treatment of suicide can be problematic in its own way. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah my apologies! I forgot that the second paragraph did address the conversation, I just wanted to move the discussion about the hatnote elsewhere before it inflated this conversation even more. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 15:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

This discussion as a whole is probably too long for ERRORS purposes, but I wouldn't close this thread until the day is over. Edge3 (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Link changes

@Kornatice On a second readthrough of your changes in this edit, I don't think it's an improvement to wikilink Usenet instead of Usenet newsgroup. Why have you chosen to do this? ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 00:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Because two links should not be placed next to each other, lest they appear to be one. This is stated in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, which says "When possible, do not place links next to each other, to avoid appearing like a single link". In both cases of this change, the changed link was next to another. Kornatice (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kornatice Actually, given some thought, perhaps we should just do away with the Usenet link, as readers who don't understand can click on alt.suicide.holiday (I was trying to figure out where I got this idea from because I couldn't find it on the MOS-- turns out its the first example at User:Tony1/Build your linking skills). ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 01:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to remove if you think it's not needed. Kornatice (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Obvious?

"The recovery forum hosts recovery-related discussions, the suicide discussion forum hosts discussions on suicide methods, and the offtopic forum hosts discussions on hobbies and other general interests."

That seems kind of obvious. Is there any point in this sentence? 93.72.49.123 (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The original quote from the source states:

In Recovery discussions are focused on the offer or request for support from users on the road to recovery. On the contrary, Suicide Discussion is where users gather to collect information on procedures, substances, how to acquire them, etc. Lastly, Offtopic hosts discussions about hobbies and other more general themes. [6]

I do think its reasonable to include descriptions of what the different forums are and what conversations they host. If you have a better way of phrasing this sentence to match the above source feel free to suggest something here. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 12:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. But it should be a useful description, not a tautology like "The recovery forum hosts recovery-related discussion". 93.72.49.123 (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources from the SS site itself and their validity

I had made edits relating to the fact that the SS mods had lifted their own ban of Australian users and Italian users after being frustrated with take-down notices from New Zealand eSafety inspectors. These got removed because a lack of citations.

My question is, do y'all think that citations from the direct SS site to prove a change in the forum is a violation of rules regarding OR or not disclosing the URL of the site? No news outlets are reporting on the change of administration or the lifted ban, so the only proof exists within primary citations. I can see the problem with primary citations due to issues with hearsay from the primary source, but I truly don't understand if it would be 'okay' to post URL's to the site to make a proper citation. It's not like this information can't be cited because it is behind registration, I don't use the site and never heard of it 'till two weeks ago, but it is all freely available to all guest viewers except for the sub-forums mentioned in the notes of the article.

Should we wait untill a secondary source reports on these, or do we risk citing the site, potentially exposing readers who may be suicidal to SS? Should we simply put the timeline of events as is without a citation? ABBAABABABABA (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

If the information is relevant and important, then secondary sources will report on it. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 19:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

... and let the article lag behind? ABBAABABABABA (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes. There is no deadline for Wikipedia articles and we want to rely on reliable secondary sources. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 19:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay then. Sounds fair. I guess that explains why the article still lags behind to 2022.

I'll just edit other articles in the meantime since the site hasn't been in the news a lot since 2022 except for the KL case which is still undetermined. ABBAABABABABA (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@ABBAABABABABA, @Freedom4U: I actually think citing the SS page in this case would be allowed per WP:PRIMARY, since you're just re-stating information directly from the website. As long as there's no additional interpretation, it's not considered "original research". Edge3 (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I will consider that next time I edit. Thank you. ABBAABABABABA (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Edge3 @ABBAABABABABA 1. This would go against the consensus of the March RfC. 2. I don't think this would fall under WP:PRIMARY per WP:EXCEPTIONAL which states that apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources...should prompt extra caution. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 22:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The March RfC only addressed whether to provide a direct URL to the website, not whether you can use the website as a primary source. Also, SS lifting the ban on Italian and Australian users really isn't that "exceptional", since you're just reporting factual information about access to the website. As it stands currently, the WP article is outdated because it does not address more recent developments. Edge3 (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Edge3 on this regard. The lift of the ban is not a major event, and is neither fringe as it doesn't have any loaded assumptions within it and to my knowledge I tried to keep my edit within the guidelines listed within WP:NPOV (see below for exception) . It's still a primary source so we still must be cautious of link rot with archiving all citations in case of seizure of the site and making sure to keep NPOV due to charged feelings on both sides of the issue.

I also agree with Edge3 on regards to the fact that secondary sources are not needed as long as we don't try to analyze the quotes and make assumptions as per the rules on WP:PRIMARY. In other words, I admit the mistake I made with regards with making assumptions for the unblock, but I do not think that the general idea of updating the article to reflect the unblocking of Italy and Australia by SS should be frowned upon or otherwise reverted. ABBAABABABABA (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@ABBAABABABABA Feel free to add whatever content you think is appropriate, and we can take another look. Edge3 (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Article is mostly propaganda and written in a passive aggressive/biased POV

A number of problems that go against the spirit of WP:NPOV are shown across this page. Let me first state that the continued claims that the website encourages you to kill yourself is demonstrably false, this erroneous information can be easily debunked simply by visiting the website, and viewing the website's threads. It doesn't take long to realize the fact that no person on SS is ever told anything to the liking of "you should kill yourself" or any kind of statement to the effect of encouragement/persuasion. It doesn't exist anywhere. But the times when this supposedly does come up (I can't seem to find any of such happening through almost all my research) the user in question that says anything like this is apparently always banned. The definition of "encouraged" reads the following:

a

to inspire with courage, spirit, or hope : HEARTEN

she was encouraged to continue by her early success

b

to attempt to persuade : URGE

they encouraged him to go back to school

At no point does the visitors of Sanctioned Suicide ever do such a thing when someone speaks of killing themselves, they are at the very most just simply not discouraged in doing so (example as follows person A: "I'm going to CTB tonight, I can't take life anymore", person B: "It's sad you feel you need to leave I wish you the best and hope it's painless"). More often than not the users tend to gently persuade the user into not killing themselves if they aren't just simply wishing them well in their final act. Yes I'm aware of the sources such as TNYT and Vice, but these are written in a very biased/sensationalist point of view as almost all hitpiece websites such as these are usually written in, i.e. "OMG scary website that wants u to kill yourself!!" but this is all very nullified when considering you can simply explore the site yourself and see this isn't the case as they claim. With that said I'm having a very very hard time believing the part claimed by TNYT where it says an Australian guy was "bullied" into killing himself by the site's users since through my research no person ever talks like this at all on the website. All these statements are very disingenuous, and are borderline slander or at the very least done in a effort to make the site look as bad as possible just as much as saying the site's two founders are "incels", found in the article's first paragraph, is not only redundant information (especially considering none of those 2 people even own or manage the site anymore), but feels as if it only is left there just to make the website look worse than the rampant untrue "it's a site that encourages suicide" claims already try to do. False claims aside, this page feels so passive aggressive and is clearly biased while not necessarily using biased phrases the scent and vibe of such is still very present.

Ultimately this a perfect snapshot of what the sad state of Wikipedia is these days; constantly adorned with propaganda now. Wikipedia used to not be this way, as a longtime user I've seen articles like this come up about controversial websites only recently. In my judgement it would be a lot better, practical and wiser to leave out all the "encouragement" talk from the page, but I know it's very very likely that wont happen which is a shame considering claims such as those ultimately just adds more insult to injury. I cannot find any good reason why a forum that houses a userbase consisting of very depressed/traumatized/suicidal people who can freely express and talk about their horrible lives/experiences without the fear of judgement or the risk of being involuntarily hospitalized (a much bigger problem in the world than most people think it is) is being targeted and attacked as a "suicide encouragement forum" just because it has people wishing each other well about their impending plans to end their lives whenever it's brought up and doesn't shy away from resources from how to kill yourself (which can be easily findable on any place on the internet even on Wikipedia itself for crying out loud). But whatever, as long as this thread can at least shine light on the huge problem here then at least it served some purpose in the end even though it probably will not be addressed or fixed at all. With that said, if you want my own personal recommendation though, I heavily suggest reading the thread about SS on Kiwi Farms as this OP goes into very intricate detail of how the site actually works and what its userbase is like and talks in great detail about all the false allegations the press likes to write about it with little to no bias at all. Oh but wait the propaganda state that Wikipedia is in these days likes to say people on there encourage people to kill themselves too (not true btw), so I guess never mind Second Skin (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of the sources such as TNYT and Vice, but these are written in a very biased/sensationalist point of view as almost all hitpiece websites such as these are usually written in, i.e. "OMG scary website that wants u to kill yourself!!" but this is all very nullified when considering you can simply explore the site yourself and see this isn't the case as they claim — But you know very well that original research is not permitted here. Shells-shells (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Your issue seems to be with what the sources say- that you need to take up with them, not us. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Or he could find RS that back ups his criticism and add them here Trade (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I stopped taking this seriously the moment you recommended a thread made on KiwiFarms and proceeded to go on a rant about that, too.

KiwiFarms? Really? B3251 (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Where is KW mentionen? Trade (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Second paragraph - With that said, if you want my own personal recommendation though, I heavily suggest reading the thread about SS on Kiwi Farms ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 14:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Huh. First time i have ever seem someone use KF as a source to defend the subject of an article Trade (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Second Skin: I've revdelled the link you included. I want to be very clear, if you link to that site again, here or anywhere else on Wikipedia, I am going to block you indefinitely. For that matter, if you continue to post POV screeds like what you've written above, you can at a minimum expect a partial block from this article and talkpage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason why we dont already have a filter blocking that URL? Trade (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

We block links to the normal KF site. They linked an alternate version, which cannot be easily blacklisted because reasons. Fortunately other admin tools can fill the gap in such cases. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The rest of this unsourced emotional rant is already far-fetched, but the line “Oh but wait the propaganda state that Wikipedia is in these days likes to say people on there encourage people to kill themselves too (not true btw), so I guess never mind” makes me think you’re just denying or not seeing reality. Anyone who has stepped foot in that site(kiwifarms) should know that many of its members enjoy telling other members and their targets to kill themselves, most of those even seem to take pride in that. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Justanotherguy54

@Justanotherguy54 ok the fact that we're editing at the same time is getting annoying. When I said the addition of a source was 'overkill', I wasn't talking about the sentence with the discussion of the lawmakers (and my revert was an accident my bad). I was talking about the lede paragraphs, where you added another source to a clause of a sentence which was already supported by 3 sources. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 01:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Its ok Justanotherguy54 (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Justanotherguy54 Also I disagree with your addition in this edit. We're not introducing the journalists, we're introducing the news article (and no source in the article calls them that). ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 01:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I put it there to highlight their credentials but it may fit better elsewhere. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Poynter, a well-established news outlet who published an entire story about the NYTimes article, found no need to introduce them in that way (nor have I seen other RSes do this either). ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 01:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll revert it for now, so we can discuss per BRD. I also think it partially implies that their pullitzers came from reporting on this story. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 01:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Justanotherguy54 It seems that when you're making new edits with citations, you appear to be creating a new citation every time, even when a citation to the same article already exists. Please try not to do that by using the "re-use" button in the citation menu. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 02:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh I edit on Safari mobile and didn’t know that existed but got it. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

BBC sources for use in the article

The forum's not named as such by the BBC, but it's clearly the same one as this article's topic.

• Smith, Tony; Crawford, Angus (10 November 2023). "Suicide forum blocked to most UK users after Ofcom pressure". BBC News.
• Crawford, Angus; Smith, Tony (1 November 2023). "Broadband providers block suicide website linked to 50 deaths". BBC News.
• Crawford, Angus; Smith, Tony (24 October 2023). "'Failure to act' on suicide website linked to 50 UK deaths". BBC News.

Polyphemus Goode (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I think I've incorporated everything from those three now. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 18:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Change deceptive wording?

At the end of the first paragraph it says “ it has been widely described as "pro-suicide"”, even though the forum, and most of its members are in fact, “pro choice”, and the forum isn’t described as pro suicide by most, but the voices claiming it is pro suicide are the loudest. Lillyliv7 (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Lillyliv7:, the Wikipedia policy on due and undue weight dictates that articles are written to reflect the balance of viewpoints that are found among reliable sources (See the answer to question 2 of the above FAQ for more on what constitutes a reliable source).

Of the wealth of coverage in reliable sources on Sanctioned Suicide, no source as far as I know uses the description "pro-choice" without qualification (e.g. saying "the website's users describe themselves as 'pro-choice'", rather than "the website is 'pro-choice'"). However, multiple reliable sources do describe it as "pro-suicide" without qualification; these sources including: this STV article, this ABC Austrlia article, and this paper published in a medical journal.

If you feel there's a reliable source that supports the "pro-choice" label, do feel free to link it here so we can discuss it further. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 19:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Here's an article on the National Library of Medicine about suicidal thoughts and behaviors, referred to as "STB", focused on Sanctioned Suicide, chosen for its large dataset of uncensored STB discussion. It does mention the website describes itself as "pro-choice" but appears to agree with it later on in the article when it says "The current investigation focused on written post data from users on the pro-choice suicide forum, Sanctioned Suicide" and "Other topical patterns uncovered through network modeling (Figure 2(B)) indicate a dichotomous juxtaposition of positive and negative emotions, which may speak in part to the aforementioned dynamic of affect regulation but also may be a repercussion of Sanctioned Suicide's pro-choice, community-fostering nature".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10623973/

It's important to note while the big news articles are technically correct, they do have an economic intensive to be sensationalist to draw more attention to their article. Lillyliv7 (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the link (sorry for the late response, it's the holidays!)—that paper was published less than a month ago so I hadn't seen it before. I've read through it and I'm not entirely satisfied the paper is using "pro-choice" without reservations: on first mention it makes sure to state that the "pro-choice" label is self-described. The other aspect is that this doesn't contradict in any way that the forum has been widely described as "pro-suicide". The paper itself looks to be very useful and I'll try to get it incorporated into the article. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 16:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

What does "pro-suicide" even mean in this context? Trade (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that if you were to come from a perspective of suicide prevention, any forum that provides the means to encourage or carry out suicide would be considered pro-suicide. The paper listed in the "Further reading" section makes this clear, stating:

Perhaps unsurprisingly, prevention advocates have tended to view ‘pro-choice’ forums as being in reality ‘pro-suicide’ and have lobbied for their removal and banning. The positions seem binary, fundamentally opposed and unbridgeable, and the stakes are high for both sides. ‘Pro-choice’ sites contain frequent criticisms of the beliefs of ‘pro-lifers’ – a lack of understanding is taken to be inherent in their attitude to suicide – and of the actions of so-called ‘do-gooders’ which, they argue, impinge on their right (claimed as a universal human right) to end their lives at the time and in the manner of their choosing. Suicide, in ‘pro-choice’ discourse, is coded as an escape, an end to suffering and those who post that they are going to end their lives are, more often than not, wished good luck and a peaceful journey.

~ F4U (talk • they/it) 16:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Take this down

This article should be taken down. Even if you don't mention the address, people can easily search on Google by the name and find the website. With this here, you advertise them and make a niche, obscure website a well known one.79.115.62.225 (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

It's the other way around, there is an article about the website because it's well-known. It was already mentioned in news outlets. An article on Wikipedia doesn't promote it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

See also WP:WINC. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 15:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Depends whether or not you count the removal of the URL as censorship i suppose Trade (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The URL is removed so it is censored, Z-Library which is basically piracy has URLs. This article has it's URL removed for absolutely no reason, people who want to visit it will just go to the history. ZalnaRs (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Why is the URL not in the article?

I don't understand why the forum isn't linked from this Wikipedia page. It is publicly available. Is there any rule against adding the link? If not, I'd be happy to add it in the next few days. 5628785a (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

There was an earlier discussion where it was decided not to include the link, as it is more harmful than useful [7]. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

hey, why the hell is the full name of the forum the title of the article?

it seems deeply irresponsible to not make any attempt to hide the real name of the forum. someone could easily hear about the forum but never get its name, then while trying to seek it out find out about that new york times article on it, and then this article will be the result just below the article. trust me, it *is* the second result (at least every way i've tried searching for the nyt article). therefore, it is necessary to alter at least the title of the article to make it harder for people currently suffering mental health crises to find the forum.

a potential replacement title could be something like SS (forum), although i admit i am not very well versed in article naming conventions. thank you all for reading, i'll be interested to see if you put in the effort to make any changes. L0laish3r3 (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. And the article title is the name of the website, it's the common name. The world can be an ugly place and there are many articles about horrible things. Changing the titles doesn't make it any better. For what it's worth, there is already a hatnote, linking to suicide prevention. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)