Template talk:Suicide sidebar

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology This template is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Death: Suicide This template is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles This template is supported by the Suicide task force. Medicine: Psychiatry This template is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles This template is supported by the Psychiatry task force. Sociology This template is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles

I'd be interested in any opinions on adding List of suicide sites to the template. - Eric 20:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the list itself states, "jurisdictions and media agencies have ceased collecting statistics and reporting suicides at common sites, in the belief that the reporting may encourage others." Well we're a media agency too. We should follow their example. We shouldn't promote the act nor those sites as places to commit it, any further than we already have. The Transhumanist   22:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to put it parasuicide certainly relevant. Paul foord 11:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that resources for suicide should be placed at the top of the template, given the potential for the suicide articles to be read by depressed and suicidal people. Anyone disagree? State your reasons.Wik98 15:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that your basis for re-ordering fails WP:NPOV and makes the template fail WP:MOS, the look of the template has already been discussed. Just look a few sections up on this page. Prolog 17:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither WP:NPOV or WP:MOS seem to be a barrier to reordering the template, and I just read them twice to make sure. Furthermore, there hasn't been a discussion about template ordering above. Prolog, I can't help but feel you have been stalking my edits.Wik98 00:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reason for re-ordering was the potential for the suicide articles to be read by depressed and suicidal people. That is blatant POV. Content on Wikipedia is neither written nor re-ordered by whoever might or might not read it.

Talk pages work better on suggestions than reportage of already done changes, especially since consensus was reached earlier. The reason why there isn't any discussion on the ordering of the sections is that it would be redundant. The topic is suicide, so Suicide is first and then the rest in a logical, and not POV-ridden, order. You have less than 50 edits on Wikipedia and almost all have to do about suicide, so I suggest you wait for other users' comments before making more controversial edits. And in regards of stalking, the re-ordering was originally done by 203.214.35.136, so I must have a crystal ball for noticing the edit and knowing that was you. Prolog 10:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Having suicide first is POV as well. You are presenting a point of view that it doesn't matter if a small percentage of the audience reading this article is suicidal. This position is not neutral merely because you don't state your assumptions. Indeed, there may be no neutral stand on this issue at all. I am going to ignore your crap about being less of an editor because I haven't made 50 edits, and I am likewise going to edit articles without concern for your bullying behaviour. Actually, I wont do any more edits at all. After dealing with a ignoramus like you, Wikipedia no longer holds any special place in my heart. I now see it for what it is. A few intense hardcore users like you edit articles in fields they are totally unfamiliar with. Perhaps google makes you feel like an expert, so that you feel your position is relevant.But it isn't, believe me...I have contributed to few articles because I recognise that the areas I have expert knowledge in are very limited. For instance, I have recently written a politics science honours thesis on the the extent to which Australian conceptions of masculinity have contributed to the phenomenon of youth suicide. I contributed to the debate on suicide because I felt my research experience gave me a special insight which was missed by the vocal majority. But even though I have a much greater right to be heard than you, I am not. Because at the end of the day, I haven't edited as many articles as you. And, frankly, I can't be stuffed getting involved in an edit war with a dickhead like you. So, you get your wish. Edit this page however you want.

You are correct; I don't care how many of the people reading the article are suicidal, and neither does Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a crisis hotline. Wikipedia is not a doctor, does not give medical advice and is not censored. This is all about neutrality, not a point of view. Keep a cool head and don't resort to personal attacks when editing articles close to you. Prolog 16:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the personal attack. It's a little frustrating coming to terms with how stupid some positions are. While I agree that wikipedia is not a doctor, and it shouldn't be used for medical advice, I recognise that it is unfortunately used that way. Many inexperienced young people use wikipedia as a resource under the belief that it is as reliable as an encylcopeadia. Yet it clearly is not. I disagree with your assertion that wikipedia is not censored. Censoring by editors like you and I occurs constantly as we remove things we find objectionable.

As I stated earlier, your position isn't neutral either. To use a metaphor, it is as if you had connected a stick of dynamite to a detonator with a red button, left the contraption in a childrens playground, and neglected to leave a warning sign because you didn't feel it was your responsibility.203.214.50.104 05:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The resources section, if it belongs in the template at all, does not belong at the top; it's POV and unencyclopaedic. I thoroughly endorse Prolog's comments. GideonF 17:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not POV, and it isn't any less encyclopaedic than suicide methods. Also, the media in general always add crisis hotline information to articles that involve suicide. Look at this article from the age, for example. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/09/18/1158431619134.html203.214.50.104 05:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is POV for Wikipedia to be doing anything that actively discourages, or encourages, suicide. You want the crisis hotline stuff at the top because you don't want people to commit suicide, whereas Wikipedia has no opinion on whether or not people should commit suicide. It is unencyclopaedic to have the crisis hotline stuff at the top because it's not the most significant encyclopaedic information on the topic. The template does have crisis hotline information, jutst not at the top.GideonF 12:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention should be top and center. It represents how our entire society is set up to deal with suicide, and though it may be POV with respect to the issues pertaining to suicide, it isn't POV with respect to suicide as a phenomenon. Suicide is an act. An act which, like murder, arson, theft, etc., is against the law. Law is not just a view, it is a rule of society which has punishments attached, and large organizations of law enforcement and judicial personnel to enforce and adjudicate. To present all of that as just a view, is POV, as it skews the picture of what is going on in the real world. Also, society, from the top levels of government to local government jurisdictions to hospitals and the entire medical field, has policies and protocols in place and very actively implemented with respect to suicide in the form of emergency medical response. This is also much more than a view, and involves the expenditure of public funds, the employment of emergency service personnel, and the actions one can expect of almost every doctor. Phenomena and their epiphenomena have greater relevance and a higher position on the reporting hierarchy than issues about those phenomena. Debates or views about the issue of whether or not suicide is right or wrong are secondary to the presentment of what suicide is, and to the organizational measures put in place to manage it. These are physically relevent to the topic, not merely discussions or philosophical positions about the topic as views are. Somehow, in your interest of preserving NPOV, you've lost sight of that. Suicide is far more than just an issue. And so is society's very active response to suicide. The Transhumanist   19:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That still gives too much weight on suicide intervention and suicide contemplation. Suicide, as the article states, is "the act of willfully ending one's own life". Therefore, articles that are directly related to ending one's own life should be first in the template. As you put it yourself: "Suicide is first and formost an act and event". Regardless of how society and medical persons react to it, suicide is always an act, done with a certain method. History of suicide and suicide methods are more related to the topic than suicide intervention and especially the likes of crisis hotline. I'm pretty sure that if there was a template on fire, prevention would not be on top of it either. If you look at its article, protection and prevention is the last section. Prolog 20:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition is lacking. It should read "the unlawful act of". Also, saving the lives of potential suicide victims is directly related - that's why police, firemen, paramedics, and doctors are all trained to intervene. With respect to the norms of society, intervention is the most relevant subtopic. That's why emergency numbers are at the front of every telephone book and 9-1-1 is not only printed on every pay phone (in the U.S.), it's free to call. Because they are most relevant. The same applies to the treatment of emergency-related topics in the encyclopedia. We have to anticipate the needs of readers and what is most relevant to those in greatest need. So, if a person who is contemplating suicide accesses this template, do you believe it is better that he get a detailed description of how to do it, or that 55% of suicides blow themselves away with a firearm? That could only help him go through with it. And what if his mother was looking it up instead? Do you think she needs that first? No, she would need to get her kid into medical treatment as soon as possible. She may have looked it up on Wikipedia because she just didn't know what to do about it. In such situations, time is at stake, and every second may count. They can go back to the article and read the rest later after the immediate crisis is taken care of. You're not thinking in terms of the crisis cases. The order of presentation needs to be prioritized with respect to them. After all, Wikipedia is first and foremost a public service. The Transhumanist   21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, correction: Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia written by the public to inform the publiic. The Transhumanist   22:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a help service. We should not aim to prevent suicide, or take a position on whether the act is good or bad, but only provide non-biased information about the subject. It does not matter whether the reader is suicidal, a mother of a suicidal person or a regular visitor. Main subtopic about transport is not accidents or how to prevent them. Similarly, intervention or prevention is not the main subtopic of suicide, but the act itself (types, methods, reasons etc.). It is not neutral to list less relevant sections first, neither does that follow the style conventions. As per anon's comment on User talk:The Transhumanist/Help me, can you name any other encyclopedia that has suicide intervention as the most important section of suicide? Also, I have no idea what you mean by "the unlawful act", as suicide is illegal only in some countries. This is the international English Wikipedia, after all. Prolog 02:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a service alright, a public information service. But, as a member of the public, how can you be so heartless to other members of the public who may not be so fortunate as you? We're speaking of a single section that would be displayed sooner rather than later in certain articles and lists because it is more relevant to persons in crisis. All other public services that deal with the issue of suicide place higher priority on intervention than on how to go through with it. We should follow suit; as members of the public in service to the public, we should care about those we serve. Relevance to them is the most relevant form of relevance: if members of the public are in danger, and we can help them with such a slight alteraton as placing emergency resource information first in the articles they are most likely to turn to for help, then we very well should. You are applying NPOV here inappropriately, without taking the needs of readers into account. The "neutral point of view" policy was not intended to make us indifferent to the common welfare nor to disregard the public's safety. We are members of society first, Wikipedia editors second. But since NPOV is being applied here in a bad way, another policy is much more relevant. It states "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them."

Methods on how to kill oneself can afford to be placed later in this list. They are the last thing a contemplater or his loved ones need to see. It doesn't hurt anyone to have the crisis intervention information listed first, while it may very well help many. The Transhumanist   15:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may seem "heartless" to you, but I am only putting my personal opinions aside and trying to emphasize that articles need to be balanced and non-biased. Although your intentions are certainly good, your changes are more suitable for crisis websites with a goal to prevent suicides, than neutral encyclopedias with no goal to either prevent or encourage. Modifying articles to "help pages" is neither neutral nor encyclopedic. NPOV is not a suggestion or a guideline, it is a core policy. IAR is not applicable here anymore as although you are, in your view, improving Wikipedia with your changes, this view has now been contested by several editors here and at User talk:The Transhumanist/Help me, so I think you should respect that. Prolog 21:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Prolog, that including suicide prevention articles at the top is biased towards stopping suicides. The other articles are much more relevant and should be placed first. I do sympathise with your views but it isn't Wikipedia's job to help the public. Christopher Connor 16:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not having the intervention articles at the top is biased towards assisting suicides, which is exactly what you are doing when you explain or describe how people kill themselves. There's no way to be unbiased here - you will be influencing crisis cases one way or the other. The material is not balanced in this respect. The Transhumanist   23:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the current structure of the template makes little sense; the logical structure would seem to be definition, characterization, and raw information (types, history, etc.) followed by viewpoints and assessments (views on suicide) followed by assorted related topics (causes, hotlines, etc.). The articles on suicide prevention make more sense after we've explained the prevailing view that suicide is bad. Further, the "symptoms" section is confusing: threats of suicide are not a symptom; symptoms are physical conditions. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents if that's worth anything: we are really kidding ourselves if we believe that the order of presentation in the template will have any impact on people contemplating suicide. This is the same weird logic that believes that kids would not commit suicide if they weren't listening to Marylin Manson. It does not make any sense to choose the order of the template based on the vague (and imo absurd) possibility that someone contemplating suicide will look at the template, see the types of suicide on top and will go "oh, right, I'll just hang myself" whereas the intervention links on top would have pushed him to seek help. Now it is a meaningful debate to choose the ordering based on what makes most sense in terms of content organization but social responsibility objectives should be kept out of it. Pascal.Tesson 02:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wik98 per WP:NOT EVIL. Herostratus 18:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've pretty thoroughly reformatted the template. It seems good enough for now; a bigger problem is the sorry state of our suicide articles in general. It's one of those topics where everyone has an opinion so no one bothers to cite sources. We need articles that pass the amnesia test. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. I think it looks very balanced now and hopefully the main article can be made to match it some day. Prolog 22:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with the current order. Thank you, Night Gyr, for taking the initiative. You've helped us reach a suitable compromise. The Transhumanist   17:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed that Euthanasia is mentioned twice in the template - first under social aspects then again under suicide types. I was inclined to remove it from suicide types, as it isn't a form of suicide, where suicide is defined as intentionally causing one's own death - euthanasia, as current defined in the literature, involves another party performing the act. On those grounds, are there any objections if I remove it from "suicide types", leaving it in "Social aspects"? In relation to the above, I note that "Assisted suicide" is mentioned in "Social aspects", but not in "Suicide types". Would it be ok to move "Assisted suicide" down to the other section? - Bilby (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the changes above - given that I don't want to read a lack of response as approval, especially given that this just probably isn't an active discussion page any more, if anyone disagrees I'll have no objection if you want to revert and bring the discussion here. - Bilby (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the image for this template is a picture of Socrates reaching for the poison hemlock that killed him. It is a common misconception that Socrates committed suicide, when really he was made to drink the poison hemlock as a method of execution. He did not voluntarily drink the hemlock, although arguably he did throw his trial as a sort of martyrdom for his philosophical beliefs which might be construed to be suicidal. But there has to be some more clear-cut example of suicide that we can use. Socrates was tried, convicted, and executed. AuntieNeo (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this. Also, navboxes don't have to be cluttered by decorative thumbnails. --dab (𒁳) 09:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many do call it that.[1] Sure people argue about it. I do not see this as sufficient justification to remove the image. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone collapse the template. In shot articles like this it takes all the space, thus no space remains to add graphics related to the article! --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any comment? --Tito Dutta (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waited for 4 months! Have  Done it --Tito Dutta (contact) 04:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...I was not pleased with the above 'discussion' which resulted in {{Suicide}} being renamed to {{Suicide sidebar}}, but {{Suicide2}} being left unaltered. Why would you have a template named "Suicide2", especially if you don't have a "Suicide" or "Suicide1"? The closing admin claimed that there was no consensus to move Suicide2, which is not entirely correct.

So I decided to move {{Suicide2}} to {{Suicide navbox}} myself. I also removed all transclusions of Suicide2, changing them to Suicide navbox. I did the same with a few remaining instances of Suicide, now changed to Suicide sidebar. On this moment, both redirects are not transcluded on any page (Suicide, Suicide2).

Sorry if this is considered gaming the system. I truly believe this to be the best solution. Because the redirects are unused now, the situation is easily changed again, if there's a consensus to do so. I don't see that happening any time soon though, considering the very low amount of input from others. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please, I only want to edit the Socrates image in the Template, It's should be changed by another picture, because it could suggest a romanticized portrait of the phenomenon. Please, let me change it, by a symbol or and ideograph, it's for practical reasons.

image =

change by this: http://afsp.donordrive.com/clients/AFSP/img/fbLogo.jpg?v=42243.2736806

Please, don't let my request unanswered.

Thank you very much. Waiting for your answer.

Usuariocontribuyente (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The image you have suggested is the logo of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, which does not appear to be free for use and would unreasonably promote this organization through the template. If you would like to change the image in the template, you should suggest alternatives and develop a consensus here first before making an edit request. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The former picture was not really representative of the whole concept of suicide, since it required knowledge of the rest of the paining as well as its context. It can also be debated of Socrates committed suicide or simply accepted his death sentence. The painting itself likely suggests the latter. The painitng of Sappho, however, is more like it. It requires no foreknowledge to understand that it depicts a jumper; the open sea to the left showing the infinity of death, and her pose and facial expression on the right displaying the fear and misery of being suicidal. The doubts whether Sappho did die by suicide is irrelevant to the painting, and reflected upon by the image desc. I know that there was previous talk about the image, but decided to do a bold edit to quickly solve this. Feel free to revert and talk or just talk if you disagree :)Gaioa (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the spelling error "paining" to "painting" in the sidebar painting of Sappho & possibly add "Sappho a Greek poet shortly before her rumoured suicide" as a descriptor. Brain Salt (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done I've corrected the spelling (also the same mistake at Template:Suicide navbox ), but have not added the Greek poet, as IMHO the description long enough already. I'll leave the request open, so another editor can consider this. - Arjayay (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brian Salt and Arjayay: Question. By "descriptor," do you mean you want to add that text underneath the image, like a caption? I kind of agree it should have that because, since most people don't know who Sappho was, the image has no apparent use to the typical reader. CityOfSilver 21:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brian Salt and CityOfSilver: The description is currently visible on hover. Although there is a caption parameter, which can be added (see Template:Sidebar), IMHO a caption, especially such a long one, would be an unnecessary distraction. - Arjayay (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brian Salt, CityOfSilver, and Arjayay:, I agree that the hover-caption is already quite long and adding the additional text could be problematic for some devices (e.g., screen readers, etc.). Marking as answered. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The templates {{Discrimination}} and {{Discrimination sidebar}} have the same content, but the former is horizontal and the latter is vertical. Each of them includes a message that says that any edits made to one of them should also be made to the other; for example, the message on {{Discrimination sidebar}} says:

Any content changes made here should also be updated in {{Discrimination}}.

Should the content of {{Suicide sidebar}} and {{Suicide navbox}} be the same, and should there be a similar message on each template? (I ask because I made some changes to one of them but not to the other.) Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also the related deletion discussion at: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 13 § Template:Suicide by country. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes should generally go at the bottom IMO and are much prefered over sidebars. One should not have both. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO we should merge the sidebar into the navbox and place the later at the bottom of the pages in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The preferences of Doc James are noted, and I agree that alternate navigation templates with duplicate content should not both be used on the same page; nevertheless such alternate navigation templates do exist, as the example of {{Discrimination}} and {{Discrimination sidebar}} shows. So there are currently two different proposed options: (1) Should one of {{Suicide sidebar}} and {{Suicide navbox}} be merged into the other? Doc James has proposed merging the former into the latter (see above). Or: (2) Should {{Suicide sidebar}} and {{Suicide navbox}} be alternate navigation templates like {{Discrimination}} and {{Discrimination sidebar}}, with an alert message that any content changes made in one of the templates should also be updated in the other? Biogeographist (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]