# Talk:Sanctioned Suicide


### Sanctioned Suicide
Should this article include an an external link to the website? 117.194.201.67 (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes: Wikipedia has the mission to include all encyclopedic information pertaining to a subject, and based on that mission, it includes external links to all websites it has an article on. Wikipedia is not censored to remove "graphic" or "obscene" information, nor does it refuse to include information deemed to be "dangerous", as many of its articles on various drugs, neurotoxic agents, and viruses and bioweapons might be deemed to be. When even commerical companies, like Google and Microsoft Bing, that look for a profit motive, positively refuse to remove the link based on a principled stance to not remove information that is not illegal, it is a travesty that Wikipedia caves into censorious demands. The link ought to be included, for the dignity of Wikipedia and the fulfillment of its mission. 117.194.201.67 (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
What "censorious demands" has Wikipedia caved in to, and who is making them? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
No, I honestly don't think we lose anything encyclopedically by not including the link here, and don't see much of a benefit (and indeed, some slight potential for harm). I'm not aware of a policy-based requirement that we have to include an official link if it exists (ELOFFICIAL certainly doesn't seem to say anything to that effect). This article is detailed and descriptive of the site as is, the point of Wikipedia. We totally can use editorial discretion beyond that, and I think we should here. Eddie891  Talk Work  09:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
There is not a single policy or guideline page anywhere on Wikipedia that says we have to include anything anywhere at all. I am not aware of any policy that says we *have* to include someone's birthday, their country, or really any information about them; but it would be a pretty silly if I removed someone's birthday from their page on that ground and insisted that it must not be added back because no page says we have to include it.
The benefit that we are seeking here is intellectual and encyclopedic, not hedonic benefit or general well-being. Wikipedia is not a charity with the goal of minimising suicides (not that removing the link does an iota to achieve that goal). There is an obvious encyclopedic benefit here, as the link is a crucial piece of information about the subject, and pretty much every single article about a website includes one.
We do lose a lot by not including it; using "editorial discretion" to put misguided non-encylopedic goals over and above encyclopedic goals is contrary to the very purpose of Wikipedia, which is to be an encyclopedia. 117.195.139.169 (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
From your birthday example, it sounds like you are unfamiliar with the WP:DOB policy, which encourages the removal of birthdates unless they are widely publicized.
Have you read the prior RFC?  There's a link in the FAQ at the top of the page:
Why is the link to Sanctioned Suicide excluded?
The current consensus of the Wikipedia community, as determined in a March 2023 Request for Comment, is to exclude all links to the SS forum because it would link to external harassment and because it was determined that the potential harm caused by including the link overrides any benefit to the project derived from giv[ing] the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself (WP:ELOFFICIAL).
Consensus can change, but not without another similar community discussion as happened when that consensus was formed. Please do not boldly re-add the link without starting another talk page discussion which directly addresses the closing statement and arguments brought up in the first discussion.
Additionally, you may wish to review the advice in Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, which suggests that arguing with each individual who disagrees with you is not usually a successful way to win friends and influence people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
(Summoned by bot) No. I don't see why we are required to include it, based on WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE I don't see any fitting criteria; and in fact would probably be considered WP:ELNO under #10, Social networking sites (such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and TikTok), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Facebook Groups or email lists). Additionally, this isn't a WP:NOTCENSORED issue. If it was an external link that was of encyclopedic value, but was morally objectionable, then that would apply. But as already stated under the "Links normally to be avoided" section of WP:EL as prior, this is not only something that likely contains no encyclopedic value, but is on a list of things we typically avoid linking under most circumstances. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 02:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
ELNO starts with the phrase "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, emphasis in the original. The official link of a website doesn't come under "social media". That's a misconception. Compare Anna's Archive and Library Genesis. 117.195.141.238 (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Regardless, I still don't think that it should be included. Furthermore there isn't much stated in the proposal and initial !vote that wasn't really gone over in the original RfC, which came to a consensus to remove it. This can be seen under the FAQ banner at the top of this talk page. If there's nothing new to bring up, why does previous consensus need to be overturned? SmittenGalaxy | talk! 23:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes per WP:NOTCENSORED. 2600:1700:115F:4000:9009:8312:942F:2B98 (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Include per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV. Excluding the link based on the opinion (widespread, sure, but still an opinion) that suicide is harmful and should be discouraged would promote that opinion, violating the spirit of NPOV, as we cannot promote opinions here, even widespread ones like "Genocide is bad." This effectively nullifies all the exclude arguments presented in the 2023 RfC. As an example, if an editor removed the official website link from Planned Parenthood because they are anti-abortion and believe that abortion is murder, would that not also be a WP:NPOV (and WP:RGW) violation? (As an aside, I simply don't see how pro-suicide forums like SS are "linking to external harassment".) OutsideNormality (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
@OutsideNormality Allow me to quoute from the lede of genocide: "Genocide is widely considered to be the epitome of human evil". I think you need to read Wikipedia's policy on neutrality again. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
Genocide and suicide are not the same thing, and "is widely considered to be" is not the same as "is". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
@BarrelProof I was responding to OutsideNormality's statement we cannot promote opinions here, even widespread ones like "Genocide is bad" by showing that we do almost exactly that. I understand that genocide and suicide are not the same thing and that different words mean different things. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
The "Genocide is bad" example was actually directly taken from WP:NPOV#Explanation, although I admit that wasn't the best example in this situation. A better example would be promoting the view that Nazis are bad (widely agreed by society, but technically still an opinion) by removing the official link from our The Daily Stormer article, not due to any external harassment concerns or piracy, but simply because the website is neo-Nazi. OutsideNormality (talk) 05:26, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
Another example might be Kiwi Farms which does not have a link to the site. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
Getting into WP:OTHERCRAP here— maybe we shouldn’t exclude the link there either? Exceptions make bad precedents. Dronebogus (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, Kiwi Farms involves harassment of third parties. Does this topic involve harassment of third parties? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I don;t know if it involves harassment of third parties, but that wasn't the point. We exercise editorial judgment when including or excluding links, for a variety of reasons. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes. The article is somewhat confusing without it, as it leads the reader to wonder whether this is a description of a topic that no longer exists or is otherwise inaccessible or whether the information about it has been deliberately omitted. Wikipedia should not deliberately frustrate its readers who are searching for information about a topic. At a minimum, if a link is readily available but is not provided, the article should directly say that it has been deliberately withheld and why. Wikipedia should not be in the business of providing WP:TEASERs. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
Include: people who want to find SS are going to find it anyway. People who want to find it to actually commit suicide are going to find it anyway. We aren’t stopping them by excluding it, we’re just trying to assuage our own guilt, like how the gallows at the Tokyo Detention House has two dummy buttons and one real button for the trap door. In both cases the bad thing is going to happen no matter what, but a tiny bit of direct liability is removed. Dronebogus (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
@117.194.201.67 Include. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Let it act like one. Bucktooth2593 (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

this article links to or describes a website that promotes or facilitates suicide and might violate Wikipedia’s content policies. ~2025-32078-54 (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Which policies? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I am someone who struggles with chronic suicidal ideation. Whilst there is nothing wrong with this page existing, the danger is in how easily accessible it is to vulnerable people. All you have to do to find this page is search something along the lines of “suicide forum” and this article appears. Whilst that is how searching should work, this article’s title is the exact name of the forum. Vulnerable people don’t even have to click this article to then search for the forum themselves and find it easily. Changing the name to something like “suicide forum” will not mitigate this risk because vulnerable people will then click on the article specifically to find the name they can search or a link. I am not arguing for the article to be removed, I am arguing for it to no longer appear in search results on search engines like Google, Bing, etc. This article accidentally acts as a gateway to instructions on how to harm yourself, and the only reason I did not reach the site was because new UK content restrictions prevented me. Whilst this article should be accessible for researchers and other parties of interest through Wikipedia, it should not be widely available where vulnerable people can easily learn about and access it. Tbspiritss (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors don't have control over external search engine indexing. You could considering making a request to Google/Bing/etc. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)