Template talk:Suicide/Archive 1

message: This navigational template should not have a disclaimer.  For an example of why, see voluntary euthanasia.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 00:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you kidding me? There is no reputable pro-suicide organization. Flat Earth. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are reputable right-to-die organizations that support the right to commit suicide under certain circumstances. It's not our business to decide what is "reputable", however. — Phil Welch 23:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It's not neutral by any stretch of the imagination. It completely disregards the "maybe it's a reasonable idea to kill yourself depending on the situation" points of view. It forces a Western mental health point of view onto a reader who may have different cultural values. It is the epitome of a biased statement. Wikipedia's social responsibility is to provide an impartial, accurate, and comprehensive account of the sum of human knowledge to the reader—not to convince him not to commit suicide. And as for your first claim, I think that any suicidal person who looks up "suicide" on Wikipedia is looking for impartial, comprehensive, and accurate information about suicide, just like any other Wikipedia reader. Someone who goes to the trouble to read Wikipedia articles about suicide when they contemplate it is not going to be swayed by a three-line "don't kill yourself" public service announcement. Furthermore, if our social responsibility to prevent suicide overrules NPOV, then it follows that we should censor Wikipedia to remove all mention of seppuku or anything else that might "glamorize" suicide. — Phil Welch 00:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The earth is not flat. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What? ~~ N (t/c) 00:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I see your point... it's a biased presentation of facts, and people probably aren't going to be reading WP for information on how to kill themselves. But IIRC (and this is not authoritative at all), it is very important and potentially effective that suicidal people be offered help. If the warning prevents one person from killing themselves (unlikely but possible), it's worth it. I find your statements on "social responsibility" a bit odd - the inconvenience and mild bias caused by this template are worse than the (highly unlikely but possible) event of someone dying as a result of it not being there? ~~ N (t/c) 00:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was pointing out that "disregarding neutrality if it might save lives" would, if applied consistently, make a mockery of our attempts to build an encyclopedia. — Phil Welch 05:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

text: Kind of makes sense, but I think it's less persuasive. ~~ N (t/c) 00:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not intended to persuade people not to kill themselves. It's intended to warn them not to make that decision based on Wikipedia information. — Phil Welch 00:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "npov template" template consistantly being inserted is offensive trolling. The statement is supposed to persuade people not to kill themselves. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remain civil, and realize that there actually is an NPOV dispute, even if it seems silly to you. ~~ N (t/c) 00:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, see, that's not the point of having something there. ~~ N (t/c) 00:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not Wikipedia's purpose to give personal advice about whether or not to commit suicide. Any disclaimer should state that, in so many words. — Phil Welch 00:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your underlying goal in arguing this? Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

text: Ahh, so making up a fake template like npov, including a huge hand on it such that the template is ugly and makes articles look hideous is Ok by you - it's evidence of someone trying to make the enyclopedia better? Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hipocrite, you are not being civil and you are trying to impose your ideas. If you continue to behave in an aggresive manner, you are going to be blocked. --Sn0wflake 00:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What Sn0wflake said. There IS a neutrality dispute, and if you objected to the hand you could have just deleted the hand. ~~ N (t/c) 00:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a time, fellows. (you'll note I did exactly that) Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

text: I object. Is the small unencyclopedicity caused by an unobtrusive message worse than a small (very small but existent) risk of someone committing suicide who would have been prevented by the message? ~~ N (t/c) 12:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't think that hypothetical arguments about saving lives have any place in making an encyclopedia. By your logic, any time anyone could construct a remotely plausable scenerio where a disclaimer added to an article could save lives, we would be honor-bound to add it.  Our article on Obesity, for instance, could end up with a warning that "You may be fat.  If you are fat, you should seek professional help to avoid health complications later in life"; all of our Gun articles would contain warnings on gun safety; and our articles on Tobacco smoking and Recreational drug use would all have a template at the top warning readers not to use those substances. Most of those things, after all, claim far more lives a year than suicide. I don't think we should have to make arguments to distinguish between these cases, either; according to WP:NOT, "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain 'how-to's." That ought to be the beginning and end of the debate. --Aquillion 15:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: In the form "While social and religious perspectives on suicide are varied, the medical community believes that people with severe suicidal ideation should seek immediate medical assistance."? I believe that your form is a disclaimer. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: are we going to provide a citation in the template for "the medical community believes that people with severe suicidal ideation should seek immediate medical assistance"?  I don't think that that statement belongs in a template. It belongs in the Suicide article, yes.  Not the template.--Kewp (t) 17:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can provide such a citation if it is requested as any more than a hoop-jump, yes, though I really doubt that the fact of that statement is even remotely disputed. Moving forward with the assumption that I can cite it, why not include it in the template? What is the concrete harm not balanced by a more substantial gain? The balance of equities favors the inclusion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: why not include it in the template?  because it's irrelevant to the template, and is a disclaimer, no matter how you choose to word it.--Kewp (t) 18:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: To clarify, I guess my previous comment was a "hoop-jump"--Meaning, generally citations and references belong in an article, and not on a navigational template which is meant to provide a consistent look for related articles.  The addition of material such as you are suggesting, plus citations, would require the kind of depth that should only appear in an article.--Kewp (t) 19:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I ask again- "Why not include it in the template? What is the concrete harm not balanced by a more substantial gain? The balance of equities favors the inclusion." Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disclaimer

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

message: Is there current NPOV disagreement with the statement "The medical community believes that people with severe suicidial ideation should seek imediate medical assistance." If there is such an NPOV disagreement, I would request a cite from someone inside the medical community stating that they do not believe that people with severe suicidial ideation should seek immediate medical assistance. Such a cite should be in a peer reviewed medical journal. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a seperate POV note, is it appropraite to include VE in the template? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get Help/NPOV 

message: Is there agreement that a statement about getting help (if such is NPOV - discuss that above) does not violate the guideline on Disclaimer templates, which are defined as 
:Disclaimer templates are templates that duplicate the information at one of the five disclaimer pages:
::General disclaimer 
::Use Wikipedia at your own risk 
::Wikipedia does not give medical advice 
::Wikipedia does not give legal opinions 
::Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable
:Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get Help/Disclaimer 

message: Using the slippery slope argument in this case is a classical logical fallacy - to wit, no one has suggested that B will inevitably happen. I dispute that adding a statement of fact to a template where looking up information is a classic warning signal is at all analogous to a statement of fact to a template where looking up information is not a classic warning signal. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you study the difference between slippery slope and reductio ad absurdum. — Phil Welch 16:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that you do so as well. The argument was that this statement would lead to similar statements on article about drugs. I dispute that slippery slope, as looking for information on drugs is not a classic precursor to taking them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get Help/Slippery Slope 

message: The majority of people here agree that the statement should not appear in the template. Even if you want to tally it up again, most of us would still be opposed to it. I think you're pulling a fast one on us, Hipocrite. — Phil Welch 16:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that you WP:AGF, especially considering that I brought all of the various points up on talk. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I am attempting to address your NPOV concerns, as 33/66 is not even rough consensus. Please join me in trying to do so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you think your statement on the template page is more appropriate for the talk page? I do. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

text: Under what Rationale are you putting this in WP:PP? Do you consider your prior statements to be involvement in an edit dispute? Do you not believe we were making headway? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The rationale of "do not protect pages you're in a dispute over" is to prevent admins from abusing their power in order to further their own views. If Sn0wflake is acting against his stated views here I think he's not only free of the spirit of that rule, but by the spirit of that rule he's a true Wikipedia hero. — Phil Welch 17:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not intend to discuss this with you, so sorry. I would like to hear why Snowflake protected a page that appeared, from my perspective, to be in a constructive dialogue, not an edit war. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just adding my own views. You are free to ignore them, as always. — Phil Welch 17:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not intend to make it seem that I am ignoring your views, or that I have always done so. I was certainly trying to incorporate what I think was what you wanted into what I wanted. I would just very much like to hear why Snowflake considers what was hopefully a productive discussion to be an "edit war." - oh, by the way - 6/4 now. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: === Main issue ===
====Against warning text====
Against (Uncompromising) There can be no warning text at the bottom (WTB):
# Phil Welch 19:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do whatever you want. You wanted it gone, I deleted it. Now you want it back. Reinsert it. You raise a good point, and as such I suggest two suicide templates - suicide and suicidenolist. The nolist can go on VE (which should be removed from the suicide template alltogehter, as I've proposed), Right to Die (also should be removed) and Suicide Bombing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say that the poll should be deleted. I said that it was invalid.  It should be kept on the main page so other parties can see the history of the discussion.  But whatever, not a big deal!--Kewp (t) 07:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

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

text: Only because your POV believes that right to die is an issue concerning suicide, which is the nature of the dispute. We are getting sidetracked. You can have the last word below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right to die is the belief that in certain circumstances people have the right to decide whether to commit suicide. How can that possibly be unrelated to suicide? — Phil Welch 20:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

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

message: ====Against warning text====
Against (Uncompromising) There can be no warning text at the bottom (WTB):
# Phil Welch 19:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main issue 

message: Against (Uncompromising) There can be no warning text at the bottom (WTB):
# Phil Welch 19:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Against warning text

message: For (Uncompromising): We must include a WTB:
# Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: For warning text

message: 1. There is, in principle, a middle ground where all will be satisifed:
# Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the issue of compromise 

message: 1. A WTB is "not a disclaimer. A disclaimer disclaims legal liability."
# Expressed opinion of User:Nickptar 
# — Phil Welch 00:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the term "disclaimer" 

message: #Comment As I see it, and I'm not trying to be annoying here, there is no "middle ground where all will be satisfied," because I for one will not be satisfied with a disclaimer, no matter what its form.  I apologize for sounding harsh here, but I see even a small disclaimer type thing to be inappropriate.  I don't think readers need to see information about crisis hotlines and seeking medical attention when they are looking at the articles on Suicide bombing, Voluntary euthanasia, and Right to die (or any of the others).  I think that it would show a particular judgment on the subject, is NPOV, and above all unnecessary.  I also wish that Hipocrite would put the first "poll" back on the page so it's clear what my above comments are about. I really find the "refactoring" a bit hasty and confusing. --Kewp (t) 19:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do whatever you want. You wanted it gone, I deleted it. Now you want it back. Reinsert it. You raise a good point, and as such I suggest two suicide templates - suicide and suicidenolist. The nolist can go on VE (which should be removed from the suicide template alltogehter, as I've proposed), Right to Die (also should be removed) and Suicide Bombing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say that the poll should be deleted. I said that it was invalid.  It should be kept on the main page so other parties can see the history of the discussion.  But whatever, not a big deal!--Kewp (t) 07:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

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

text: Only because your POV believes that right to die is an issue concerning suicide, which is the nature of the dispute. We are getting sidetracked. You can have the last word below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right to die is the belief that in certain circumstances people have the right to decide whether to commit suicide. How can that possibly be unrelated to suicide? — Phil Welch 20:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

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

message: I hereby propose to Hipocrite, Nickptar, and the other participants in this discussion, the following pact:
# We, the undersigned, will jointly compose an Article Request for Comment to be posted so that other editors can come and join the discussion. Upon agreement over the phrasing of the RfC, the RfC will be posted.
# Should the RfC process fail to yield a conclusive consensus, we, the undersigned, will decide jointly whether to escalate the issue to RfM and participate in a formal mediation.
# Until a consensus is reached and agreed upon, we the undersigned, will refrain from making disputed edits to the template.
Signatures:
* — Phil Welch 03:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Template talk:Suicide Should this navigational template for suicide related pages include a short message encouraging readers who are thinking about suicide to seek medical attention?
What do people think about this? Also I think that we should put it in the style issues part of the RFC, unless someone thinks it would be better elsewhere.--Kewp (t) 16:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Allow me to propose "Template talk:Suicide Should this navigational template for suicide related pages include a short statement that medical consensus is that people who are considering suicide or undergoing severe suicidial ideation should seek immediate assistance?" Can we multipost the RFC? I would also like it in the relevent topic area - Maths, NS and tech. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "severe suicidal ideation" is a bit unclear (although it may be the correct term)...is there a simpler phrasing, i.e. "suicidal thoughts"? I don't know what suicidal ideation is, so I think another phrasing might be clearer.  Also I think the part "medical consensus is that people who are considering suicide or undergoing (severe suicidal ideation) should seek immediate assistance" should be in quotation marks since that is the part in question that you want to add to the template.  Also, the RfC page says that it's okay to list the issue in two places, but no more than that.  (why maths, ns, and tech though?  these seem the most irrelevent to suicide...)--Kewp (t) 17:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, willing to go with suicidial thoughts. math, ns and tech is where articles about medicine would go - thus, individuals there would be able to more accurately evaluate the positive benefits of including the statement. Could you put forward what I think we both think the consensus statement is? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

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

text: Looks fine. ~~ N (t/c) 18:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC/Editing pact 

message: In response to your comment, Hipocrite.  I think that's fine if we don't mention the "No disclaimer template" issue on the RfC.  The RfC page says to state "briefly and neutrally what the debate is about."  Basically we need to come up with a sentence or two to put on the RfC describing the problem we're having here.  It seems like we're basically in agreement about putting this issue on an RfC. So I'm going to propose an initial wording:
:Template talk:Suicide Should this navigational template for suicide related pages include a short message encouraging readers who are thinking about suicide to seek medical attention?
What do people think about this? Also I think that we should put it in the style issues part of the RFC, unless someone thinks it would be better elsewhere.--Kewp (t) 16:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me to propose "Template talk:Suicide Should this navigational template for suicide related pages include a short statement that medical consensus is that people who are considering suicide or undergoing severe suicidial ideation should seek immediate assistance?" Can we multipost the RFC? I would also like it in the relevent topic area - Maths, NS and tech. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "severe suicidal ideation" is a bit unclear (although it may be the correct term)...is there a simpler phrasing, i.e. "suicidal thoughts"? I don't know what suicidal ideation is, so I think another phrasing might be clearer.  Also I think the part "medical consensus is that people who are considering suicide or undergoing (severe suicidal ideation) should seek immediate assistance" should be in quotation marks since that is the part in question that you want to add to the template.  Also, the RfC page says that it's okay to list the issue in two places, but no more than that.  (why maths, ns, and tech though?  these seem the most irrelevent to suicide...)--Kewp (t) 17:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, willing to go with suicidial thoughts. math, ns and tech is where articles about medicine would go - thus, individuals there would be able to more accurately evaluate the positive benefits of including the statement. Could you put forward what I think we both think the consensus statement is? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

message: I added Template talk:Suicide to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, natural science, and technology.--Kewp (t) 07:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could please show us an example of this as I could not find any.--Clawed 19:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Again you are focused on the ratio of people (which, again, I totally dispute), but assuming you are sincere in your quest for proposed warnings, "While social and religious perspectives on suicide are varied, the medical community believes that people considering suicide should seek immediate medical assistance."
I've tried to count all opinions expressed on this talk page. If there's some I've misinterpreted or forgotten to count, I encourage you to point them out. The reason I'm focused on the ratio of people is that consensus in many cases amounts to supermajority, and to some extent we have that.
As for your proposal, it still strikes me as a little POV, as it rather clearly emphasizes one point of view at the expense of others. — Phil Welch 20:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

message: I'm in favor of a message encouraging those considering suicide to seek medical attention.  The message in the template seems very mild and NPOV.  I would prefer a more strongly worded message, but I would accept it.  — Edwin Stearns | Talk 21:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could please show us an example of this as I could not find any.--Clawed 19:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Again you are focused on the ratio of people (which, again, I totally dispute), but assuming you are sincere in your quest for proposed warnings, "While social and religious perspectives on suicide are varied, the medical community believes that people considering suicide should seek immediate medical assistance."
I've tried to count all opinions expressed on this talk page. If there's some I've misinterpreted or forgotten to count, I encourage you to point them out. The reason I'm focused on the ratio of people is that consensus in many cases amounts to supermajority, and to some extent we have that.
As for your proposal, it still strikes me as a little POV, as it rather clearly emphasizes one point of view at the expense of others. — Phil Welch 20:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

message: For example, the template (unless it's been vandalized since I last looked) included a link to "List of suicide hotlines" or something like that.  A few links within the template (without commentary) to articles relevant to dealing with suicidal thoughts seems perfectly appropriate; and I cannot for the life of me see why it doesn't satisfy the concern of the disclaimer proponents. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the entire "ethics of suicide" section under that same rationale. Hipocrite's main concern is to convey to suiciders that the medical community considers severe suicidal ideation to be a medical emergency--maybe we can fork off an article called "Suicide as a medical emergency" and link it with the suicide hotlines, and section them together? Would that work? — Phil Welch 21:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Addendum: I might even be willing to accept some sort of indication that those articles are provided for the benefit of people suffering from suicidal ideation. — Phil Welch 21:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's wrong with relevant links? 

message: Suicide
other entries
Resources for dealing with suicidal thoughts
Crisis hotline
List of crisis hotlines by country
Suicide prevention
Medical views on suicide
OK, here's a proposal. What do you think? — Phil Welch 21:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Philwelch's proposed template box looks good to me.  Even the section title, which indeed describes the type of articles listed below it.  Of course, someone needs to write the page Medical views on suicide, but maybe Hippocrite would want to do that. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Resources for those suffering from suicidal thoughts, please? (medical views on suicide are rightly included in Suicide at large) Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... I prefer medical views as part of "resources"; but hopefully that's a minor matter and a compromise on these lines can work.  I also tried to reword the section name for brevity.
Most of suicide right now describes medical views of suicide. We can just fork it off. — Phil Welch 21:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I think most of the first two sections of Suicide could move to a subarticle, with just a brief synopsis and a link (i.e. "Suicidal thoughts as a medical emergency" and "Treatment"). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, in a rough-draft sort of way. Hipocrite, I think that medical views on suicide can be repeated in the template, possibly in a slightly more coy fashion (say, a "views on suicide" section with links that simply state "legal", "religious", "medical", etc., all linking to separate articles.) — Phil Welch 21:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Suicide prevention should be included. Derex @ 02:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. That's not really a resource for the suicidal person themselves, but perhaps we could call the section "Resources for treating suicidal thoughts" which would make it more relevant? — Phil Welch 22:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, that's good.  The heading shouldn't be limited to the sufferers.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 22:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

text: I think that that section ought to be arranged in order of interest from someone with suicidal thoughts. Klonimus 23:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free, I'm not sure what you were thinking of doing, but it seemed to be roughly in that order already. — Phil Welch 23:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: I have no great objections to it.  I would prefer a simpler heading for the section (something like "Suicide and depression resources", which is essentially what they are). I also don't really see the need to repeat the "medical views on suicide" link in a section devoted to resources--the purpose of a template like this is to assist in navigation, and presenting one article in two places can only make navigating with it slightly more confusing.  But those are relatively minor issues. --Aquillion 02:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aquillion's section title is better, IMO.  But agreed that it's a minor issue. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a little too generic, though. --Sn0wflake 03:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

text: Hi, I'm mostly away from my computer for the next few weeks, but I just wanted to say that this seems like the right direction to go in.  I think Phil's proposal would work well, and would hopefully satisfy those who would like to see a helpful "disclaimer" (I know it's really not one...).  As to the title,  I agree with Snowflake, I think something like "Resources for treating suicidal thoughts" or the original one would be clearer and more helpful for someone who needs help.  I'm glad that we're making progress on this.--Kewp (t) 13:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. I prefer the version exampled in the section above to Aquillion's version. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise proposal 

message: OK, now that Medical views on suicide exists and is linked to from the template under "Views of suicide", I propose we replace the Crisis hotline section with the section above if there are no counterproposals or objections. This replacement would provide two separate links for Medical views of suicide, but it would be formatted so that this did not look ugly.' I also hereby propose that a consensus acceptance of this issue would constitute a resolution of the dispute, so that we could edit the template proper with this compromise solution. Fellow editors? — Phil Welch 22:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Suicide prevention should be included. Derex @ 02:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. That's not really a resource for the suicidal person themselves, but perhaps we could call the section "Resources for treating suicidal thoughts" which would make it more relevant? — Phil Welch 22:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, that's good.  The heading shouldn't be limited to the sufferers.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 22:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

text: I think that that section ought to be arranged in order of interest from someone with suicidal thoughts. Klonimus 23:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free, I'm not sure what you were thinking of doing, but it seemed to be roughly in that order already. — Phil Welch 23:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: I have no great objections to it.  I would prefer a simpler heading for the section (something like "Suicide and depression resources", which is essentially what they are). I also don't really see the need to repeat the "medical views on suicide" link in a section devoted to resources--the purpose of a template like this is to assist in navigation, and presenting one article in two places can only make navigating with it slightly more confusing.  But those are relatively minor issues. --Aquillion 02:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aquillion's section title is better, IMO.  But agreed that it's a minor issue. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a little too generic, though. --Sn0wflake 03:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

text: Hi, I'm mostly away from my computer for the next few weeks, but I just wanted to say that this seems like the right direction to go in.  I think Phil's proposal would work well, and would hopefully satisfy those who would like to see a helpful "disclaimer" (I know it's really not one...).  As to the title,  I agree with Snowflake, I think something like "Resources for treating suicidal thoughts" or the original one would be clearer and more helpful for someone who needs help.  I'm glad that we're making progress on this.--Kewp (t) 13:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. I prefer the version exampled in the section above to Aquillion's version. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final assent 

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

message: I took the initiative to reformat the content in the table itself (a 25px widening allowed for 40% height reduction)  because of this height reduction I resectioned it more along the style of :Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar (my example) If you folks feel I've overstepped here, feel free to discuss this and/or revert.  ALKIVAR™ 22:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move. I like it this way. --Sn0wflake 22:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Table reformatting