Talk:Sanctioned Suicide#rfc 17078BA

{{Template:Did you know nominations/Sanctioned Suicide}}

{{Talk:Sanctioned Suicide/GA1}}

{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sanctioned Suicide/1}}

SS does not encourage suicide; rather, it has a different perspective on life and death, which some might find unsettling. However, this is not a matter that Wikipedia should concern itself with. SS is not "pro-death"; it is "pro-choice", which is fundamentally different. Removing the link makes Wikipedia appear censored and as though it has adopted a specific point of view on this topic, which would violate its policies. I believe the URL should be included ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 23:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

:The decision isn't about censorship, it's about Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality with its responsibility to readers. While it's true that Wikipedia is not censored, this policy doesn't mean that every link or piece of content should be included simply to avoid the appearance of censorship. Including a direct link to the forum raises concerns about inadvertently directing users to potentially harmful material, which conflicts with Wikipedia's goals of being a responsible and educational platform. This is why we have the talk pages.

:Wikipedia's stance on neutrality (WP:NPOV) requires presenting all significant perspectives, but it also involves exercising judgement on how to represent and contextualize controversial subjects. The forum may self-identify as "pro-choice" (which is reflected in the article), but numerous sources including journalists and researchers have documented its harmful impact. Most reliable secondary sources label it "pro-suicide" or document its harmful impact. Reflecting these external views maintains neutrality and avoids privileging the forum’s self-representation. We all know what the forum thinks it is.

:Removing the link does not inherently violate neutrality—it reflects a consensus to avoid amplifying the site's reach, especially given its sensitive and controversial nature. Wikipedia has previously excluded direct links to sites with similar controversies (e.g., hate groups, extremist forums) such as Kiwi Farms, where the URL section of the infobox is intentionally empty as per consensus (just like we have done with SS). These decisions were based on the same reasoning: ensuring neutrality and avoiding amplification of harmful material. Even if the intent is to remain neutral, directing readers to a site criticized for enabling harmful behaviors could expose vulnerable individuals to risk. Wikipedia has a history of avoiding links to potentially harmful or illegal content, particularly when reliable secondary sources provide sufficient information. In this case, expert commentary and investigative journalism already offer a detailed picture of the forum, making the link itself unnecessary for understanding the topic.

:If this is meant to be a challenge against the talk page's consensus, then my vote is to keep the url section empty and reaffirm the article's framing on SS as it already exists.

Xelapilled (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

::@Xelapilled The vast majority of hate groups, some illegal stuff like piracy websites, morally abhorrent sites, are linked. Stormfront (website), ISIS and Al-Qaeda propaganda sites, The Pirate Bay, Anna's Archive, Z-Library, all hate speech or illegal piracy sites, we link them. People had strong feelings about the Kiwi Farms one so that ended up unlinked. As to my personal thoughts, I think we should include the link for every website with an article, if the website does not have illegal content in the US (but we already ignore that rule by linking to every single piracy website). I personally think it's absurd we don't link this one here, but the consensus was already discussed and there's no point in rehashing a fight I know I'll lose. Generally however you are wrong - this is the exception to the general practice and not the rule. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

:I’m agnostic about it. It’s a rare case of arbitrary moralization per Parakanyaa, basically saying encouraging suicide (which Kiwi Farms has also been accused of doing, albeit for completely different reasons) is the only thing appalling enough to outright censor. But removing the link does nothing; if people really want to find it, they can find it very easily. So arguing to put it back in is just moralizing from a different, arguably worse direction i.e. “freeze peach” absolutism. Dronebogus (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

:: It's absolutely censorship. The question is whether in this particular case it's justified. I just fixed some text that was really awkwardly written because the editor was trying to talk about the URL without actually stating the URL.

:: Personally, I ended up on this article because the BBC published a news article about it without actually even naming the site. As a result of that glaring omission, I was curious enough to try to find the name of the site, and I found this article. (One could easily argue this article shouldn't even contain the name of the site if we are following BBC's journalistic standards!) Then, because I noticed the article didn't contain the URL, another glaring omission, I was curious enough to find it, and I clicked on it. If the BBC had contained the name of the site, and if this article had contained the link, it's doubtful I would have ever clicked on the link. The clear censorship was what motivated me. However, I'm not an at risk person, so maybe my experience isn't relevant. But it's not clear to me that this is, in fact, saving lives given the link is both trivial to find and accessible which, in the UK, it is. It is only blocked here by internet filters implemented at the router level, unlike say sci-hub, which is blocked by court order.

:: On the other hand, there is the Swiss Cheese model of protection. Perhaps by BBC not mentioning the name of the site, it prevents a certain number of people from accessing it, and then us not having the link, it prevents another number, leaving only those curious enough or those interested enough in the topic. But it is not at all clear to me this definitely is beneficial, and it's such a clear violation of WP:NOTCENSORED it does bother me.

:: I wonder if some compromise could be reached. Perhaps links could be prefaced with a "here's where to get help" message like Google and many other webservices offer, before allowing the person to proceed to the content. I'm not sure if these messages work either, but it would be in line with what other services are doing, without actually censoring the link. Mvolz (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

:::No. We don’t do “what other services are doing”, especially when it’s something as non-neutral as “don’t kill yourself! You are not alone!” There’s a huge gap between omitting “bad” information and including “good” information. Taken to the logical conclusion we’d need to put “here’s where to get help!” On Romeo and Juliet. Dronebogus (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

:::: Personally, I would prefer it to omitting the information entirely. There's no slippery slope towards Romeo and Juliet. I am only suggesting it for articles where information is currently being censored, as an alternative to censorship. Currently Romeo and Juliet links to the full text of the play, so it would not be required there. Mvolz (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

:User:Counterfeit Purses, I only see two people opposing adding the links, based on weak arguments, and three people not in opposition to a link. There is no policy on Wikipedia to randomly not include websites based on "suicide". Even Google and Microsoft refused to remove the site from their search results, and they're commercial companies. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia containing information and not censored based on current whims. There is conseus to not remove, based on policy based arguments. 117.194.200.95 (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::This has been discussed several times with the same result. Read [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sanctioned_Suicide/Archive_1#RfC_on_linking_to_the_forum this]. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh, okay. It is an old RfC though. Full of hysteria and "people will die!!!" As if they're idiots who need to be handheld lest they kill themselves because they saw a link on Wikipedia, which they couldn't have found themselves as the third result on Google or whatever on Yandex. Of course, in the Guardian today, there are more reports about this website, about it "causing" more deaths, nothing has changed. We need a fresh RfC with more sober thinking instead this time, now that much has been past. 117.194.200.95 (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

"Sanctioned Suicide (SS, or SaSu) is an internet forum known for its open discussion and encouragement of suicide and suicide methods."

First line is wrong. It doesn't encourage suicide and, if you look at the site's rules, you'll see encouraging suicide is against them and will get you permanently banned. Unfortunately, it is commonly misreported, but that doesn't mean we should blindly follow these low-quality articles even though we know them to be false. It is more accurate to say the forum is 'pro-choice', but actually encouraging suicide or giving people specific methods is forbidden.

Reliable sources can get things wrong, and it is not the job of an encylopedia to be purposefully wrong just because some sources we like are also wrong.

I will change this soon unless convinced not to: away from "encouragement of suicide" and towards some sort of formulation around it being pro-choice in terms of choosing to live/die. I can't see any discussion of this in the archives etc so sorry if it has already been broached. Nevertheless, I am uninterested in promoting or allowing misinformation on Wikipedia, so I will give it no more than 48 hours before I change it. Do not revert the change without contributing to the discussion here. LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:No, it absolutely is our job to be wrong if the sources are also wrong. Have a read of WP:NOR, WP:FLAT, among others, if you're still not clear on this. There also have been a few discussions in the archives on the first sentence already, see: Talk:Sanctioned_Suicide/Archive_2#Change_deceptive_wording?. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for the reply. I appreciate it.

::I am not really clear how the two things you linked apply, especially the latter. If the BBC came out tomorrow and said the Earth was flat, would you be obliged to write it in? Of course not, because the Earth, is, indeed, not flat. It's not particularly a 'fringe' view to anyone who has a decent understanding of the site, even among those who disagree w/ it. Not all sources are reliable for all content, e.g., the BBC does not have subject matter experts on literally everything, nor is their reporting of equal quality on all subjects.

::By contrast, you can see the term 'pro choice' used in academic papers in which the authors actually engage w/ the subject of investigation. See: [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/13634593211046843 Marsh et al], for one example from an academic paper-thus of higher repute than a journalistic source. Oddly, even the old usenet forums are given the 'pro-choice' label on Wikipedia, so it's a strange and dubious thing to be inconsistent between them when SaSu has far stronger barriers against 'pro-suicide' views than the usenet forum ever did. Indeed, you had some ACTUAL pro-suicide users there, whereas they're banned on SaSu. Further source, again from an academic article in which the authors have actually engaged w/ the site which the sources currently cited do not (indeed, they use 'pro-suicide' without explanation or justification) is the recently published study from this year by [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07481187.2024.2326927 Kheibari et al], and a final one I'll give here is [https://workshop-proceedings.icwsm.org/pdf/2022_69.pdf Dilkes] from the Uni of Birmingham, though it appears to be a working paper and not yet peer reviewed. At the very least, the fact that both are used in serious contexts (even if one is objectively false) surely means that the introduction to the article should acknowledge the pro-choice label used in serious, academic, peer-reviewed publications? I see absolutely no reason why it shouldn't at the very least mention both.

::At present we are just seeing a Wikipedia article forward harmful lies which are used to de-legitimise and censor other perspectives on suicide. Whether you agree w/ them or not (and no, I don't fully agree w/ the majority opinion on SaSu).

::When things are objective, demonstrable falsehoods, we needn't take them as fact. All Encylopedia-ing requires a level of critical evaluation of sources, even ones typically reputable, and to assume their ipso facto factuality when demonstrably contradictable (hence not original research-research has already been done on users of the forum and Marsh et al, for instance, are clear that they are pro-choice in their outlook rather than "pro-suicide" insofar as 'encouragement to suicide' implies they are actively trying to convince people to kill themselves.

::This is wrong. We should not be promoting demonstrable, obvious falsehoods on Wikipedia, especially when they cause real social harms.

::----------

::As for it being discussed in the archive-my apologies for missing it. Nevertheless, the discussion was clearly short and is unsatisfactory to me, so I think it is 100% worth bringing it up again.

::I wont change anything unilaterally, but at the very least it seems ludicrous to not include both perspectives in the opening sentences of the article.

::It's regrettable that the majority of MSM reporting on SaSu is of very poor quality and filled w/ falsehoods (for instance, despite what one ABC article writes, you do not get attacked for discouraging suicide, and it is very common to do so when the person is going to use a painful method, will cause direct trauma or harm to others (e.g., if they have kids), or appear to be doing it on impulse), but I don't think that means we should adhere to falsehoods that we know are false. I'll refer back to the opening question: if the BBC reported the Earth was flat, Wikipedia would not be worth using if it then reported that as true. LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:::The point is that Wikipedia should reflect what a majority of reliable sources report about a topic. I was specifically referencing the section. #Wikipedia's role as a reference work. Another take on this is that Wikipedia relies on verifiability, not 'truth'.

:::You thinking that reporting is "filled w/ falsehoods" is original research and doesn't have a place in the discussion. It doesn't change the fact that what the site has gotten the most attention for is "its open discussion and encouragement of suicide and suicide methods". Whether or not it is an accurate assessment of what actually happens on the site isn't really our place to judge. Until reliable sources say something else.

:::I think there probably is a case to be made for changing the sentence "Although the forum describes itself as a "pro-choice" suicide forum, it has been widely called "pro-suicide"." to add that some scholarly sources refer to it as pro-choice as well. Beyond that, I don't think much needs to be changed here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:::You will note that there are also academic sourcing referring to the site as pro-suicide: e.g. [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10336861/], [https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2024.2], [https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/nyulpp26&i=270], so it's not like scholars are unanimous on labeling it a 'pro-choice' site. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::::With that in mind, it makes more sense to refer to both the 'pro choice' and 'pro suicide' label in the opening sentence, surely? If reputable sources use both. I'm not exactly sure how to construct that sentence in a nice way, but I'm sure it could be done pretty easily. LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::To be honest, I think the first sentence already does a good job of mentioning both viewpoints. If you can suggest an alternate phrasing my mind could be changed, but as of now, to me, this is not a problem. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1751612469}}

{{rfc|soc|rfcid=17078BA}}

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)
• {{sbb}} 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, {{tq|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)