Jump to content

Talk:List of suicide crisis lines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]
  • I cant seem to find www.lifeline.org.za- a website witch offers help to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and young people who are confused about their sexuality.
  • http://www.crisis.org.cn never loads. Pherhaps it is region locked?

Cleaning the list

[edit]

I propose (a) removing non-notable entries and (b) removing the URLs, which listing here appears to be contact details, which WP:NOTDIR specifically prohibits. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's acceptable to list the organization's URL on the org's own page (indeed, there's a slot in the infobox for it), why is it not acceptable to list it here? Taking it further, why is a phone number any different from a URL? Dricherby (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When the URLs or phone numbers are appearing as contact information (rather than nagvigation, comparison or as references), then they're prohibited by WP:NOTDIR. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting of URLs in organization infoboxes (and I mean any organization; the BBC, for example) is surely not as a reference (the organization is not, in general, a reliable source for itself and an infobox isn't a reflist). I don't understand what you mean by "comparison" and the word isn't used in WP:NOTDIR except to say that Wikipedia is not a price comparison service. "Navigation" typically refers to navigation within Wikipedia itself. So, as far as I can see, quoting of URLs in infoboxes is purely as a contact mechanism. Dricherby (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to remove non-notable entries because "Writing or providing material in hopes of preventing suicide is not within the scope of our project, which is to create an encyclopedia", feel free to replace the article with this Wikipedia-appropriate draft: User:8ty3hree/List of suicide crisis lines (draft). 8ty3hree (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mauritius Helpline Gone?

[edit]

I can't find any active page on the internet for Mauritius. Can someone try to contact them? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Befrienders Mauritius
Helpline: (230) 800 93 93
Email Helpline: BefriendersMauritius@gmail.com

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of suicide crisis lines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similar list created by WMF

[edit]

The WMF has recently published a similar list at meta:Support and Safety/Mental health resources, as part of the WP:911 procedure. We may wish to coordinate with them, and bring both lists up to appropriate quality. TheDragonFire (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a service

[edit]

Removed Headspace since it says on its website :https://www.eheadspace.org.au/whats-eheadspace/is-this-service-right-for-me/ that their services is not for people who need emergency assistance. I also contacted them by email and they said that their service is not fitted to be on this page. "is not a suicide crisis service and is not suitable for this as we provide mild to medium level intervention."

More lines to be addded

[edit]

http://www.suicide.org/international-suicide-hotlines.html

—and—

https://www.therapyroute.com/article/helplines-suicide-hotlines-and-crisis-lines-from-around-the-world

I don't got time right now. --2001:8A0:6A47:BE01:D7D9:F82:4BDD:A1C (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question

[edit]

Maybe it's just me, but shouldn't the article have at least some form of protection? I know it's easy to spot vandalism, but this honestly feels like something that should be a public resource that should be untampered with. I mean, anyone could just replace the numbers with things like troll numbers, or even a recording that could encourage suicide. I'm not saying that those kind of numbers exist, I'm just saying. Same for websites, if you think about it. Again, that's just my thought, feel free to correct me. 71.213.254.156 (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the encyclopedia which anyone can edit, we try very hard to leave pages unprotected where possible. At our policy page for semi-protection, it says "Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred". If you create an account, you will have access to a watchlist which you can add this page to; then, when you visit your watchlist, any changes to this page will be listed, so you can see whether there has been vandalism and then undo it. Another set of eyes on this page would be very useful, because as you say tampering could be very harmful. But looking at the recent changes that have been made in the page history, it looks like edits by new or unregistered editors are more often useful additions than vandalism. Thanks! — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on List of suicide crisis lines, Not a directory, WP:LSC and Ignore all rules

[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was: keep. It it clear that there is consensus that the usefulness of the material, with a minimum of relevant phone numbers, surpasses considerations concerning NOTDIR. Implicit in the arguments to keep is that retaining the material could mean the difference between life and death — so leeway is due. What exactly should appear further on the article was a matter of some debate, but I deem that topic outside the scope of this closure and what constitutes pertinent information should be settled through normal content resolution processes. (That includes holding another RfC on bare urls now that the deletion discussion is out of the way.) El_C 23:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Because the discussion was structured more like another AfD than an RfC, I chose to focus on that rather than the question itself, which did however see some discussion. So on 2nd thought, I did correct somewhat. El_C 23:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was kept as keep in a previous discussion in 2012. Subsequent discussion over list content as suggested in the AfD was brief and unproductive.

What should this list contain? Does the list's inclusion of phone numbers or bare URLs violate WP:NOTDIR? Does the list's inclusion of non-notable crisis lines or emergency telephone numbers violate the List selection criteria? Should we ignore it? Should we also link to Meta:Mental health resources? 93 (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC) Edited in the main question in bold 01:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have a lengthier summary of the issues posed in the deletion discussion and my subsequent edits to this page at User:93/LoSCL RfC if it would help. 93 (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging users involved in the AfD to notify them of the RfC: @Psychonaut, Dricherby, Carrite, TheOldJacobite, Stuartyeates, 7mike5000, Postdlf, DGG, Anthonyhcole, Matchups, Phil Bridger, LadyofShalott, Bearian, and ZackMartin. 93 (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clearly a WP:NOT#DIR problem. And a WP:EL one. This should probably be transwikied somewhere.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the list is kept it should be comprehensive with the links and phone numbers available for emergency information otherwise there is no point to it and it could actually cause serious harm if people google for an emergency number and come to this list and spend time looking for unavailable information. Not everything in an article or list has to be notable except for most lists of people. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see this list as a problem, it seems to be no better or worse than other lists of a similar kind, such as types of software of a certain type, TV show characters, songs, etc. It's fine. --Jayron32 23:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP exists for the benefit of the public, and considering the wide reach of WP, I think this is a page we need to have, and need to keep up to date. If it does not fit our written notability guidelines, WP:IAR is a sufficient argument. The place to decide the issue is not here; it's at another AfD. It is a misuse of RfC to use it instead of the ordinary facilities for dealing with disputed content. And there isa very simple compromise for those who care more about our guidelines than our usefulness: put it in WP space, with a cross namespace redirect. The reads won;t really know the difference. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not nominate this for deletion because the list, if we were to remove non-notable entries, would look like this and seems notable enough. I made the judgment to request comments due to WP:BRD and my past experience that sufficient discussion on exactly what to include in the list after the AfD failed to occur. 93 (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me repeat myself because I was right and the consensus was wrong... DELETE Wikipedia is not a directory and providing a telephone book service is not within the scope of our mission. I appreciate the sentiment made above for an IAR Keep and quickly ran a Google search for SUICIDE+HELP+LINE, which returned plenty of good telephone numbers for someone in need. The odds of them seeking this information by typing "List of suicide crisis lines" in a Wikipedia search seem very, very small. Carrite (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Carrite: Google:Suicide methods (second result). This was why I suggested a hatnote. If we were to move the article to project space (as was suggested in the AfD, I think), then such hatnote would be inappropriate. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People do sometimes use Wikipedia in preference to Google to search discreetly for information on sensitive topics, and if the accessibility of information via Google were itself a good argument to remove such information from Wikipedia, much of Wikipedia could be considered redundant. I had a look at the page view stats for the List, and over the last 90 days it's averaged about 728 page views per day. Of course there are many possible reasons for people to view Wikipedia articles and it would be foolish to assume that most of those views are from suicidal readers seeking help, but it's also not unreasonable to suppose that a small proportion of them very well may be. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove all non-notable hotlines and add hat note to hatnote https://suicideprevention.wikia.org/wiki/International_Suicide_Prevention_Directory Stuartyeates (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would keep as much as humanely possible - we are a charity that serves the public - ignore all other rules. 22:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep the list and the phone numbers, but move bare URLs to references; as for selection criteria (all national numbers plus notable hotlines?) I'm open to hearing from other people. No need to invoke IAR or NOT#DIRECTORY here; this is a list which meets SAL criteria (appropriate topic; has many sensible potential selection criteria). — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#DIR (agree w/ Carrite)...delete--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well evidence of benefit of these numbers is poor, this list is fine. WP:IAR is allowed. But if the issue is a lack of references, digging up more is not that hard. Should we add hatnotes to it to other pages? No we should have good evidence of benefit before we do that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Summoned by a bot. While an argument could be made that this is "outside the scope" of what wikipedia is, I think the overall benefit the general public can receive from this page outweighs us nit picking over whether or not it should exist. Comatmebro (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia should aim to benefit its readers. I believe in this principle generally - that we are providing information for the general public not just for other editors - but particularly in a case like this. The information is already organised clearly by country, each of which has only a few services listed, so keeping entries of questionable "notability" is not going to hinder readers from finding information relevant to them. If the information is relevant and verifiable, it should remain on the list. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I came here from WikiProject Medicine. I am ready to ignore all rules here. For people who are making arguments for delete, I agree entirely- this is a highly problematic article in violation of Wikipedia's standards for scope of coverage, quality control, and sourcing. I also have serious doubts about the usefulness of these hotlines. The evidence is poor that they do good and frequently they provide a disappointing level of service that makes clients report dissatisfaction in the service. I am not convinced that we are helping anyone by providing this content and we do not have capacity to maintain this referral list. I am ready to agree with other criticism that other people have. I still vote keep because I think this is a unique situation. Lots of people search Wikipedia for everything, including crisis services. There was no formal global vote or designation that Wikipedia should be the reference source of information for everything, but in practice Wikipedia is this and no other media platform can or will do the job. Probably the correct response in this situation is for the Wikimedia community to demand that search engines including Google not link to this article and that instead they take responsibility for all crisis referrals in the world. In the absence of anyone else taking that responsibility, and because people expect to find content of this sort in Wikipedia, (this is among the top 0.1% of English Wikipedia articles by popularity), and because this would be the sort of list Wikipedia would curate if reliable sources actually existed to cover this topic, and because people literally go to Wikipedia for healthcare services, and because here and now in society many organizations like Wikipedia curate and present crisis referral services even when it is out of scope of their mission, I think we should keep this and treat crisis referral as an exceptional case. We are both not prepared to do this, and at the same time, much better than any alternative the world has to offer. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expand and maintain. The question that needs to be asked is not whether this technically violates WP:NOTDIR but whether having this content benefits our readers, and the answer to that is very clearly "yes" for all the good reasons explained by others already. I was summoned here by bot. Thryduulf (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not quite sure what criteria is being used for inclusion here but, as others have noted LISTN does not require all entries on a list to be notable only that the grouping of the entries be notable which this clearly is. In terms of the external links and phone numbers our readers who might need such information are well served by us having it. We're here to build an encyclopedia and serve our readers and so IAR/1st pillar (alamanac type information) suggests inclusion of phone numbers and external links is appropriate. (Summoned by bot) Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the information presented in the article violates WP:NOTDIR. Also, if my memory isn't wrong, WP:NPOV discourage us to engage in the topics recorded. Then, there are other websites presenting such information (International Suicide Prevention Directory). Finnaly, reporting threat is targeted to prevent threat including suicide already.Mariogoods (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sympathetic to the delete votes, because this is clearly, as presented currently, a directory and violates WP:NOTDIR. What should be included is a flat list of national crisis organizations (not "hotlines" or "lines"). The phone numbers should be removed completely from this list, just as we would do for every other list of organizations. We can link to articles like National Suicide Prevention Lifeline if they are notable enough individually, and for orgs which are less notable, we can link to them via url. I am not opposed to a hatnote linking to meta:Mental health resources - if the WMFT&S team is up for maintaining it, then they can be responsible if a number is incorrect, out of date, or vandalized. -- Netoholic @ 04:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why I Came to This Article

[edit]

I have seen on this page, people who talked about this article not being necessary nor encyclopedic in nature. I want to say why I think differently than that. I came to wikipedia seeking Suicide Hotlines because a friend is in dire need. I did not go to any other source first, because I have come to trust the information on wikipedia over the many years of using it. I can go elsewhere on the internet for the same information, sure, HOWEVER, it will not be information that is vetted by a whole "world of people" like wikipedia. I trust here. I ask that this article please never be removed. As for it being a list, it is not only a list, it indeed is a helpful resource that could not be as effectively communicated in any other way. It belongs in any "living and breathing" encyclopedia like wikipedia, in my opinion, and the only reason you might not find it in major "printed versions" of encyclopedias, is that the telephone information can change periodically, but that's again why I find this article highly appropriate for wikipedia: the BEST encyclopedia, and a "living and breathing" encyclopedia. I am one voice, but that is my thought and my contribution here.Fallendarlin (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

filtering

[edit]

This list should be pre ordered by contries where suicide rate per capita is highest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:140:3118:9836:83A3:CCF5:CABF (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguay entry not in English?

[edit]

@Oshwah: Huh? I mean, I understand that reliable sources are not always in English, but why is a part of a list in a completely different language (Spanish)? It wouldn't make sense if, say, the entire English Wikipedia homepage is in Spanish (and not just your version of the page using the Translate feature in Google Chrome), right? 207.81.187.41 (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Did I revert your edit or something? Or was this just a general question? I looked in the article history, and I didn't edit anything here. I don't think I reverted your edit. Can you explain what happened so I know the context and can help you? :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I wanna die" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect I wanna die and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 14#I wanna die until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Chase (talk | contributions) 22:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need to die

[edit]

I don’t have a proper purpose in life and I think it’s time for me to go 2601:CD:C980:4EA0:B9F6:4E9:AC15:6B79 (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion notice

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) regarding the use of suicide crisis telephone numbers. The thread is Suicide hotlines. Thank you. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any neurodiversity affirming hotline?

[edit]

Any neurodiversity affirming hotline in India??

2409:40E1:10F5:6CCB:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This article relies on primary sources"

[edit]

Yeah, no shit.

Why is that a problem? We are not giving any opinions or factual information about the helplines, just contact numbers.

Secondary sources are unnecessary and would only get in the way of keeping the article full and up to date.

I'm pretty sure WP:IAR applies here and think the template should be removed.


Amberkitten (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia"

[edit]

There is literally no reason to have this. This page can, and possibly has, saved lives.

The "encyclopedic tone" or whatever the fuck doesn't matter when there could be someone who is about to kill themself, searching for ways to not die. Smirkjuice (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move historical detail to bottom?

[edit]

It seems the most important content is the actual list of lines. Could the historical paragraph about the founding of Samaritans be moved below that so people can more easily see the essential information? Juliawise (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_suicide_crisis_lines&oldid=1237994265"