Talk:Crisis hotline

Adding lists of services

Intrigue, in his change summary, asked whether it was a good idea to add links to these services here, and which ones should be listed. This is an important question - indeed, the entire content of this article is something that should be considered with great care. We have a responsibility to our own principles and guidelines, but we also have a moral responsibility, in my view, to provide helpful content to those going through a crisis. A listing of an inappropriate service could, in this case, could do a great deal of harm. Because of this, I am very hesitant about adding random services willy-nilly in the same manner that you might on another type of article. Another problem is the enormous fragmentation of such services across the United States. There is no way we could accurately list them all here; the closest thing to a national service I've been able to find in the US is the relatively new 1-800-SUICIDE service (which automatically refers callers to accredited centres), but I'm not sure of the reputation of this.

My initial thought was that the easiest way to provide a comprehensive list of reputable organizations was to pass the job onto others - that is, look for international directories and associations, which turned up the website of Befrienders International. However, this organization folded in January 2003 (I don't know why); the website is currently being maintained by the UK Samaritans (a 50-year-old, UK and ROI-wide service of good reputation), it does have a quite good international directory of services. Another international organization of note is Lifeline International; Lifeline is by far the biggest such service in Australia, and I presume that they have a good reputation in the countries in which they operate. Then there's IFOTES, an international assocation of crisis centres operating mostly in continental Europe. If we list these three, that's a good start, I think, but there still remains the issue about listings in the US. Can any Americans comment here? --Robert Merkel 22:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree - we should try to keep the list short, one or two services per country (perhaps with another page listing general 'helplines'), and we should check that they are mainstream, legitimate services. How to deal with the US is a puzzle for me. Thanks, Intrigue 23:02, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What about http://suicidehotlines.com/ for the US? Intrigue 23:04, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Looks good at first glance, though I'd like some clarification from the website's operator as to whether she has any specific criteria for listing services on it. By the by, she could also do with some help from a web designer... --Robert Merkel 02:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

8 years on from this discussion but I really don't see the list as appropriate. It's subjective in content, falls foul of WP:NOTDIR and isn't necessarily up to date (I haven't checked). Wikis are a great place to maintain lists of this type but wikipedia isn't the one for this. NtheP (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Another year later, and I agree with NtheP. A list may be appropriate (in the style of the many List of x articles out there), but a directory is not. A list may also not be appropriate (I haven't really looked into it), but a directory surely isn't. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Given the duration of this discussion, it seems quite clear that this list cannot be kept up-to-date. I suggest we move the current list into a new article List of Crisis Hotlines, which attempts to be exhaustive. It can't be up to us at Wikipedia to determine which ones are respectable, but we can clearly mark which ones are accredited or recommended by agencies which are able to make such determinations. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

We already have List of suicide crisis lines, which, although it is much longer than this, is not exhaustive due to WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINK, and should only include notable entries per the discussion at its AFD. 9³ (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Would like to add 1 (800) USA-KIDS, which is a 30 year old hotline for endangered youth. It lists with toll-free directory for missing children, runaways, child abuse, teen anorexia, teen bulimia, teen suicide, cutting, rape, date rape, bullying, cyber-bullying, child exploitation, child trafficking, teen pregnancy, teen prostitution, teen alcohol and substance abuse, etc. Ref. http://www.thursdayschild.org/html/about.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minerva Meybridge (talk • contribs) 07:27, 16 August 2012

Unsourced Criticism

"One criticism of suicide hotlines is that those who are determined to kill themselves are unlikely to call one. Also, those with social anxiety may not have the emotional resources to do so. There is no evidence that the presence of suicide hotlines reduces the incidence of suicide."

It is extremally bold to suggest that suicide hotlines don't reduce the incidence of suicide, given their mainstream acceptance by the psychological community. The person who wrote this has provided no support for their claim, and the burden for proof rests with them. Thus, I am removing the paragraph.

"Another issue is that crisis hotlines often contact local authorities. The fear of embarrassment from having the police involved can deter many people who would have otherwise called the hotline."

I believe the issues found in these paragraphs are addressed in the journal article cited in footnote 12. The author of these article paragraphs does make a brief mention of the journal. In all the writing however this person may have missed the fact that the journal made a compelling case for the effectiveness of crisis hotlines.

"Another issue is that crisis hotlines often contact local authorities. The fear of embarrassment from having the police involved can deter many people who would have otherwise called the hotline."

It is factually untrue that the majority of calls end with authorities being called. The journal study, from footnote 12 again, found 12.6% of calls requiring this response. This might deter someone in need from calling a crisis hotline.

I am putting this here for discussion rather than editing first. The American Association of Suicidology (AAS) journal article is in PDF form this one can be downloaded in its complete form if you wish to take a look. http://www.atypon-link.com/GPI/doi/pdf/10.1521/suli.2007.37.3.338 Kermitmblank (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the following paragraph, which cited no sources and read like an individual's personal opinion on the matter:

Another issue is that crisis hotlines often contact local authorities. The fear of embarrassment from having the police involved can deter many people who would have otherwise called the hotline. Compounding this further, getting police involved can cause a troubled situation at home to become even worse, members of an already dysfunctional family become more irate with the distressed person. Also, being asked for an address can be seen as an immediate violation of trust, leading to even deeper feelings of hopelessness and isolation. However, many crisis lines do not trace calls and will only offer to send medical assistance if the caller asks for it, thus ensuring that callers can use the service without fear of unwanted emergency services involvement. Callers can ask the particular crisis line they're using what their policy is regarding this matter.

Moonharpoon (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)moonharpoon

My Own Subjective Experience as a Crisis Line Volunteer

It is interesting to read this article, and the critism of crisis line volunteers, because I am once myself. Being a crisis line volunteer is not easy. People expect too much from us. They expect us to solve all thier problems and to cheer them up at a moment's notice. Many people forget that we are humans on the other end of the line. We get tired, we get annoyed, we have good days and bad days. We do our best, but sometimes that is not enough.

Even to become a crisis line volunteer is very difficult. I had to go through 3 months of training, and pay for the training (it cost $75). Imagine that, having to pay to do volunteer work !!!

Working on a crisis line shatters many of the myths about crisis lines and those who call them. For one, it is false that the majority of callers are female. There really is no significant sex difference in who calls and who doesn't. Also, it is false that mostly young people call. Some people believe that young people often phone crisis lines, because younger people tend to have more problems because they are less connected to society and society's norms. But the truth is that callers from those under 35 are extremely rare, and younger people tend to go to internet chat rooms for emotional support.

So before you go around ranting about crisis lines and crisis line volunteers, why don't you take a moment to think of all us courageous volunteers have to go through, and how we give so much of ourselves to strangers for free...

Nightline Discussion

How about Nightline? (see http://www.nightline.niss.ac.uk/) Its's a service that runs in many Uk universities. 163.1.68.248 23:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Criticism and logistical issues" section is poorly worded and confusing

The section currently reads:

"One criticism of suicide hotlines in the past was that those who were determined to kill themselves were unlikely to call one. Also, those with social anxiety may not have the emotional resources to do so. Until recently, there was no evidence that the presence of suicide hotlines reduced the incidence of suicide.[12] However, a 2007 study has suggested otherwise,[13] as peoples' thoughts of suicide decreased during a call to a crisis line, and were lessened for several weeks after their call. These callers are commonly known as frequent, chronic, multiple or repeat callers. A recent systematic review of research into frequent callers [14] to crisis helplines found a need to further understand this group of callers and why they continue to use helplines."

The "however" in the fourth sentence is misplaced, since the rest of the sentence doesn't actually contradict the previous sentence. (It's possible that suicidal ideation decreases during a call but overall incidence of suicide doesn't decrease. For example, maybe the people who actually end up dying aren't the same ones who are making the calls.)

The fifth sentence discusses "these callers", apparently referring to repeat callers, but the topic is unconnected to what came before, and seemingly unconnected to the topic of the section.

There should definitely be a section on the effectiveness of these hotlines. That's the info I was looking for when I came to the article. The section needs a major overhaul by a subject matter expert.

Crisis hotline "contact details"

It would seem to me that the "Contact details" wikitable could be reworked. My reasoning is that the "Organization/Purpose/Focus" should be listed first in alphabetical order. A number stuck out in front seems odd and I think ease of navigation would be a consideration. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Otr500: First: if you feel like developing this list in any way, then just do it. There is hesitation here but you have my encouragement and support to try changing anything, and I think others would support development also.

Bigger issues: there are a set of problems here documented in various places on English and Meta Wiki. My take on this is that we need a paid staff administrator, probably a community advocate rather than a Wikimedia Foundation advocate, to talk through all the problems. Some perennial issues:

• We volunteers have trouble keeping any list up to date
• These services are not easily categorized
• Some of these services risk making things worse for reasons including refusing to offer support depending on geographical location of the service user, or being discriminatory (like anti-LGBT+), or just failure to maintain quality standards
• These are external organizations serving individuals and have not themselves negotiated or consented to take referrals from any institution, especially one like Wikipedia
• Wikimedia Foundation Trust and Safety is not actively organizing conversation on this issue with the Wikimedia community, nor are their positions clear

I want to share something else. This is something happening right now. It is not what you wanted, but meta:Private Incident Reporting System is a project in Wikimedia Foundation development. If we had a reporting system, then eventually it would interact with a system for crisis referral. If you want to engage on this issue then post there. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you Bluerasberry. As for as any WMF conversation on this issue, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Suicides where LMixter (WMF) stated, "We are definitely interested in helping the volunteer community add suicide hotline information to suicide-related articles, as a banner or other format clearly distinct from article content. We believe this can happen without violating NPOV...", (emphesis mine), as "identified as a recommendation" in the "recent Human Rights Impact Assessment".

I was looking around to see if there "might" be an acceptable alternative to a banner. The word disclaimer was mentioned and I do not like that choice of wording because it means "denies responsibility". Prior discussions seems to have led to concessions (hatnotes) but it appears using a banner (not sure what "other format" would entail) "distinct from article content" seems to mean "out of editing reach". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Otr500: It is challenging to know what to do here. I think the Wikimedia Foundation has spent a million dollars doing something in this space, but they do not publish their projects or budgets so it is hard to know what they are doing and why.

I feel like the Wikimedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation are often in conflict on social and ethical issues. In the past month I asked the WMF for $100k to organize discussions on various issues including suicide from an LGBT+ perspective - see meta:Grants:Project/MSIG/LGBT/Conversation series - LGBT+. In my view this overall discussion raises 100 points of conflict, they all need to be discussed, and we are still at step 0 because of the power imbalance in WMF/community and also because no one is publishing for progress. Of course I want crisis support but in my view, most actions to help some demographic carry significant risks or harms for other demographics, and I am not seeing anyone at the WMF who is ready to recognize community concerns that harms are a possible outcome of their proposals. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much anything the WMF is interested in seems to be a thorn to members of the community. I added Crisis hotline contact details to the "See also" section of Suicide and it was reverted with no comments, except "see Talk page", but nothing there. Of course I knew it would be reverted but thought I would try. It is a "A good article" (former featured article) so the gate keepers will act pretty fast. I must have missed the before discussions concerning major decisions regarding article space (absolute choice of only a banner will do) with the community. Otr500 (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) regarding the use of suicide crisis telephone numbers (which this article includes). The thread is Suicide hotlines. Thank you. TheSpacebook (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)