Talk:Trans Lifeline

Addition
Added references to some criticisms the charity has faced. I added citations that include interviews with the founders to try to adhere to the Criticism guidelines, because I think these comments could be interpreted as critical. If anyone has further information on the allegations of stalking and theft that the organization has faced, it might add to the article. Much of the online traffic related to Trans Lifeline revolves around this criticism, so I think it's relevant to reference the allegations (and the founder's explanation/refutations) - opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversation5151 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming the IP user that made these edits was you given the timing, but please correct me if I'm wrong about that. This smells a bit like the start of an edit war (it's been added and removed and added again), so let's discuss it here. I've taken the liberty of removing the material for now. I know that continues the back-and-forth, but since it's potentially defamatory material about living persons, per WP:BLP we should exclude the material in the absence of consensus.
 * Regarding the actual content in question: I can't find any other sources that discuss the accusations of harassment/embezzlement than the one you cited: the article the Lifeline published on Medium in response to a Tumblr post. Even though the post was acknowledged by the organization, to me it doesn't seem like these events fit our notability standards for inclusion. The wording of it also poses some  false balance issues. If we can find independent, reliable sources that document these accusations (or the response) we can mention it, but we would need to specifically attribute the criticism to the single Tumblr user, as the current wording implies widespread criticism.  Sr ey Sr os talk 04:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Definitely agree that we should be tactful, and an edit war isn't in anyone's interests. I only make accounts to handle specific conversations. I believe this is useful information. It certainly could be a good idea to keep the BLP standard in mind, but the focus is on the charity, and the fact that these actions were allegedly conducted as part of that charity's efforts. The article in question was written by the founders and was claimed to be part of their organizational efforts. Therefore, while it is one of the few sources of this information, I believe it meets the standards of notability and credibility. A social media dispute shouldn't be played out on Wikipedia, and while the Tumblr article is certainly not credible on its own, it did prompt the founders to respond to a legitimate outlet in detail, because of pressure they faced on social media. If there is a more fair and balanced way to include the article, I think that would be excellent.
 * Second, I think this article could be expanded in general. There are useful statistics in some of the articles that I'm sure we've all been looking at (especially ones unrelated to this "controversy") which discuss the number of calls the organization has taken, their fundraising efforts and, specifically, how they see interesting increases in call volumes after political events. That could also be useful information to add (and I see no grounds for any false balance concerns there, but I'd like to hold off on making any adjustments at all until there's a consensus). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversation5151 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but if you are creating separate accounts for each conversation you get into, that could be considered sockpuppetry. I don't think what you're doing is explicitly disallowed (because you're not doing it to disrupt or deceive), but it It would probably be best to use a single account, or to at least link all of your accounts together on your user page. I see your point regarding notability, honestly it was mostly the wording that bothered me. How would you feel about something like ? Regarding expansion to the article, I think you're right, especially because it seems to have gotten so much coverage (you've probably already seen these but if not, here are some: LATimes, TeenVogue, Out). I also indented your comment one level for readability sake, but feel free to revert that back if you'd like. Thank you for your contributions to the article! One last thing, if you type four tilde's  at the end of your comment here it adds a  signature to your comment.  Sr ey Sr os talk 21:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. I prefer to make edits anonymously due to the country I live in. I'll always follow up, and I'm usually of the opinion that if a sock puppet account does something and does not follow up (or seems malicious) the sockpuppetry rules apply; that's why I'm honest about it. I appreciate the open-mindedness. I think that's a much, much better way to word the addition, and I think it's much more fair and in line with the BLP. Since they admitted to confronting the individuals, I would like to propose "In November 2016, in response to a Tumblr post accusing Trans Lifeline's founders of embezzlement and harassment, the organization published an article on their Medium page denying the allegations of embezzlement and explaining their decision to directly confront individuals who they believe facilitate transphobia." Do you think that would sound more balanced? Appreciate the styling changes, too. Conversation5151 (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, I didn't mean to accuse you of anything. Oh yeah, that's much better, I forgot about how they admitted to going to the person's house. Thank you for your patience and for explaining everything! Sr ey Sr os talk 16:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion notice
There is currently a discussion at Village pump (proposals) regarding the use of suicide crisis telephone numbers (which this article includes). The thread is Suicide hotlines. Thank you. TheSpacebook (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)