Talk:Libs of TikTok/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Bari Weiss's portrayal of Libs of TikTok

In reference to this Slate article, I replaced the sentence Urquhart further argued that Weiss' portrayal of Libs of TikTok dangerously conflated conservative opinions with stochastic terrorism and extremism with the sentence Urquhart further argued that Libs of TikTok should have been banned permanently, as it "has repeatedly been a driver of real-world violence". - on the grounds that this is an article about Libs of TikTok, not about Bari Weiss and her reporting skills. Peleio Aquiles then reverted it - explaining that "That excerpt barely counts as a commentary on Bari Weiss". Which is an odd thing to say. Any thoughts on this? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking at this in context, immediately before the sentence attributed to Urquhart, we have a long sentence on Weiss' coverage of Libs of TikTok in the Twitter Files. Urquhart was making a comment on that coverage by Weiss, stating that in her coverage Weiss dangerously conflated conservative opinions with stochastic terrorism and extremism. Given that Libs of TikTok has attracted substantial allegations of engaging in stochastic terrorism, and that Weiss' selective coverage was conflating that with conservative opinion, on balance it does seem to me like an important thing to include. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what sentence you're talking about - the sentence immediately preceding this one is another one about Urquhart. But if the goal is to say that Urquhart thinks Libs of TikTok engages in so-called stochastic terrorism, then the section should just say that - instead of giving us one journalist's views about another journalist. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, there's three sentences involved here, with a reference to Al Jazeera in the middle. Sentence 1 and 2 reads On December 9, journalist Bari Weiss, as part of an analysis of internal Twitter communications in the pre-Musk era dubbed the "Twitter Files", revealed that Twitter had secretly operated to limit Libs of TikTok's reach via shadow banning, in addition to the known suspensions. Musk later stated that the site's content guidelines were historically enforced against accounts expressing right-wing views while being ignored for those that expressed left-wing views. Then the Al Jazeera sentence. And then sentence 3 which currently reads Conversely, Evan Urquhart of Slate argued that Weiss' own publishing revealed that Libs of TikTok was receiving preferential treatment, with moderators directed not to take any action against the account and to instead elevate issues to higher management. Urquhart further argued that Weiss' portrayal of Libs of TikTok dangerously conflated conservative opinions with stochastic terrorism and extremism.

Sentence 1 is about Weiss' content in the Twitter Files. Sentence 2 is a brief summary of a statement by Musk on Twitter's content guidelines. Sentence 3 is Urquhart's response to Weiss' content, that was summarised in sentence 1. As for if the goal is to say that Urquhart thinks Libs of TikTok engages in so-called stochastic terrorism that's a mischaracterisation of what Urquhart said. Urquhart was commenting on the shortfalls of Weiss' coverage, and the "dangerous conflation of conservative opinions with stochastic terrorism and extremism". It is required to balance out the otherwise uncritical summary of Weiss' commentary in the Twitter Files about Libs of TikTok, as it is a fair criticism of what Weiss had wrote. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

That's the thing - there's Weiss' content (like the shadow bannings, which are presumably not in doubt), and then there's Weiss' commentary around that content. I have no idea what her commentary was, and neither will the average reader - this article doesn't say, and I haven't read the original. All we're left with is that Evan Urquhart of Slate feels it was a dangerous conflation. Why that's important to know, I don't know. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

That Libs of TikTok was subject to a shadow ban is in dispute. As Urquhart stated, with direct reference to Weiss' original tweets, the Libs of TikTok account was flagged with a "do not take action on user without consulting [senior management]" message. It may be that this is because senior management wanted to be ultimately responsible for any and all actions taken against the account, or it may also be that senior management made this flag to prevent action being taken against the account. Weiss' coverage does not go into detail about which was the case, with Urquhart stating This preferential treatment of Libs of TikTok, while not acknowledged by Weiss, is concerning. It implies that instead of placing the repeatedly banned account on a short leash, in light of its connection to real-world violent acts, ordinary moderators were unable to ensure that Libs of TikTok followed Twitter’s policies at all. (emphasis fro original text) That preferential treatment is covered in the first half of the sentence.

As for the portrayal of Libs of TikTok by Weiss, looking at our content on enwiki we assert that (attributed to Weiss) Twitter had secretly operated to limit Libs of TikTok's reach via shadow banning, and (attributed to Musk) that the site's content guidelines were historically enforced against accounts expressing right-wing views while being ignored for those that expressed left-wing views. That is an conflation by both that Libs of TikTok is simply providing right-wing view points. Urquhart's commentary is that this conflation is a dangerous one, and I would agree with that, because it minimises the harm that Libs of TikTok and its followers preform. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

What an odd thing to say. Weiss' statement that Libs of TikTok was shadow-banned may be true or false, but in neither case is it conflating anything (terrorists can be shadow-banned too). Perhaps Musk was conflating something, but Urquhart didn't comment on that. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

That argument says a lot more about what the author thinks about LoTT's impact on the political climate than what they think about Bari Weiss as a professional. You're grasping at straws because there's something in that argument that you dislike and want removed, and I'm convinced that it's the reference to the concept of stochastic terrorism. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

If the point is to convey that Urquhart thinks that LoTT commits stochastic terrorism, why not just say that, instead of this weird indirect thing? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Copying from PinkNews

CJ-Moki made this change in order to be "Framing the supporters' claims in accordance with the PinkNews source"; the new text reads:

While fans and supporters of Libs of TikTok claim the account simply reposts content showcasing "sex and gender ideology" that was already publicly available, "the account’s followers are rabidly anti-LGBTQ+ and routinely attack individuals whose content is shared."

That's based on this sentence from PinkNews:

While supporters say that Libs of TikTok is merely a “public information” account that reposts content already available, the account’s followers are rabidly anti-LGBTQ+ and routinely attack individuals whose content is shared.

Seems pretty straightforward - PinkNews is a reliable source, and that's how they state it, so it's good enough for us, right? No - this sentence is biased trash, and we'd do best to ignore it. Here's what's wrong with it:

• Libs of TikTok has 1.5 million followers - are they all "rabidly anti-LGBTQ+"? That seems doubtful.
• Do they all "routinely attack individuals"? I feel like we would know if someone got harassed by 1.5 million people.
• The sentence itself is poorly constructed - it's set up to make you think that there's something incorrect about what supporters say, but then doesn't contradict it at all.
• Finally, CJ-Moki added some additional bias by replacing "say" with "claim" (see WP:CLAIM).

What about PinkNews being a reliable source? Well, according to WP:RSP, There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. (Emphasis in original.) Probably caution is necessary because PinkNews sometimes produces wildly irresponsible statements like the above. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a wild overreaction and misinterpretation of a generalized statement. The sentence does not say "all", and reasonable people would not interpret it as such. --Pokelova (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

What percentage of followers do you think it means, then? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This particular detail is immaterial. We have to follow the reliable secondary sources instead of using original research. CJ-Moki (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: The first three bullet points here seem to be WP:OR, which is prohibited on WP. The PinkNews source casts doubt on the supporters' argument, so using the word "claim" is reasonable. We have to follow what the reliable secondary sources such as PinkNews say about the subject. CJ-Moki (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like you're saying caution should not be used, contrary to what WP:RSP says. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

If you read the past RSN discussions on PinkNews you'll see that the additional considerations apply bit is primarily towards PinkNews' past content with regards to the sexuality of BLP subjects. It does not apply to their regular reporting, where only the regular RS considerations apply. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

If that were the case, it could have been stated much more clearly. I'm going by a very straightforward reading of the PinkNews description. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Specifically it comes from this discussion in 2020 over Anne Frank's sexuality. The two subsequent discussions in 2021 and 2022 found it to be generally reliable. And in fairness, the context surrounding the sexuality stuff is mentioned in the second sentence of its RSP entry. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

There's no point going into this minutiae - WP:RSP says what it says. If you think its current wording is misleading, you should take it up over there. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Given that any attempt to discuss PinkNews at RSN is akin to attempting to discuss Fox News, in that it brings a lot of heat but no real light, I'm of the opinion for now that it's better to address these misconceptions at a local talk page level. If/when someone brings it back to RSN, I will advocate for change at that time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Up to you - but until then, we have to go by what the thing actually says, "misconception" or no. Once the guideline is there, it doesn't really matter what the discussion was that led up to it. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Libs of TikTok has 1.5 million followers - are they all "rabidly anti-LGBTQ+"? That seems doubtful. All "rabidly anti-LGBTQ+"? No. The majority being so, yes. There is a reason why those people follow and interact with the account, because of the anti-LGBTQ+ content that it continually puts out.
• Do they all "routinely attack individuals"? I feel like we would know if someone got harassed by 1.5 million people. All? No. A substantial number? Yes. Why do you think Libs of TikTok has a reputation for encouraging and engaging in stochastic terrorism?
• it's set up to make you think that there's something incorrect about what supporters say Yes, what Libs of TikTok's supporters say and think with regards to "sex and gender ideology" is pretty laughably wrong.
• Finally, CJ-Moki added some additional bias by replacing "say" with "claim" I'm somewhat of the opinion that this is one of the few cases where we could say "claim". There is no evidence that there is any sort of "LGBT+ ideology" or any of the other dangerous claims that Libs of TikTok publishes daily. Given that this is a significantly large number group that WP:BLPGROUP would apply such that BLP would not, I could also be convinced to change that to "believe".

Otherwise I agree with Pokelova, this seems like a pretty big overreaction. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This is of course entirely original research, but that's alright with me. The views of LoTT supporters with regards to "sex and gender ideology" are not the issue here - it's their views with regards to what LoTT publishes; and a simple perusal of [link removed per WP:PROBLEMLINKS] seems to show that they're right; the vast majority of the content is simply straightforward reposting of publicly-available content. In fact, I challenge you to scroll through and find a single "dangerous claim" in there, of the kind you feel Libs of TikTok "publishes daily". Korny O'Near (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This is of course entirely original research, but that's alright with me.

This is entering WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE territory. CJ-Moki (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, could you explain that? Korny O'Near (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Which parts are OR?

• That Libs of TikTok's followers are anti-LGBTQ+? Well that can be sourced to The Advocate and the same PinkNews article that prompted this discussion.
• That Libs of TikTok engage in stochastic terrorism? Cause that's the words of The Advocate and Evan Urquhart.
• That Libs of TikTok's supporters believe in "sex and gender ideology", a demonstrably false subject? Well Sonia Corrêa wrote about this conspiracy theory for LSE back in 2017

In fact, I challenge you to scroll through and find a single "dangerous claim" in there Challenging me to engage in OR, when you've already accused me of engaging in OR is certainly a bold strategy Cotton. However it doesn't matter what my own original research turns up, it only matters what the research of reliable sources have turned up, and there is a consensus amongst those sources that LoTT publishes misleading content, dangerous claims, and engages in stochastic terrorism. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

You obviously were engaging in original research, like with your assertion that the majority (i.e., between 50 and 100%) of Libs of TikTok followers are rabidly anti-LGBTQ. As I said, though, that's fine on a talk page. I don't know why you brought up stochastic terrorism, or really the other stuff - I feel like you've been sidetracked here. Ultimately this is a discussion about a simple sentence, about the views of LoTT's proponents, that got made overly complicated and weird. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the whole conversation drifted a bit--but I also think it's clear there's no consensus for a change to the sentence at issue, Korny. While you have an argument, I disagree with it as well. I might respectfully suggest that perhaps you could seek other opinions at WP:RSN or the like if you think it warranted. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, you don't think there's anything weird about that sentence? Korny O'Near (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it could certainly be reworded, I am not sure I love it stylistically, but I don't have the substantive or sourcing concerns you raise. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

If LOTT is categorized as Far-Right why aren't the people they re-post categorized as Far-Left?

This discussion had been closed with {{cot}} by Dronebogus with this edit, which was objected to by Korny O'Near. From the template documentation: should never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. Paradoctor (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

LOTT does not merely repost random people. Only people who take a demonstrably far left position on issues like Gender Theory and various other issues. Is merely disagreeing with these positions enough to be called Far-Right but not the other way around? Borges123xyz (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Because "far-left" is more pejorative than genuine political identity. Zaathras (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

But Far-Right is OK? Borges123xyz (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources that use your "far left" formulation, then it would be a more persuasive position. Maybe you can! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is Far-Right OK but not Far-Left? Borges123xyz (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Why not just call it "conservative" Borges123xyz (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Becaues sources call it far-right. — Czello 23:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, that would be because of the reliable sources. We should be using their terms. Maybe you're correct and we're getting this wrong, but you'd have to show us that in the sources, not just come here with ipse dixit. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Here are two sources calling the people LOTT re-posts as Far Left...

https://nypost.com/2023/01/03/libs-of-tiktok-creator-chaya-raichik-is-dropping-her-anonymity/

https://radio.foxnews.com/2023/01/06/evening-edition-why-the-libs-of-tiktok-founder-is-finally-revealing-her-identity/ Borges123xyz (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This is what I mean, but unfortunately, neither of those are reliable sources per the list at WP:RSP. The Post is generally unreliable, and Fox is unreliable when it comes to politics. But you have the correct mode of argument. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The NY Post is a tabloid, and not usable in the Wikipedia. Neither is the talking head punditry portion of Fox News. Time to move on. Zaathras (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Unironically yes. This is something that has been discussed at length on our article on far-left politics. Far-right politics is a common term and area of study in academia; the term "far-left", on the other hand, isn't really used much (there is basically one researcher who focuses on it and much of his work is discussing why it isn't used while trying to define it.) There are researchers who study radical anarchist movements, or radical communist movements, or radical leftists of all stripes, but they don't generally lump them together. And that sort of shows the reason - it wouldn't be as useful to lump them together. The "far-right" is a reasonably unified, well-defined realm of political thought focused on extremist defenses of established, traditional hierarchies; there's different streams within it, but they share basic similarities that make them useful as an area of study. The same isn't true for "far left"; a label that lumps together anti-state radical anarchists with radical Marxist-Leninist Communists who want a centralized state controlling everything is simply less academically useful, even before you get to people throwing in anyone who feels strongly about racial justice or trans rights or whatever else in some manner that puts them far outside the mainstream. "Anyone who radically opposes existing hierarchies in any way" isn't really a meaningful or useful label. Hence, while it comes up sometimes, "far-left" only rarely sees non-pejorative usage. Also, to circle back to your original point, it should be obvious that we can't just trust the personal opinions of the article's subject in terms of labeling her targets; she is a random Twitter account, not a reliable source. RSes don't generally describe her targets as far-left or radical in any way. --Aquillion (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Libs of Tik Tok is not far right. 2601:18F:4100:ED50:5C:21FB:24D:6ECB (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources call it far-right, so we do too. — Czello 14:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Minor pet peeve, but I'm always annoyed by this use of "we" in talk pages. The article calls it far-right, we are merely its editors. I'm sure that's what you meant, but I think the use of "we" makes it unnecessarily personal. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand this feeling, but I believe that is an emergent "we." At the risk of sounding sophistical, Wikipedia is greater than the sum of its parts. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Author's we HTH Paradoctor (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't read like an "author's we"... and the concept of "emergent we" sounds to me synonymous with groupthink. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Emergence and groupthink are entirely separate concepts. Again, think of it as "greater than the sum of its parts." By having our (civil) spats and disagreements, we ultimately produce a better encyclopedia. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

That last sentence is definitely true. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully I don't get in trouble for this, but out of all instances of deceitful and/or stupid arguments LoTT's defenders have pushed on this Talk Page, Borges' takes the cake.

Drag queens are not inherently left-wing, yet Chaya Raichik posts footage (including defrauded footage) of drag performances anyway. Chaya Raichik has also put on a blast gay teachers merely for being out to their class and insisted that they be fired. Hers is a far-right position; being an out gay teachers, on the other hand, has nothing to do with being far-left.

And, importantly, while we have plenty of sources now describing Chaya Raichik as far-right, no reliable source calls her targets as a whole far-left.

That's not how logic works. That Nazis are far-right doesn't make Jews far-left. Hopefully it's not against Wikipedia's rules to call out blatant sophistry the way it deserves. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

^^ This, and not what's above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

"Inspired by Satanism"

The article right now states, Raichik claimed that one of the drag queens booked for the brunch was "inspired by Satanism", although the individual she mentioned in her post was not invited to perform at the brunch. Sounds like a pretty crazy claim! But this is either an incorrect or at least very misleading paraphrasis of the original source, which states, Libs of TikTok’s tweet indicated that one of the drag performers was “inspired by Satanism”, although Knapp says she doesn’t know that performer, and they were not on Sunday’s bill.. Which is still somewhat awkwardly worded; looking at the [link removed per WP:PROBLEMLINKS] makes it clear what's going on: the drag queen's own bio states that he/they are "inspired by Satanism"; the controversy is just whether this particular drag queen was at that 2022 drag brunch. I tried to make this part, and some of the other wording around this event, clearer, but Zaathras reverted it. So here we are. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, you camping out on this article, criticizing and reverting numerous editors is getting rather tiring to deal with. This has been a drip-drip-drip of nitpicking minutiae, it has been months. Zaathras (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Korny has been repeatedly asked to WP:DROPTHESTICK. I don't think he's listening. CJ-Moki (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I made you tired. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: Linking to Libs of TikTok on Twitter is probably against WP:PROBLEMLINKS. CJ-Moki (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Fine; anyone can see the URL of the original tweet here, if they're curious. The point is that "inspired by Satanism" is the drag queen's description, not Libs of TikTok's. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not, however, what the source says. Instead, it has: Libs of TikTok’s tweet indicated that one of the drag performers was “inspired by Satanism,” although Knapp says she doesn’t know that performer, and they were not on Sunday’s bill. Your edit strikes me as WP:OR. Unless you have a reliable secondary source supporting your version, I would suggest the former wording is preferable. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that (as I noted above) the The Rant description is ambiguously worded - though if you read it carefully, I think the meaning becomes clear; it's why they used the word "indicated" and not, say, "claimed". Anyway, we're allowed to use primary sources, in this case a tweet by Libs of TikTok, as evidence for *what Libs of TikTok said*. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I still prefer the previous wording, because I think you're misreading the "claim" here. It is not [this person is inspired by Satanism], but [this person inspired by Satanism is attending this event]. I would urge you to accept that it seems like consensus is against you on this one. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Wait, if you think the original wording in this article clearly states that, then why is my revised wording OR? It's just stating the same thing, in a different way. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"Described themselves" is the OR bit, and it seems to be making a quasi apology for LoTT here where the entire premise was false, as the person described was not attending. Again, I see only you arguing for this position. Dumuzid (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, the entire premise may be false - as I note below, even the source provided doesn't say it's false, just that the event organizer has said so. Regardless, though, I don't see how "described themselves" is original research - is there any question that that is the case? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

As editors we are entitled, by consensus, to determine as between the credibility of a LoTT tweet and a denial in a newspaper. That's an easy one for me. And I don't doubt that your research is correct, but it feels like you are going out of your way to say "this part of the tweet was true!" when the consensus seems to me to be that the entire thing was false. I would say that the gravamen of the matter is that the tweet was false. The Satanist bona fides of the person in question is at best a sideshow. Dumuzid (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems like you keep changing your mind as to whether "this person says they're inspired by Satanism" is true or false, even just in the response above (you don't doubt that it's true, but consensus says that it's false?). Anyway, it's true that it's a relatively minor detail - though it may explain in part the vehemence of the protesters who showed up to the event - but I'd be fine with getting rid of that detail entirely, especially if the alternative is that readers come away thinking "Libs of TikTok called someone satanic". Korny O'Near (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

For me, the accusation of Satanism is pertinent, while the beliefs of a person who was not scheduled to attend the event are not. It muddles the basic idea that the tweet was simply wrong. Again, I think you need to come to grips with the idea that you do not have consensus for this change. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The tweet said two things: drag queen X is attending the event, and X says they're "inspired by Satanism". The source provided certainly casts doubt on the first of those, but not on the second - it uses the word "indicated" for that part, not something like "claimed" or "accused". The only person calling it an accusation is you, I think. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Imagine someone said "Dumuzid is a real jerk on Wikipedia, and he has edited the Libs of Tik Tok article 17 times in the past hour!" When I point out this is verifiably not true, person X says "well, he is a real jerk." It strikes me as too clever by half, as does your attempt at salvaging some truth here. Dumuzid (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

That's an odd example to use - "real jerk" is a matter of opinion, not a statement that can be proved true or false. I don't think it's "too clever" to try to state the facts unambiguously to readers. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Didn't they though? Having an act/look that's inspired by Satanism doesn't mean that someone is a Satanist anymore than having an act/look that is inspired by Star Wars makes one a Wookie. We're talking about a performer here, its someone laying out a legend not talking about their personal beliefs. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

That's true - and Libs of TikTok just quoted the phrase "inspired by Satanism"; it didn't say anything beyond that. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Is that significant? You said that "may explain in part the vehemence of the protesters who showed up to the event" but I'm having a hard time understand that. Proud Boys hate trans people, they don't hate Satanists (they accept Pagans etc within their ranks). I'd be with you if it was significant, I'm just not sure its due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

If you think we should just get rid of the phrase, that's fine with me too. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that would be preferred, I don't think that either is pertinent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I consider it relevant given the general approach to (forgive the wording) demonizing drag shows. As eve, happy to go where consensus leads. Dumuzid (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that point is made without that line, sources don't seem to linger on it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Let me add also that the wording change I made is closer to the source in one other way: it establishes that the presence/absence of that particular performer is the word of the organizer, and not independently verified. Not a huge deal, but if the goal is to match what the sources say, it's another step in that direction. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I just removed the "inspired by Satanism" part of the paragraph, based on the apparent consensus here - it also makes the text a little more straightforward, which is hopefully good. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

battle of hats

@Horse Eye's Back: @Korny O'Near: @Dronebogus: what is this? is there a reason for this to be happening? jp×g 10:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I haven’t hatted anything here for a while, I’m not sure why I’m being dragged back into this. Dronebogus (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

What specifically are you referring to? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG: are you referring to this[1]? Not going to speak for the other two but I was correcting a WP:TPO oversight on Korney's part ("Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.") and don't have an opinion about the hat itself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Disinformation

The "Reception/Response to account content" section contains several significant citations to support the statement that LoTT spreads disinformation, so Korny O'Near's claim that the description is not supported by the article body is simply not true. CBC News: The accounts often target and spread disinformation about the LGBTQ community, and advertise themselves as "Bringing you news you won't see anywhere else." Shopify won't cut ties with controversial Libs of TikTok | CBC News NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The sourcing isn't excellent. I reviewed the CBC and the several sources in the Reception section. Many RS, like PinkNews, WaPo, and Boston Herald, attribute the description of "disinformation" to the hospital or someone else, never saying it in the articles voice. Some of other one's just don't say anything about misinformation, like NPR and Jerusalem Post. The CBC is the best one I guess. It technically uses the term in the articles voice; though, I may add, it's somewhat introduced in passing and in the context with several accounts that probably includes LoTT. I really don't think this adds up to us categorizing LoTT as a disinformation operation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Your edit summary "The account spreads false claims and hateful commentary, especially relating to medical care of transgender children" - backed up by several citations. Sounds like disinformation to me. contains two misconceptions:

1. "Sounds like disinformation to me" is irrelevant, that's just an opinion. Your claim has been contested twice, the latter of which explicitly pointed you at WP:BURDEN. It's on you to provide an RS that explicitly says what you claim. Furthermore, the claim must be in the article together with a supporting ref: It should be clear from verifiable information in the article.
2. "spreads false claims and hateful commentary" Hateful commentary is not disinformation. False claims are also not disinformation unless intent can be shown. Without evidence, spreading false claims is "just" misinformation.

In order to state that Libs of TikTok is a disinformation operation, we need a source reliable for making such determinations of intent. Given how often misinformation is confused with disinformation, and given that the CBC piece does not discuss this distinction, we cannot consider it reliable for our purposes here. Given that this is a BLP issue, the category has to go, posthaste. Paradoctor (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It isn't your place to question a reliable source, such a thing is just your opinion and has no place here. If the CBC describes Chaya Raichik as a purveyor of disinformation, then the article will reflect that. There is no BLP issue here. Zaathras (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Whether it is a reliable source for the given claim is the very point in question here. Source criticism is a core part of editorial work. We have an entire department dedicated to that task.

WP:REDFLAG: apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources That is the problem Iamreallygoodatcheckers worked out: the CBC is the only source making this particular claim.

"There is no BLP issue here." Like hell there isn't. Intentionally inciting violence is a crime, whereas erroneously spreading misinformation is protected speech, fineprint applies. Paradoctor (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I am in favor of including the descriptor; and it's hardly just the CBC. The Washington Post has "specialists in online disinformation" analyzing LoTT; The Bucks County Beacon has LoTT associated with "hate and disinformation" associated with a local event; The Advocate has LoTT "spread[ing] disinformation about children's hospitals across the country"; An MSNBC WP:NEWSBLOG says the account "peddles disinformation"; The Los Angeles Blade says LoTT "pushes disinformation"; Vice News says the account "helped supercharge a Kremlin-backed anti-LGBTQ disinformation campaign"; GLAAD says LoTT's posts "consistently feature intentional disinformation"; Yahoo! News says LoTT is a "mainly Twitter-based disinformation and harassment account" (also in the context of Shopify); Global News (Canada) discusses LoTT in a wider discussion of disinformation; NBC News quotes "a global research organization that studies disinformation and extremism" regarding LoTT; The Heartland Signal associates LoTT with the "litter box disinformation campaign"; etc. Now, I am not claiming any or all of these are sufficient sources in themselves, but saying this idea is not widespread strikes me as incorrect.

I'd also like to just add a brief note that it is helpful to specify jurisdiction when talking about law. Assuming you mean the U.S., incitements of violence only lose protection under the Brandenburg standard where the threat is both imminent and likely to cause such violence. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Good work. I still have misgivings about the reliability of the sources for this particular issue, but that's a fight for another day.

Provided someone adds a statement to the article stating that LoTT spreads disinformation and citing a few sources that say so in their own voice, WP:CATV is satisfied, I'm satsified.

"brief note" fineprint applies ;) Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sorry to be pedantic! It's a definite foible of mine. Have a nice day. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

That seems to be just a list of articles that contain both the text "Libs of TikTok" and "disinformation". Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that still the only source of incontestable reliability that says Libs of TikTok provides disinformation is that CBC article - which I don't think is enough of a source to hang this serious assertion on. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I would point you to, for instance, Yahoo! News says LoTT is a "mainly Twitter-based disinformation and harassment account". I assure you I do more than just a basic text search.Dumuzid (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I should add that the same article appears at Gizmodo, and while I don't think it should be counted twice, I think it does mean it is slightly stronger as a source. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a Gizmodo article, republished by Yahoo! News; and WP:RSP says, There is consensus that Gizmodo is generally reliable for technology, popular culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I've laid out the basis for my reasoning. If you don't find it persuasive, that's fine. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy to hear if there are any other truly reliable sources, besides the CBC, that back up the "disinformation operation" claim. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Gizmodo is fine to back up CBC, it would not be fine to use on its own (if multiple sources report something it isn't controversial). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

That's some weird circular logic - Gizmodo reported on it, therefore it's not controversial, therefore Gizmodo can report on it? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

In the context of wikispeak a controversial statement is generally one which appears in only one source. Here we appear to have a large number of sources, Gizmodo being just one of them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I also think we're approaching WP:BLUESKY territory when it comes to the letter sent by the AMA and associated groups to the Attorney General regarding "an intentional campaign of disinformation," which is explicitly linked to LoTT by Axios. Dumuzid (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

That's an interesting find. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the Children's Hospital Association do indeed seem to collectively think that Libs of TikTok is part of "an intentional campaign of disinformation". (How they know this, they don't say.) This may be a silly question, but: are any of these three considered reliable sources? They are all advocacy groups, and the first two, at least, have a history of taking strong, sometimes controversial, political stands. Can they be trusted to report correctly on the intentions behind a Twitter account? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not aware of any guidance on the first or third, and many pixels have been spilled over the AMA. I think it is generally agreed that the AMA is reliable when establishing the "mainstream" in American medicine (less so for more technical issues). I would suggest that they are all prima facie reliable as I cite them here, since we're not dealing with a true WP:MEDRS issue. Reasonable minds may certainly differ. Dumuzid (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I kept dwelling on this question so I went ahead and opened a thread at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for putting that question there. I contend that there's still only one unimpeachably reliable source calling Libs of TikTok a disinformation purveyor, and that's the CBC article. The more I think about this AMA letter, the more I think it can't be used as evidence, since there's a massive conflict of interest there: the AMA et al. are calling for some form of punishment for Libs of TikTok, so they pretty much have to say it's intentional disinformation: if it were just a person saying incorrect things on the internet, there's presumably nothing the U.S. government could do about it. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, I think this boils down to whether you find the "case" I have laid out convincing, which of course you may not. For me, it is. I think perhaps I was overthinking the AMA letter a bit, and Slatersteven is right that proper use would be with attribution. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Korny, I would respectfully ask that you consider undoing your removal of the category; it seems to me there is an established consensus of myself, NorthBySouthBaranof, Horse Eye's Back, Zaathras, and Paradoctor (with the noted caveats). I apologize for the multiple pings, but I wanted to make sure I am not misstating anyone's position. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

If you add in Iamreallygoodatcheckers, and move Paradoctor over to the other side (since the conditions they cite haven't been met), then it seems to be just 4-3 - basically even. Not that it's a vote, and counting the votes doesn't really make sense when WP:BLP issues apply, as they do here; but I just wanted to note that there's no clear consensus. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest that our existing sentence regarding "misinformation and/or disinformation" incorporates such sources and the "negative" section under Reception should cover those bases. Dumuzid (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

That sounds good. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

FFS! I'm outta here. Paradoctor (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Paradoctor: Wise choice. Yeesh... me too! jp×g 10:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it seems silly to have this much argument about a single category tag, but I do think in this case it's important: adding the category "Disinformation operations" is basically like adding a category tag like "Known liars" to a (living) person's article. (Yes, a Twitter account is not a person, but if you're saying that the Twitter account is a disinformation operation, then you're saying that the person running it engages in disinformation.) Korny O'Near (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmm… who do we know who is noted in his article for pathological lying? Dronebogus (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

George Santos? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a Twitter account is not a person... You are still, amusingly and wrongly, hung up on this point. Yes, this Twitter account is a person, it is Chaya Raichik. This is not a business or a role account, it is literally her in her words. So yes, we are following the reliable sources that say this person is engaged in disinformation. Zaathras (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you think it's a mistake that this article doesn't belong to categories like "Living people" and "Orthodox Jews"? (Maybe I shouldn't ask that.) As for disinformation - there seems to be exactly one reliable source that states that Libs of TikTok provides disinformation, and that's the 2022 CBC article. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

January 6th connection

Previously, I have made edits regarding Chaya Raichik’s presence at the January 6th Capitol riot that were reverted. One mention was in the lead “ Raichik was present at the January 6 United States Capitol attack. “ and one mention was in the header for the inception paragraph “Inception, original content, and January 6th”.

ref name 20 is by the way.

The diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libs_of_TikTok&diff=prev&oldid=1131674105

I am wondering if we can have a reference to January 6th either in the lead, the heading “Inception, original content“ or both as I believe it is not immediately clear and is notable. -TenorTwelve (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC) TenorTwelve (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't really seem due to mention in the lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"Critics of Black Lives Matter" category

Re this edit, what is the evidence that Libs of TikTok is a critic of Black Lives Matter? The only mention of Black Lives Matter currently in the article is a tweet Raichik posted (from a different Twitter account) saying that the BLM protests of 2020 were more violent than the January 6, 2021 protest. Which, true or not (I think it's true) is a simple statement of fact, not necessarily even a value judgment. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Which, true or not (I think it's true) is a simple statement of fact, not necessarily even a value judgment
This is nonsensical. If it's not true, then it's not a statement of fact. And, comparing two extremely different situations (a set of protests spanning multiple cities over many months vs a single day event storming a federal building) is precisely a value judgment. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, I just meant "fact" as in "a statement that's not an opinion". I didn't understand the rest of what you wrote - do you believe that simply the act of comparing Black Lives Matter protests to the January 6 protest makes one a BLM critic, no matter what one says about the two? Korny O'Near (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Gender Affirming Surgery

The following discussion 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.

---

The article states: "In August 2022, Libs of TikTok received substantial media attention after falsely claiming that gender-affirming hysterectomies were being provided to minors at the Boston Children's Hospital and at the Children's National Hospital. This resulted in a harassment campaign against both hospitals, including bomb threats."

The Children's National Hospital has a Gender Development Program that it targets to children - it also receives funding from some very 'interesting' political groups given the nature of their work. The claim that the Hospital is not providing gender-affirming hysterectomies to minors is arguably not correct. They do advertise counselling and dispense drugs to orient gender towards a particular outcome which presumably at its final stages is going to involve surgery - so arguably, that is an outcome that is offered to minors at the outset even though the procedure itself takes place at 18+ (not sure whether that is a clarification that occurred after the article brought attention to the Hospital). This should probably be made more clear in the article as without it, it gives the impression that the original claim is wholly without basis. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:A0A0:92C1:A9DB:9C63 (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable independent secondary sources which back up the claims you're making? And which are more trustworthy than the sources already cited in the article? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, ... the hospital itself: https://childrensnational.org/departments/gender-development-program 2001:8003:70F5:2400:A0A0:92C1:A9DB:9C63 (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

That page does not mention hysterectomy. We will not alter this article based on your presumption. --Pokelova (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It has been claimed from multiple sources that the Hospital did offer surgery to minors on since deleted webpages (deleted on 18 August)

https://wjla.com/news/local/audio-deleted-webpage-show-hospital-offered-gender-affirming-hysterectomies-to-minors

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/boston-childrens-hospital-deletes-website-info-saying-17-year-olds-are-eligible-for-vaginal-construction-surgery/

https://midmichigannow.com/news/nation-world/audio-deleted-webpage-show-hospital-offered-gender-affirming-hysterectomies-to-minors

Also, the original statement makes a claim without quoting the original source. The changing of the word 'provided' to 'offered' for example would change the entire context of the T/F claim of the statement. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:A0A0:92C1:A9DB:9C63 (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, the original statement makes a claim without quoting the original source.

Looks like our article currently cites 4 sources, all of which back up the statement.

The changing of the word 'provided' to 'offered' for example would change the entire context of the T/F claim of the statement
So it sounds like the current text is accurate, and the sources you linked were presuming that surgeries were performed? Do you have any sources which describe hysterectomies that were actually performed on minors? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

If 'your' article wants to make a T/F claim on what the original source said - it should quote what the original source said (not a secondary, or a tertiary, ... ).

"sounds like the current text is accurate" - well OK, if it sounds accurate it must be! Nothing more to see here folks! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:A0A0:92C1:A9DB:9C63 (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

No, there really isn't anything to see here, just the hot air, hyperbole, and misconstruing of events that is central to Chaya Raichick's "reporting". Zaathras (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

If 'your' article wants to make a T/F claim on what the original source said - it should quote what the original source said (not a secondary, or a tertiary, ... ).

That's not how wikipedia works. We rely on secondary reliable sources, we don't really care about the actual "truthfulness" of the claim, since that is so easily perverted by POV and bias of our editors. In fact, citing any "primary" source is actually a violation of our no original research policy. Instead, the pillars of wikipedia rely on verifiability to secondary sources which interpret primary sources for us, instead of any abstract sense of "truth". It is those sources which determine what is "true" to Wikipedia's eyes. If they are wrong (as you seem to think they are), then we at Wikipedia are also wrong, intentionally. That's how it works. Luckily, those sources have been pretty reliably correct on most matters. And in my estimation, they are correct here as well.

I think your comments may be better served on a different website, such as Conservapedia. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

So you're saying in essence that Wikipedia does not meet the basic sourcing standards of a facts-based Encyclopaedia. Agreed!

Why you would direct me to a conservative digest for simply requiring basic academic proofing standards is beyond me ... but thanks, but no thanks!

What seems to escape you is that by citing secondary sources (when the primary is readily available to you and also, contradicted by readily available secondary sources) simply codifies the mistakes/biases of the secondary source. I have seen this done many times and usually it sources from laziness but often it is the fuel intentionally injected to feed echo-chambers. The 'strange' thing about this is often people think they are 'right' to do this and that their actions will survive the scrutiny of time - weird!

All the best in your endeavours! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:A0A0:92C1:A9DB:9C63 (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

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.

'transgender' term frequently incorrect in the article.

The following discussion 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.

---

The article makes frequent reference to the word transgender when describing child patients to various hospitals.

By the studies undertaken by one of the hospital's own doctors (Childrens National Hospital): A. Cohen, et.al "Shifts in Gender-Related Medical Requests by Transgender and Gender-Diverse Adolescents", Journal of Adolescent Health, 17 Dec 2022.

only 68 of 130 patients (almost 1/2) were admitted to the gender transitioning program (supposedly under the guidelines of the "The Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association's Standards Of Care For Gender Identity Disorders, Sixth Version".

Of these only 22% were judged as being nonbinary (interestingly the majority (almost 1/2) were judged as being autistic - which arguably should fail their inclusion in the program - and indeed many did later change their transitioning request (~1/3)).

As only 15 of the 130 patients in this study were clinically identified as nonbinary (and arguably not yet transgender) the 'transgender' term is incorrect and I suggest it is replaced with 'patients'. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:A0A0:92C1:A9DB:9C63 (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This study has no relevance to the page, given that we rely on the self-identification of sources as to which patients are transgender. The sources we cite discuss "transgender kids" or "trans kids" and thus we also say this. We don't use original research and interpretation of primary sources to decide the terms to use, which is what you're currently doing. See our "no original research" policy. As an aside, we refer most often to patients in this article as "patients" and rarely as "transgender patients", so I'm not sure what specific changes you're even recommending here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the voice again: Still confused - you elect to use the New York Post et.al. interpretation for an assessment of these patients over that of the Medical Doctors (actually all of the doctors from the Gender Development Program at the Children's Hospital are represented (I had it wrong): Drs. Call, Gomez-Lobo & Strang) - that is the entire corpus of the GDP and supposedly top experts in the field?

Please also check the date of the article - it is the most contemporary(up-to-date) findings on this matter.

So what I take away from this is that Journalists (of non-specific expertise) triumph over the experts themselves - come on! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:A0A0:92C1:A9DB:9C63 (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Where do these physicians discuss the gender identity of specific patients? It would be a violation of HIPAA (and research regulations) if they did so.

I just checked, and we don't reference the NY Post in the article as a cited source, even once. We only refer to it as an organization referenced by other news outlets. This is good, because we don't consider the NY Post to be a reliable source per WP:RSP (see WP:NYPOST).

So again, I ask, which specific sentences are you even requesting be changed? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I'll be more specific - these children are patients - their status as transgender is not yet clinically assessed or determined. Any reference in the article to transgender kids is inaccurate. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:A0A0:92C1:A9DB:9C63 (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You're basing that statement on your personal interpretation of a WP:PRIMARY source (the study you linked). That's not how Wikipedia is written. We rely on secondary sources to determine how we write about things like whether or not children can identify as trans. The WPATH Standards of Care, written by a group of medical and psychological professionals, is one such secondary source. It often makes reference to transgender youth. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Children can identify as trans (I can identify as a Teapot) - We rely on clinical physicians to make that determination - not Journalists (or you or I). 2001:8003:70F5:2400:A0A0:92C1:A9DB:9C63 (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, according to MOS:GENDERID, wikipedia relies on self identification to make that determination. If you have a problem with that policy, you should probably go argue it on that talk page. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

... and the relevance of the article is that precious few of the children that were admitted to the Hospital actually knew what they were (1/3 of those admitted to the transitioning process changed their mind). The primary objection to the term transgender children is that it is inaccurate and contributes to entertaining what for the majority of children is not an accurate representation of what they transpire to be. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:A0A0:92C1:A9DB:9C63 (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

New York Post - generic reference to a NewsPaper source - not specific.

Gender - if nonbinary is a gender it is definitely described in the Paper. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:A0A0:92C1:A9DB:9C63 (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Genuinely nothing you are saying here makes sense or tracks with the article as written. --Pokelova (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You and Zaathras are clearly just trolling - please forgive me if I don't engage. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:A0A0:92C1:A9DB:9C63 (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This article only refers to one specific trans child that is definitely trans. The other mentions of trans children are relating to the general concept of trans children and thus do not need to be "proven" to you. This is beyond silly. --Pokelova (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, knee-jerk revert-warring as always, unsurprisingly restores a non-constrictive IP editor's tirade. The reason this was removed (by several editors) is that it has nothing to with editing or improving the article, but rather is just arguing the topic. Zaathras (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Right or wrong, the comment was specifically about editing the article. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

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.

"But its followers harass people"

The intro currently includes the following curious (and rather long) sentence: Fans and supporters of Libs of TikTok claim the account simply reposts content showcasing "sex and gender ideology" that was already publicly available, but its followers "routinely attack individuals whose content is shared", and several dozen incidents of online or real life threats and harassment against a range of targets have been linked to Libs of TikTok's tweets, especially those where Raichik singles out specific events, locations or people. The use of the words "claim" and "but" imply that the second part of the sentence will contradict the first part, but there is no contradiction: it could well be that Libs of TikTok simply reposts others' content, and that some of the people who follow the account are then inspired by what they see to harass the people in the videos. I don't think anyone has tried to defend this phrasing yet on its own terms, but some editors have justified it on the grounds that that's how this PinkNews article phrases it. Specifically, the PinkNews article states, While supporters say that Libs of TikTok is merely a “public information” account that reposts content already available, the account’s followers are rabidly anti-LGBTQ+ and routinely attack individuals whose content is shared. (Note that PinkNews uses the verb "say"; it's only this Wikipedia article that changes it to "claim", in apparent violation of WP:CLAIM.)

I don't know where anyone got the idea that, just because PinkNews phrases it in this inartful way, this Wikipedia article has to as well. There are various other sources that say much the same thing (that supporters of LoTT defend it by saying that it just reposts content) without attempting to contradict it; The Jerusalem Post, for example. And it's not clear that PinkNews even counts as a reliable source for this: WP:RSP states, somewhat grudgingly, that There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but this isn't even factual reporting: this particular contextualization is strictly analysis. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I actually agree with @Korny O'Near here. I think his version loses extremely little context (literally none at all), but is more NPOV. We have an entire landscape of sources to work with, we don't have to rely only on PinkNews's framing of this. We should keep the content as is, but the juxtaposition is misleading as it puts PinkNews' analysis in Wiki-voice in a WP:HOWEVER manner, while Korny's edit keeps it in wiki-voice, but does so in a way that avoids threading or POV concerns. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Slow edit warring

1RR doesn't mean wait 26 hours then revert. I've protected the page for three days so the current back and forth can be discussed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I feel like I've already said quite a bit about each of my edits, but I'm happy to talk further about any of them. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The question isn't about the individual edits, the question is why you insist on edit warring? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it edit warring, but - as you might imagine, whenever I do a revert or any other edit, it's because I think the new wording is preferable to the old wording. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Just FYI its edit warring. "because I think the new wording is preferable to the old wording" is not one of the recognized exceptions to edit warring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if it exactly fits the standard definition of edit warring, because it's rarely just wording alternating back and forth between two states. For example, in this edit, Peleio Aquiles reverted (I think) four different users' edits in one go, without explanation. Anyway, I would prefer to achieve consensus and/or dispute resolution, but it's difficult to do when some other editors appear to have no interest in discussing anything. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It generally takes more than one to edit war, to be clear there is an issue with slow edit warring not an issue with Korny O'Near alone. Peleio Aquiles does also appear to be slow warring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

In the future I suggest that you create a talk page section about the edit and your objections. Give that section a week to see if any one responds, and after that week, if there is no discussion, revert and link to the discussion section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I've done that quite a bit - I don't know if I've ever waited a week, but I always try to wait until it seems like the discussion has died down. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

If you've never waited a week then you've never tried to wait until it seems like the discussion has died down. I generally give it two or three weeks. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

This is more like "One-Man Edit Warring", tbh. One editor, Korny, reverting nearly every edit by a variety of editors when it is content they find disagreeable. Zaathras (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Korny is extremely protective of the right-wing POV here (and sometimes elsewhere) and it must stop. Fortunately, the protection is keeping a decent version in place. Now let's see if Korny resumes his protectionism after the lock is lifted. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you give an example of a bad edit I've made, right-wing or otherwise? As I said, I'm happy to discuss anything. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

LOTT is not far- right

we aren’t doing this crap again Dronebogus (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

It is odd to me to label this account as having any political affiliation at all. LOTT does not talk about tax law, foreign policy, corporate law, etc. It seems to be narrowly focused on mental health/ sexual orientation issues. The little editorializing It does is also mainstream and in line of what every major Democrat figure in the US publicly believed ten or 15 years ago. If this account could be said to be mainstream or even agreed upon by leftwing leaders then it isn't far- right, if anything its centrist position shows how far left politics have moved in the past decade. 2601:152:300:4C2D:5481:3FFF:275B:F4A4 (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC) The sources cited say otherwise. Zaathras (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC) As a wise man once said, cool story bro. Dumuzid (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC) LOTT ridicules left-wing and LGBT people. That makes sense for a far-right group. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC) You're right that it's not far-right, and you're also right that the views that it expresses - like that gay pride flags don't belong in elementary schools - were pretty much everyone's views until about ten years ago. But Zaathras is also right that we have to go with what the sources say. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Korny, are you serious? RS say it's far-right, so it's far-right until RS say otherwise. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC) There was a pride flag in my elementary school and that was much more than ten years ago, if people were against that it wasn't an issue any of the students, teachers, or parents raised publicly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC) I stand corrected on the pride flag thing. Still, the average Libs of TikTok video shows behavior more extreme than that. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Extreme? We had gender neutral bathrooms and gay teachers too, is that extremism as you would define it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC) No. Feel free to go through the LoTT Twitter feed if you want to see what I'm talking about. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC) I'm not seeing extreme behavior, you're going to have to be explicit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Evidently we're not allowed to link to the account, which would be the easiest approach, but one recent example is a curriculum from a middle school in Washington State that includes the question "How do gay, lesbian and trans people have sex?" Korny O'Near (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Honest question for you Korny, are you opposed to heterosexual sex education in middle schools? Dumuzid (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC) I assume that almost all middle school sex ed curriculums cover that information. The shocker would be if someone matriculating to high school didn't know how sex works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC) This conversation took a weird turn... let me just say that I don't believe there's a definition of "far-right" that includes objection to this kind of content for 12-year-olds. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Who besides the far right objects to this sort of content for 12-year-olds? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC) I would guess many people, but short of some kind of global opinion poll, I suppose anyone can formulate their own answer to that question. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Not asking for your opinion, I'm asking for reliable sources which say that groups besides the far right are opposed to basic sex education. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC) I don't think that transgender sex counts as basic sex ed (advanced, maybe?). But it's strange for you to make a blanket assertion and then ask someone else to disprove it. Anyway, one obvious counter-example is all the non-Western countries of the world, where presumably this information is not contained in the pre-teen curriculum, regardless of their politics. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC) I think what we're trying to get at Korny, is that we should all interrogate even those propositions we "know" to be true. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC) While direct links to the Twitter posts are likely forbidden, Twitter posts are time and date stamped so you could at least say something general like "See the posts at 12:00PM and 13:00PM (UTC), 30 February 2023". P.S, yes I know that 30 February doesn't exist, that's why it's an example! Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC) Our sources say it is far-right, and so we say it is far-right. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC) Your sources must be left leaning then. There is nothing far-right about reposting someone else's social media feed. News should not be opinion (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Chaya Raichik does not just report "someone else's social media feed", she recontextualizes, snips, omits, and crafts a carefully-curated narrative for her audience. Much the same as James O'Keefe does (oops, once did!) for Project Veritas. Zaathras (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

"Sentence that doesn't add any information"

@Korny O'Near: I find myself confused by this edit summary of yours. Obviously it does add information ­– that Libs of TikTok employs the aforementioned tactic. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. The sentence I removed reads, Libs of TikTok has used this tactic to avoid additional penalties from Twitter while still making an impact on a large online audience. Perhaps I shouldn't have deleted it - I was thinking "this tactic" meant deleting tweets that Twitter objected to, but I guess it means posting controversial tweets, with the full intent of deleting them soon afterwards, before Twitter (the company) can even get a chance to weigh in. Although, if the latter is the case, that's quite an incendiary charge to make - and should probably be attributed to Joan Donovan (who is the source of that assertion). Though Donovan seems to just say it's true of "disinformation sowers", not necessarily of Libs of TikTok. So maybe the sentence should be removed anyway, because it's a big charge resting on a flimsy basis. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Though Donovan seems to just say it's true of "disinformation sowers", not necessarily of Libs of TikTok. From the article (emphasis my own):

Donovan said quickly deleting problematic tweets is a common way for disinformation sowers to make an impact with a broad online audience but then incur a lesser penalty from Twitter. She noted that influencers such as Libs of TikTok play a sophisticated cat-and-mouse game with the social media companies, “paying close attention to the company’s twists and turns in their terms of service,” to purposefully dance around the rules.

Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The deleted sentence could be inferred from the rest of the paragraph. Because of the inference, maybe it seemed redundant? But it's not. Rewording might be an order, but the deletion seems like a mistake. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That sentence from the WaPo article again doesn't actually say that Libs of TikTok posts things with the intention of later deleting them - neither in Donovan's voice or in WaPo's own voice. There's a lot of kinda-sorta insinuation in that part of the article; and it seems to me that it would be better to err on the side of ignoring it, unless there's more proof. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

My interpretation of the bolded quote above is that she absolutely is saying that Libs of Tiktok uses that tactic, given that the entire section is about Libs of Tiktok; your alternative reading doesn't really make much sense in context. And that means it's important for our article to mention it. The quote above leaves out a bit of context from the preceding paragraph: As in April, Raichik deleted the offending tweet herself, before Twitter could do so.¶ Donovan said quickly deleting problematic tweets is a common way for disinformation sowers to make an impact with a broad online audience but then incur a lesser penalty from Twitter. Donovan's explanation only makes sense in context as a description of what Raichik did and why; there's no reasonable alternative reading. --Aquillion (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I think my alternative reading makes perfect sense: Joan Donovan is pointing out that there's circumstantial evidence that Libs of TikTok has posted tweets with the intent to delete them; but, given that there's no direct evidence for this, neither Donovan nor the WaPo will definitively say that this is the case. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I can see it but its a stretch... Aquillion appears to be much more actuate, there really is only one way you can interpret that statement unless you start making an effort to make alternative interpretations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree with Aquillion and HEB here; a neutral reading of the sentence is attributing the behavior. As ever though, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, I actually think the sentence could fit the source better. The deleted sentence implied 100% certainty about Raichik's motivations. Of course that's never possible. Instead, the researcher points to specific examples of a practice LoTT does, and says it's a common for similar orgs. Here's my suggested edit:

According to Joan Donovan, research director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, Libs of TikTok's practice of deleting content before a platform takes action is a common tactic for digital actors spreading disinformation.

Without the mention of LoTT, it's a nonsequiter. I deleted the harvard link for brevity's sake, plus it unfairly makes Donovan look pompous. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

That looks okay to me. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 08:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think so too - it's a reasonable compromise. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

"Critics of Black Lives Matter" category

Well, we already talked about it before, but I guess we have to talk about it again, per this revert. WP:NONDEF states, The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place. Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided. In what way does "critic of Black Lives Matter" serve as a defining characteristic of Libs of TikTok? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You say "we already" talked about it before, but it was a brief conversation between yourself and @Shibbolethink: I don't see any indication that there was a consensus to remove the category. Yet you did that today anyway. I happen to also believe the category is appropriate based on Raichik's views of BLM. There's ample evidence of Ms. Raichik's feelings about BLM. Wes sideman (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. That first link is the one already cited in the article, which mentions the tweet where LoTT says that BLM protests have been more violent than the January 6 one. The second is a tweet by LoTT that reads, in full, A school in DC forced kindergarteners to march around with BLM signs and chant “Black Lives Matter”. The third is an article about some agitated women who yelled "black lives matter" at an unmasked black man; LoTT referred to it as More mask madness. I'm not seeing any actual criticism here, let alone enough to justify calling it a "defining characteristic". Korny O'Near (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Your interpretation is noted, but I think it's an isolated opinion. I don't share it. Wes sideman (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I should note again that opinions don't even really matter here, because every category listed has to be one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Wes sideman:, the WaPo source doesn't say that LoTT has criticized BLM per say. It just said she thought "BLM protests" were more violent than Jan. 6. I'm not opposed tho the inclusion of the category in principle because it's likely true and we know LoTT has been critical of many racial justice related things. But, I would like to see more RS support for the label; otherwise, it would be OR. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 21:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the inclusion of the category either. Wes sideman (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand that. For clarity, I am opposed to it until there is better sourcing supporting the category. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)