Talk:Libs of TikTok

Should LibsOfTikTOk be categorized as Category:Disinformation operations?

Chaya Raichik is about to be sued by a drag queen whom she defamed with doctored material. She spread the fake video even after it had been debunked by media and authorities clarified no crime was depicted in it. She has never deleted the slanderous tweet, though. And she's spread fake news before, some instances of which are already explained in the entry. What are you all's opinions? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we have any sources which talk about a disinformation operation, remember it isn't the same thing as spreading disinformation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

No because it is not disinformation and honestly this whole article is siting a left wing source with no proof or evidence. It has been reveal as of rachak's instagram that there has beeen no bomb threat and the local police also did not know what happened. The narrative was an attempt to defame rachiak ExperimentXOfficial (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? If it's about the bomb threat to the Boston Children's Hospital, an arrest has already been made in connection to that. And police have already confirmed that, actually, dozens of bomb threats have been made against that target following Chaya Raichik's posts. You're either confused or lying, and you should not be allowed to edit this entry. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Nothing you (ExperimentXOfficial) wrote here is true. Please stick to facts. Jibal (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Colorado

collapse as mostly unproductive wall of text

LOTT posted nothing directly about the Colorado night club. It's a complete stretch to even include an article about it. Why not include the same for anyone/everyone who has said something against drag queen shows? 2600:1700:F21:9570:3CF3:F0DF:7311:22E2 (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC) Articles on Wikipedia are constructed based on what credible sources say about a given subject. Several reliable sources have mentioned LOTT in their coverage of the Colorado Springs night club shooting as context for all the violence that has been committed this year against LGBT venues and drag queens, and at least two -- the Washington Post and The Advocate -- have noticed she incited against drag queens in the same state just hours after the massacre took place. If it appears in reliable sources, it can appear on Wikipedia. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC) In addition, not everyone anywhere has the power to incite harassment and violence in real life with mere posts on social media. Several reliable sources, however, have noted that Chaya Raichik possesses just that power. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC) I agree that it is a stretch and kind of a non sequitur. I do not personally see any incitement. But as @Peleio Aquiles mentioned, several news outlets have brought this up and it is well cited. Amarg9494 (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC) You used "incite" in both justifications for the inclusion of referencing articles. Could you please cite the specific "incitement" of harassment and/or violence from LoTT? 2600:1700:1CD0:D9C0:8C3F:AC03:2FCB:E6D3 (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC) Shouldn't you read the entry before criticizing its contents? The entry lists many incidents where her posts against LGBTQ venues and drag performers were followed by harassment and violence from right-wingers. Start here. Also in the entry now are the words of a former Dept. of Homeland Security official Juliette Kayeem claiming a causal link between Libs of TikTok's posts and right-wing violence. You're free to dislike all these facts if you want to. But they have been voiced in reliable sources, and so belong in the entry. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC) I disagree here. I think we can take it as given that there are people in the media and government who dislike Libs of TikTok (and similar activists) and will instinctively mention them any time there's anti-gay violence in the United States, regardless of any actual linkage. Does that mean this article will need to have a section for every well-publicized anti-gay attack (assuming this was indeed a bias crime) from now on? It seems pointless, and perhaps WP:NOTSCANDAL applies. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC) I would respectfully disagree here. I have not had the chance to actually examine the sources, so I am not necessarily arguing for inclusion here, but as a general principle, if reliable sources continue linking LoTT to attacks in a proportion that makes such a linkage due, then we need to include them. I would however agree that perhaps the first few days after such a tragedy is probably not enough perspective for a Wikipedia article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Interesting, we don't have any sources which refer to LoTT as activism, we do have a number which call it a hate site. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC) "Activist" is my term, yes. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC) BLP prohibits you from using your own term to describe a living person. All characterizations whether in the article or on the talk page must be directly supported by a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC) That's quite an opinion to hold. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Not my opinion, see WP:BLP. You can no more call someone an activist without a WP:RS then you can call them a farmer, billionaire, rapist, or terrorist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC) WP:BLP prohibits "harmful" or "titillating" claims. Would you say "activist" (or "farmer", for that matter) falls into either of those categories? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC) With all due respect, I would say the quotes about harm and titillation are more normative claims than statements of policy: they explain reasoning. I would say the policy itself is All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Now, there may well be instances where the appellation "activist" is noncontroversial, but in this particular instance I should think it falls under that broad category. As ever, reasonable minds may certainly differ on the subject. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC) That's for articles, of course, not talk pages. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Touché! I came away with the idea that we were discussing the article; I agree that use of the term on the talk page is unproblematic. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC) BLP applies to talk pages. 46.97.170.38 (talk) 12:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC) False. "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC) HEB, with all due respect, I would suggest this is not worth the fight: if even relatively neutral descriptors required citations on talk pages, discussion would be so unwieldy as to be impossible. I agree with you in general, but I don't think is the sort of BLP violation that demands action. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC) The context is that Korny is an absolute stickler for BLP (including on talk pages) when it furthers their argument... To now pretend like they think that BLP doesn't apply to talk pages is either trolling or amnesia. I agree though that its not worth arguing over outside of that context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC) I admit I'm a stickler for BLP in articles (everyone should be), but on talk pages? I have no idea what you're talking about. (And now it sounds like you're saying you brought us down this rabbit hole just to make a point, but that's another story.) Korny O'Near (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC) You should refrain from making accusations of bad faith about other editors. Your past comments, apparent inconsistency in the way you select your arguments, and fitness to contribute to this entry, are legitimate topics for other editors, especially as the administration board has once considered warning you over the support you've given for extremism and conspiracy theories in this Talk Page. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC) With all due respect to everyone involved, I suggest we wrap this up and continue discussing article content. Where are we on the Colorado shooting section? I am of the mind that it definitely needs to be included, though I go back and forth on whether it should be trimmed a bit. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC) I agree with going back to the actual discussion. There should probably be a new section for it; this one has gotten a little cringeworthy to read through. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC) A reminder that Korny has voiced support for some the hate rhetoric and conspiracy theories that Chaya Raichik has spread, such as the idea that the Trevor Project is a covert grooming operation. Wasn't there a discussion in the administration board to topic-ban him from LGBT entries a little while ago? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC) This feels like harassment, but I'll let others judge. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Seems relevant, doesn't appear to be wp:harassment as we define it here on wikipedia at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Colorado Springs shooter is allegedly non-binary

another wall of text Dronebogus (talk)

The latest news about the Colorado Springs gay nightclub shooting is that the shooter now claims to be non-binary. Is this proof that Libs of TikTok is not somehow responsible for the shooting? No - the shooter could be trolling, or maybe he's sincere but still a fan of Libs of TikTok, and was motivated as a result to specifically target gay people. And no matter what the real situation is, the fact remains that the previous speculation by The Independent, PinkNews, Juliette Kayyem etc. was published in reliable sources, and will forever be notable by Wikipedia standards, even if it turns out to be completely false. However, I think this news underscores the pointlessness of simply arguing that anything published in reliable sources belongs in Wikipedia. We exercise editorial discretion, and that includes avoiding speculation that appears to be baseless, even if supposedly reliable journalists state it. I think WP:NOTSCANDAL applies here, as does a general sense that we should wait for the real facts to emerge. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Yes I would point to WP:RSBREAKING, that we should let the dust settle on this and wait for more comprehensive and authoritative independent sources (e.g. Reuters, NPR, BBC) to weigh in. I think we should, for now, refer to the shooter as "they/them" or whatever, but agree that we should not take this as reason to exclude the content from this article. It has a brief proportionality by WP:DUE standards, and thus deserves a brief mention imo. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC) The entry does not address the identity, or even the motivation, of the shooter in any way, though. There's no space to refer to his supposedly "non-binary" identity, and Wikipedia shouldn't jump to conclusions based just on a very timely move by the shooter's defense attorney. For what is worth, an image is circulating on Twitter showing a rainbow flag being set on fire on what looks like the shooter's Instagram account. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC) The section on the Colorado shooting is as well cited as any in the entry. I find it unlikely that Wikipedia is going to change its notability rules entirely on account of the reputation of some extremist troll on Twitter. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC) It's not a question of notability, it's a question of... encyclopedia-worthiness, I suppose. Not every statement published in reliable sources belongs on Wikipedia. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC) The increasingly grotesque reaction of the right-wing to the shooting has become newsworthy on its own, though. Regardless of what motivated the shooter, Chaya Raichik chose to target drag queens in Colorado only hours after the shooting. As media savvy as she is, it's unlikely that she didn't know what she was doing, and news media could only take notice. This is something the perception of which won't change regardless of what the shooter and his attorneys come to say in the next days, because this is something Raichik, not the shooter, did. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC) I reverted your edit as it distorts what reliable sources have said on the subject. None have claimed, or speculated, that Chaya Raichik inspired the shooter. The Independent merely noticed that the kind of event the shooter attacked is one frequently targeted by Raichik on social media. And the Washington Post, the NBC News, Pink News, and the Southern Poverty Law Center observed that Raichik decided to target drag queens in the same state as the shooting only hours after the shooting. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC) It's true that many of the sources criticized LoTT for criticizing drag queens elsewhere in Colorado (apparently entire states can be off-limits - I didn't know that); but the wording in the text you reverted to is quite ambiguous, switching back and forth between accusations of incitement to violence and accusations of insensitivity, which are very different things (or rather, implied accusations of each - I don't know that any of the sources explicitly say that Libs of TikTok is guilty of either one). It's fine to mention both things, but to conflate the two is confusing - and to have a large amount of text on either one seems wholly unjustified. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Personally, I think her entire crusade against drag queens, not only those in Colorado, is comic. She thinks men should be simply forbidden to wear dresses, a position of such extreme authoritarianism that, as far as I know, it surpasses anything that had been imposed even by churches in less enlightened times. But Colorado drag queens were feeling more vulnerable than others, for obvious reasons. Combined with the increasingly emboldened far-right attacks on the bar -- Raichik's supporter Tim Pool, for example, is accusing Club Q staffers and patrons of being groomers and pedophiles -- the media's attention to this corner of the internet is natural, especially since Raichik's postings have been linked to bomb threats before. Anyway, I don't see the point of holding this conversation. Since you're not saying which part of the text you tried to remove is ambiguous, it doesn't feel like you want to be helped, only to grieve. But we can do nothing about how the media covers her. Isn't there anyone in your life you can talk about how upset you are with the news treatment of her? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC) This is unbelievably rude, and I'm sure you're violating some rules here. That said, let me ignore all the irrelevant parts of what you wrote, and focus on the one relevant part: "which part of the text you tried to remove is ambiguous". Let's look at the current text: there's an implied accusation of incitement of violence (The Independent noted...), followed by two sentences that are accusations of insensitivity, followed by a sentence about an earlier interview with Juliette Kayyem that accuses LoTT of incitement of violence (AKA "stochastic terrorism", even though Kayyem never uses that term to refer to LoTT). The paragraph just flits back and forth, with neither thematic nor chronological order. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC) It wasn't my intention to be rude; but you seemed to be raising issues -- the the media coverage of Raichik -- that Wikipedia cannot address. Wikipedia is built on the basis of what views are prominent in reliable media; I don't think we can decide to give a sweeter treatment than the sources are affording her. And The Independent is not claiming Raichik had singled out this bar specifically, only that she has a long pattern of posting about drag events which are then stormed by extremists. The RS's are making different observations about Raichik's conduct because her actions in this regard have been many. That's not complicated. She passed months putting drag queens on the crosshairs of Proud Boys and similar groups, which is what The Independent observed. And, on the day of the Colorado Springs massacre (probably after The Independent ran the article about her), she chose to rub salt on the wound by tweeting about drag queens in a neighboring city to the massacre! Really, who's to blame about how much the RS have to say on her connection to this case? She is giving reason for media to keep writing about her -- and it's probably intentional. As an apparent supporter of her work, given the extremist views you seem to share with her, you should message her to suggest she follow a different social media strategy if you're worried on her behalf. I don't think the media coverage of her will, or should, change otherwise! Regardless, none of this is the problem of the editors here. I don't have the transcript to Kayyeem's interview with The Advocate, so neither I nor (I think) you know for sure who employed the stochastic terrorism term. We know that both articles about the interview use the term, which is all that the entry is saying. I'll be searching through The Advocate's archive to see if there are more references to the interview or even a transcript, and if anything relevant emerges, I'll be updating the section. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Again, please stop being rude. Anyway, contrary to what you wrote, we have every right to decide which material gets added to this article and which does not. (Otherwise, every article would be millions of words long.) That certainly applies for baseless innuendo that Libs of TikTok caused the deaths of five people - an implication that seems increasingly unlikely, and probably deserves no more than a sentence at best. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Editors aren't a hive mind. Even if we had the autonomy to decide which reliable sources are reliable, and which reliable sources are not reliable (itself a nonsensical hope), it's extremely unlikely that editors would agree on how the final ranking of reliable sources would look like. The only hope we have of achieving consensus, I think, is following Wikipedia's guidebook. Mind you, some of the passages to which you're objecting are sourced to media outlets that would top any such ranking. You don't get much more mainstream and prominent than the Washington Post, for example -- and I'm loath to agree with many aspects of the WaPo's editorial line. Further, I don't think I was being rude to you, especially in the last post, unless you think it's rude to be reminded of views you elected to voice on this Talk Page. Finally, as I said, I conducted a quick search of The Advocate's mentions of Jueliette Kayyem, and I didn't find a transcript. I did find the following passage in a third article: There is a direct link between accounts like Raichik's Libs of TikTok and angry and potentially violent men showing up at drag queen story hours and Pride events, Juliette Kayyem, former assistant secretary for intergovernmental affairs at the Department of Homeland Security under President Barrack Obama and expert in counter-terrorism, said in August. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Again, you don't seem to understand our role as Wikipedia editors. A fact could appear in every reliable source, and be unimpeachably true, and we could still decide that it's too trivial, gossipy, etc. to include. In this case, of course, it's not a fact at all, but rather a half-stated, evidence-free piece of innuendo, that this Twitter account indirectly led to murder. There's no obligation to include it at all. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC) The Washington Post, NBC News, and so on, don't often write gossip, especially in their news columns. And Raichik's choice to attack drag queens in Colorado on the same of the Colorado LGBTQ shooting is not trivial or gossipy. It does not pertain to her personal life, but to her activities as a public and very influential account. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC) If every fact written in the news sections of the Washington Post, NBC, etc. were worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, this website would be quite a bit bigger. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC) I disagree. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC) So you think every statement in every article ever published by every reliable source belongs in Wikipedia? Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, then. Korny O'Near (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC) Please do not attribute points of view to others which you know they do not hold in order to make a point. That is disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Disinformation from editors about Colorado shooting

Since Korny won't let me edit his tendentious title, I'll leave this here as proof that he was likely spreading disinformation when he excitedly came to announce that the shooter is "non-binary":

Xavier Kraus, a neighbor of the accused shooter, said he and his girlfriend lived across the hall from Aldrich and their mother until September. Kraus said they mostly played video games together, often in Aldrich’s apartment.

Aldrich would occasionally express hateful attitudes toward people, Kraus recalled.

Kraus said he specifically remembered one time “Aldrich vocalized verbally” that they “did not like or slash hated the gays. Using a derogatory term for them.” He added that many other “outbursts” were “racial.”

Aldrich was “not someone I would have around my gay friends,” Kraus said. He said the alleged shooter never mentioned they were non-binary.

(Source) Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I put "non-binary" in quotes, because I was quoting the shooter. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Has nobody here anything better to do than edit-war over a talk page section heading? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Enough warring @Horse Eye's Back:, this is not the one. --Pokelova (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Just a note of general interest (not yet usable on Wikipedia), that the defense attorney seems to be referring to the suspect exclusively with he/him pronouns. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"Disinformation"

How is LoTT primarily disinformation when all of its content are reposts of other people's videos? Is the "disinformation" you're talking about simply LoTT's summarization of the video via opinion/editorialization? If that's the case, most news websites are guilty of the same thing, as headlines are often exaggerated/misleading to paint a narrative. LoTT is not creating issues out of thin air; at most they are exaggerated summaries of a video that leads to LoTT drawing some conclusion based off opinion. It is by no means a news social media account, another reason why calling it a disinformation account is a stretch. And as said above, even if LoTT is guilty of disinformation, is there genuinely enough for it to be seen as an account that spreads *primarily* disinformation (as it is in the very first sentence of the opening)? 24.156.179.25 (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

all of its content are reposts of other people's videos this is blatantly false. Agree that describing the account as disinformation may be a bit much, though I would still mention it in the first paragraph (something along the lines of "the account has been known to spread disinformation"). Elli (talk | contribs) 01:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Then the rest of its content would be essentially be political/cultural commentary, correct? 24.156.179.25 (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

That Chaya Raichik is a distributor of disinformation is more than adequately sourced in the article. Zaathras (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, we have excellent sourcing attesting that she has spread disinformation. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not she has spread disinformation is not the point. The point is how *much* disinformation has to be spread in order for the account be deemed as a disinformation account; thus putting that in the very first sentence of the article? If it just takes one instance, that could apply to virtually every social media account. There has to be proof her account is used to *frequently* spread disinformation, and based on her tweets, they primarily seem to be sharing of TikToks with her opinionized summary of the video. And you would also need to distinguish a wrong opinion from disinformation; perhaps this article (and many others) conflates the two. 24.156.179.25 (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Zaathras (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Not really actually. Just because articles say LoTT is a disinformation account doesn't mean it automatically is. What is their criteria for calling it so? These articles are often partisan which do sway credibility. There is no basis as to how frequent "disinformation" has to be in order for the account to be considered a disinformation account. If I tweeted 2 + 2 = 5 on twitter does that make my account a disinformation account?

Also saying LoTT reposts content with "hostile/derogatory commentary" is simply hyperbolic. Most of the time the commentary is more or less neutral. Take this tweet for instance, nothing hostile here. https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1598034705164926976?s=20&t=js3vQTejA9Hyh49WhqtFhQ

That sentence in the article makes it seem as if every tweet is of that nature, when in reality, yes while you can see some partisanship/opinionated view from the tweets, they are not outright "inflammatory". As I've reiterated, a simple opinion of others' content is not inherently derogatory. There is little to no actual commentary made by LoTT, instead there are mostly summaries with, again, slight partisanship after some analyzation. 24.156.179.25 (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

"Just because articles say LoTT is a disinformation account doesn't mean it automatically is." If the sources are reliable, then as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it does mean that. Everything else you're saying is just your own opinion, which is irrelevant. We follow the sources, period. --Pokelova (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

But that's part of the problem. The sources are "reliable" as long as they don't lean right. If they lean left (such as Media Matters) more often than not Wikipedia will find them a-OK to use. Meanwhile sites like the New York Post & Daily Wire are seen as far-right disinformation sources. There is no objective "reliability" when it comes to politics as it is not math or science. Maybe one day NYP & DW will be seen as reliable enough to be used on this website, and then these sources can be used to counter the narrative that LoTT is some hate machine only used to spread false information (rather than opinion). 24.156.179.25 (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't judge sources by the ideology they lean to, but rather if they have a history and reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and such. That most reliable sources lend to lean left and many right-leaning ones are deemed unreliable is just a reflection of the real-world situation that "reality has a well-known liberal bias". Zaathras (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Take it up with WP:RS/Noticeboard, talk pages of individual articles aren't really the place for this discussion. --Pokelova (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This seems like you disagree with how Wikipedia determines a source is reliable, not with the specifics of this article. if that's the case, then the proper place for this discussion is over at WT:RS or WP:RSN, not here on this specific talk page. On this page, we are tasked with applying those policies and guidelines to this article, not with rewriting policies to fit what we want in the article. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That's part of it, sure, but mostly using left-leaning sources (which do include their biases) lead to violating WP:NPOV. It can't be neutral if almost entirely all the sources used are against LoTT. 24.156.179.25 (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is not how WP:NPOV works, despite its perhaps somewhat misleading name. NPOV means means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. That does not mean we strive for any sense of false objectivity or "fairness." If something gets a reception in the reliable sources with a notable angle, it should have it on Wikipedia as well. That's what you are seeing here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't The New York Times; we don't give equal validity to any and all opposing viewpoints. No actual leftist would say that mainstream sources like The Washington Post and the CBC are left-leaning either. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The Washington Post and CBC are both obviously left-leaning, but they're considered reliable sources, which is what matters here. Still, referring to Libs of TikTok as a "disinformation Twitter account" is ridiculous, and doesn't even reflect what the sources say. A few articles do say (I think incorrectly) that Libs of TikTok includes disinformation, but none of them refer to it as a "disinformation Twitter account" - a phrase that would seem to imply that this Twitter account exists in order to deliberately mislead. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

You understand that the difference between misinformation and disinformation is whether or not the misleading is deliberate, correct? You don't get to disagree with the sources, you can only offer other sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I do disagree with some of the sources, but that's not the relevant issue here. A few sources do say that LoTT has provided disinformation, but none (as far as I know) have called LoTT a "disinformation account" - a much stronger accusation. I think Wikipedia alone, at the moment, is making that claim. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Its either not relevant or its the core of your argument... It can't be both. How is that a stronger accusation? It seems like a different way of stating the same thing, a "disinformation account" = "an account which publishes disinformation," no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

No, just like (to take an anodyne example) "singer" does not mean "anyone who has ever sung in front of an audience". This is a massive accusation, and it needs extremely good sourcing, as opposed to the current extremely weak sourcing, which is a few articles that put "Libs of TikTok" and "disinformation" in the same sentence. (The WaPo article doesn't even actually say that Libs of TikTok has committed disinformation, though it does imply it.) Korny O'Near (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Just because articles say LoTT is a disinformation account doesn't mean it automatically is. What is their criteria for calling it so?

We don't deal with what "is", nor with what criteria RS use for deciding what to write. We take RS to be just that: reliable sources. Jibal (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Bias

This entire article copiously reeks of left-wing and anti-conservative bias. A far cry from neutrality. These types of slants are becoming increasingly common in Wikipedia and are inflicting significant harm on the site's overall reputation. CandleinDarkness (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

And frankly, this article is a borderline defamatory hit piece. CandleinDarkness (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Everything in this article is backed by reliable sources. There's no defamation taking place here. — Czello 09:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

does "reliable" mean that it came from cnn or daily beast? because that is not neutral or reliable. it has been proven that cnn is a far left news organization which intentionally slants media, same with washington post and new york times. if you only claim that cnn is "neutral" and claim that fox is not equally as unbiased, then you are defaming intentionally groups. check out allsides media bias chart. cnn, nyt, vox, etc are far left, washington post is fairly left, rcp, new york post, washington times, those are less biased than cnn, nyt, wp, hp, etc. 2603:6080:A000:721E:E83F:799B:7352:9277 (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

First, please take note of WP:NLT. Secondly, have you considered that allsides may have something of its own agenda? Or does the fact that it gives you answers you like mean you trust it? Either way, Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Bias is not equivalent to how far away from the centre you are. The allsides media chart itself acknowledges this. Wikipedia determines which sources are reliable based on their historic accuracy, not on their slant. 58.178.108.163 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually this is untrue, though it is untrue because of an unsourced statement that seems to be conservative-biased. There is a claim in the account suspensions section that on December 9 it was revealed that "twitter operated with bias" in suspending the account, and cites a source that does not support this. The Al Jazeera article is focused on how reach was affected, and only mentions that conservative accounts tended to be affected (which isn't what bias is). In fact the article is just saying that a journalist concluded there were blacklists, and that Musk still thinks that twitter is biased. 58.178.108.163 (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I was planning on bringing that up actually, I believe you are correct that that addition is not entirely supported by the source. @Domiy:, would you care to comment as the person who added it? --Pokelova (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I would wager the essence of the article can be conveyed by removing the statement of bias, and just leaving the proceeding statement on Musk's beliefs, which would convey that there is an opinion among conservatives that internal documents show that LOTT and other conservative accounts were treated with bias. 58.178.108.163 (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Please see the block at the top. While you are entitled have such opinions, expressing them here does nothing to improve the article. This is not a blog; please take blog-like comments elsewhere. Jibal (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

You're all correct, I would say - this article does contain a good amount of bias and even defamation, though in most cases it is indeed backed by reliable sources. It's actually a relatively small number of sources that are responsible for most of the falsity: two articles by Taylor Lorenz in the Washington Post, this article by Chris Persaud in the Palm Beach Post, and this article by Jeremy Stahl in Slate, are each referenced 20 or more times. They all state pretty conclusively that Libs of TikTok is anti-gay, and refers to all gay people are groomers (and the Slate article also says the account hates "city dwellers" and black police victims). I believe all of these are false. Let me provide one example of how shoddy (to the point of defamatory) this journalism is. This article currently states that Libs of TikTok has referred to schools as "government-run indoctrination camps" for the LGBT community. It cites two articles, one in The Times and the other one of the infamous Taylor Lorenz articles. I can't read the Times one, but the WaPo one clearly states that LoTT referred to schools as “government run indoctrination camps” for the LGBTQ+ community. That's all the proof we need, right? Thankfully, the WaPo article directly links to the post in question, a now-deleted tweet that holds a TikTok video of a "preschool pride parade", with the caption "Stop sending your kids to government run indoctrination camps". So, is this tweet stating that all schools are government-run indoctrination camps? Or just that schools that hold gay pride parades for 4-year-olds are government-run indoctrination camps? We may never know for sure, but the Washington Post brazenly picks the least charitable interpretation and runs with that. I believe we have an obligation to exercise some editorial discretion, recognize bad journalism when it's this obvious, and put these claims in their proper context, maybe most importantly by taking things out of wikivoice. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Korny -- how in heaven's name in any universe is your example wrong, or much less "defamatory"? The Post language says She also purported that adults who teach children about LGBTQ+ identities are “abusive,” that being gender-nonconforming or an ally to the LGBTQ+ community is a “mental illness,” and referred to schools as “government run indoctrination camps” for the LGBTQ+ community. The post from LoTT said Stop sending your kids to government run indoctrination camps over a post from a preschool. There is literally zero interpretation in the Post quote. It doesn't matter if LoTT intended a few discrete schools, some subset of schools, or all schools, precisely because all of those same ranges could apply to the language used by the Post. Dumuzid (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's the silliest form of verbal trickery; I think everyone knows that "all schools" is implied. Here's a random example: do you believe that some people in Norway are criminals and degenerates? If you do, can we have it on record that you have "referred to Norwegians as criminals and degenerates"? Korny O'Near (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Korny, it is the exact same ambiguous language. Your magical simultaneous mind reading of both LoTT and the Washington Post is not a reason to change a Wikipedia article. Dumuzid (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

If the Washington Post writes something that you admit is ambiguous, why do we need to quote it at all? Especially when it's so easily prone to misinterpretation? Korny O'Near (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Because it's a reliable source's interpretation of an undoubted statement by the article subject. Whether referring to a few schools, many schools, or all schools, calling them "indoctrination camps" seems notable and worthy of inclusion. Dumuzid (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, any of those specific statements would be notable. But if, as you claim, the Washington Post's statement is ambiguous and we don't know which of those they mean, it seems awfully confusing to just put that wording out there (in wikivoice!) and let each reader decide what it means. Our goal is to inform, not obfuscate. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

But it's ambiguous because the source statement is ambiguous, as you said initially. When a source statement is ambiguous, it make sense that the reporting would be so as well . I went in to this thinking "well, Korny says 'defamatory,' must be something there." But it's about the furthest thing from. Dumuzid (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I do think it's defamatory (and unambiguous, and incorrect). You clearly think it's ambiguous. Either way, it doesn't belong in its current form. The philosphy of "If a reliable source says something confusing, put it in wikivoice without further explanation, to pass on the confusion to readers" is silly, and I think contrary to Wikipedia principles. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

When you have consensus for that change, go ahead and make it. Dumuzid (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Hang on, you're saying that because the source isn't as accurate as possible, it should be ignored? That is surely a greater obfuscation. Additionally, the Post is being no more general than LOTT - their original post is not being specific. They use a preschool as an example, then say to "stop sending your kids to indoctrination camps". This latter part is imprecise language as much as the Post's language was. If it's obvious the Post is referring to all schools then it's just as obvious that LOTT is too. There's no reason for us to think they aren't referring to primary schools or high schools that teach the same things.

But I disagree strongly that saying someone referred to schools as indoctrination camps reads as "they think all schools are indoctrination camps." Regardless I don't see how this is indicative of strong bias, it's very slightly ambiguous but it's not going to be significant unless you think that referring to a subset of schools as indoctrination camps is much more sane than thinking all of them are. In liue of better sources the alternative would be leaving this information out which would be far worse. 58.178.108.163 (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

What, in your view, is the important information that readers should know about Libs of TikTok, based on this nine-word tweet? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Well content guidelines aside:

As you rightly imply, there is limited information in this tweet. That's why this tweet is only being used as an example of the account's rhetoric as well as how it targets schools. In the context of this article, the statement that is apparently derived from this is also being used as an example - The first sentence in the paragraph sets up the point that the account "promotes conservatism and anti-lgbt rhetoric". It is not so relevant that they think a specific subset of schools are indoctrination camps, but rather that they are using this language at all to describe schools that give support for LGBT issues. It additionally serves as an example of the language that, as mentioned elsewhere in the article, RS's believe encourage harassment.

It would be inappropriate to flag this as a single example, since 200+ educational groups/individuals have been named by the account. If you can find a source stating that such attacks tend to be against certain schools e.g. Schools in democratic states, that could be a good way to ensure that readers don't see this as an anti-school thing.58.178.108.163 (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by It would be inappropriate to flag this as a single example - are you saying that it doesn't make sense to use this tweet as an example, given its ambiguity? If so, I agree. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Revision 1126499715

@Dumuzid I made this change to promote the most basic policy of wikipedia, Neutrality. It is unanimously agreed that wikipedia does not have an opinion, that sentance in the lead appears to be opinionated or sided. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, WP:NPOV says that neutrality for our purposes means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Wikipedia should have the opinion(s) of the reliable sources. If you can get consensus for this change (maybe you can), then it's certainly warranted. I don't think it's an improvement, but I am just one editor. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the sentance in its current state can be taken as Wikipedia being directly against the subject in question. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

That's fair, but I believe differently. As such, we have to trust to the wisdom of consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality is not both-sideism. It is not a breach of the website's impartiality rules to identify conspiracy theories and harassment as such. At the basis of Wikipedia's current politics entries, are the news articles published in reliable sources, and if these articles have no compunctions about describing Libs of TikTok as an anti-LGBT account that drives harassment against its targets, then neither should Wikipedia.

And just one more thing: when news broke out that police was investigating a bomb threat against the Boston Children's Hospital, Raichik repeatedly claimed the threat must have come from a "leftist troll" who was trying to get her suspended. Unsurprisingly, it turned out she was wrong about the identity of the would-be bomber, but her posts showed she understands very well the connection between her posts and the violence that subsequently reaches her targets. So, it would be nice if all of Wikipedia's editors remained as clear-minded about Libs of TikTok's impact as Raichik herself is. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Special:Diff/1126499715
If RS generally consider something to be the case, Wikipedia does too. This is just WP:WEASEL ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

This change is WP:WEASEL and I agree with its reversion as above. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2022

Remove "far right" and "anti-lgbtq". The Twitter page is neither. 23.28.6.108 (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a Reliable Source stating that. –Daveout(talk) 00:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Lol. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there actually a reliable source stating that Libs of TikTok is an anti-LGBT Twitter account? If so, I haven't seen it. There certainly are reliable references for it being a far-right Twitter account, but I haven't seen any for calling it anti-LGBT. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The Slate article I recently added explicitly calls it anti-trans, and basically all of the coverage focuses on it's anti-lgbt activity. I do not think calling it an anti-lgbt account is a leap. --Pokelova (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

There are two Slate articles cited - this one from April 2022, and this one from December 2022. Interestingly, they both say that Libs of TikTok includes anti-trans content - the first mentions "anti-trans missives", while the second mentions "anti-trans activity" - but neither one actually says that the account itself is anti-trans. (The second one does call it an "Anti-Trans Hate Account" in its headline - which is what you may have been referring to - but headlines don't count.) "Anti-trans" is of course not the same as "anti-LGBT", but it still would appear that there's not a single reliable source calling Libs of TikTok either one of those. Korny O'Near (talk) Korny O'Near (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, Anti-Trans is very much anti LesbianGayBisexualTrans PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

This not the first time you've made this argument that anti-LGBTQ can't be reduced to any of the constituent letters, consensus was against you last time and is against you this time. Drop the stick. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Drop what stick? "Anti-trans" is obviously a subset of "anti-LGBT", not a synonym. Anyway, this is all irrelevant if there are no reliable sources calling Libs of TikTok either one of them. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Al Jazeera English has a recent article on the Twitter Files, and it says Libs of TikTok drives harassment against LGBT people. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Does it say that Libs of TikTok is itself anti-LGBT? There's no shortage of sources that say that this account has written one or another anti-LGBT thing - but I haven't seen any sources that say that the account itself is anti-LGBT. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I would start with these: The New Republic; The Washington Blade; an NBC News opinion piece by a professor; The CBC; and Gizmodo. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. I don't think this is quite the preponderance of evidence that it appears to be. The NBC News piece I don't think actually calls LoTT anti-LGBT (plus, it's an opinion piece). According to WP:RSP, opinions in The New Republic should be attributed (and this is clearly an opinion), there's no consensus on whether Gizmodo is reliable for topics outside "technology, popular culture, and entertainment", or for controversial statements (and this clearly fits the bill for both), and the Washington Blade is not even listed. So I believe the only unimpeachably reliable source found so far for LoTT being an anti-LGBT Twitter account is the CBC article, which indeed refers to it as "multiple anti-LGBTQ social media accounts" (they're counting the Facebook, etc. accounts as well). Given the relative paucity of evidence (many reliable sources have written about LoTT, but only one fully reliable source has called it anti-LGBT), I think this is better written as an attributed opinion, e.g. "Various sources have described Libs of TikTok as anti-LGBT". Korny O'Near (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I would also add this from the ADL. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The ADL is also not considered reliable for this exact purpose ("the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL (particularly as antisemitic) should be attributed"), but it's still interesting. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. For me, I still think there's enough to use wikivoice, though I am not militantly opposed to some "various sources" or "widely described" phrasing. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Slate says of Chaya Raichik that, "she holds an especially pronounced animosity toward LGBTQ people..." Is there a brief way to formulate that in the article? Yes, and it's by calling Libs of TikTok "anti-LGBT". People with anti-LGBTQ positions will resist being called that once the label is stigmatized, but we don't have to bite the bait. Raichik's activism has harmed plenty of LGB people, starting with the obvious example of drag queens, most of whom are gay men, not trans people. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Let me quote that Slate sentence in full: One notable trend was clear: Raichik’s feed is colored by an intense hostility to liberals generally, but she holds an especially pronounced animosity toward LGBTQ people, city dwellers, and Black people who have been killed at the hands of police. I see no way to briefly formulate this, not that we're obligated to briefly formulate it. This also doesn't seem like something that should go into wikivoice, unless you also want the intro to call LoTT an "anti-city-dweller account". Korny O'Near (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

A typically moronic and boring reply. City-dwellers don't make up even 1% of her targets on social media posts, and almost no reliable source articles pay attention to that one position of Chaya Raichik's. You can WP:BLUDGEON all you want, but has that served you at all so far? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like you're using your personal analysis to determine which of that Slate article's statements are true (and thus should be put in wikivoice), and which are false (and thus should be ignored altogether). Please see WP:OR; not to mention WP:PA. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, my argument is based on one of Wikipedia's key guiding policies, WP:DUE. Chaya Raichik's anti-LGBT activism receives orders of magnitude more coverage in reliable sources than her other positions, so that's where the focus of editors should be. Also, Korny, let's not pretend you actually want us to call LoTT "anti-city dweller" or "pro-police violence against Black people", like Slate does; you merely want us to remove the "anti-LGBT" label, so don't pretend to be following the spirit of the Slate article; you're doing the opposite. Keep shopping those policies, though; the previous 5 months didn't seem to lead you anywhere, but I'm sure victory is just around the corner, now! Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you're getting at (other than just being rude) - the last big change I tried to get made to this article, removing "disinformation" from the first sentence, was in fact done. And I certainly am not pretending I want to get "anti-city dweller" added to this article; I was making a rhetorical point about the benefit of attributing opinions, instead of putting them in wikivoice, when they're controversial and there's no unanimity on them. Many sources have indeed commented on the statements made by LoTT about gay and trans people, but few (maybe just one) have called the account itself anti-LGBT. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

There's no controversy about Libs of TikTok being anti-LGBT in reliable sources, as opposed to the opinions of LoTT's fans on Wikipedia. You've posted in this section 10 times in 3 days. That's plenty of opportunity to present an actual RS making the claim that LoTT is not anti-LGBT, if there's even such a source at all, but you've done nothing of the kind, so I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you know of no such source. Instead, you're trying to hang on a source, the Slate article, that far from saying that LoTT is not anti-LGBT, says, on the contrary, that LoTT practices a number of bigotries in addition to the anti-LGBT one. You must know the anti-LGBT description can't be removed based on that article. Why not letting go, then? Why keep WP:BLUDGEONing? You're not helping yourself; you're just giving the impression that you're trying to strong-arm other editors by inundating the Talk Page with your posts (and using arguments that are, frankly, very lazy and ill-thought out), thus making other editors more resistant to your suggestions and distrustful of your ideas. Friendly advice: pick your battles. And trying to convince people that LoTT, an account that says gay teachers should be fired from their jobs for being out in their workplace, is not anti-LGBT, is the most uphill of battles. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I think both of yall are starting to get a bit heated over this article. There are identifyiable reliable sources that state that Libs of TikTok is anti-lgbt. Lets try to not start a talk-page war over this, as it is getting out of hand. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Someone here is indeed getting overheated (and making constant personal attacks) - I don't think I am, but others may disagree. Anyway, I believe there's exactly one identifiable reliable source that has explicitly called Libs of TikTok an anti-LGBT account: the CBC. We should at least be able to agree on the facts. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a lie, as you know; you yourself quoted above the Slate article as saying that LoTT is especially hostile to LGBT people among others, which means the same thing as being anti-LGBT. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean the same, thing; "anti-LGBT account" implies an additional level of intent, i.e. that being anti-LGBT is inherent to the account. Whatever you think of Libs of TikTok, the Slate article doesn't say that. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I dont see any obvious personal attacks? Who is attacking? PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Peleio Aquiles has called my responses "typically moronic and boring" and "very lazy and ill-thought out", and generally been rude. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

You can avoid criticism by trying to give more thoughts to your arguments and treating other editors' intellect with more respect. Don't try to claim, for example, there's a difference between being "especially hostile to LGBT people" and being "anti-LGBT"; that is not a clever addition to debate -- and doesn't reek of good faith discussion, either, to be honest. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)