Talk:Libs of TikTok

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[4]? 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)

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 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)