Talk:Libs of TikTok/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2022

Hat speech and public blaming

2604:3D08:357F:7A00:D11D:794A:8F10:89D8 (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. Not clear what changes you want made, though I can imagine. --Pokelova (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Useful Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2022

Can someone please set all refs URLs to 'live' - did this but edit failed as article was protected while I was editing. Cheers. --70.113.252.165 (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done --Pokelova (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you :) , (ip changed but same editor)--69.107.153.172 (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2022 (2)

The reference to the "Don't Say Gay" bill should be changed to the "Parental Rights in Education" bill. There is no bill by the name listed in the current version and it smacks of bias. VerticalEarth (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. X-Editor (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Serious BLP violations in this entire article

The entire purpose of this article seems to be about naming the person behind Libs of TikTok. seeing as the creator isn't a noteworthy or newsworthy personality, I think that it is a serious violation of WP:BLP and should be considered for deletion immediately. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate the article for deletion if you feel like it violates our policies. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

What part of the BLP does the article violate? X-Editor (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:BLPNAME and given the current overreliance on source 2, WP:PRIMARY Nameomcnameface (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It's literally just defamation and left propaganda (transgender and covid mandates-based ideologies). It's not a notable account at all, just a tiktok Repost account. WP is an encyclopedia. All cats are british (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It only depends on 9 sources and the most used one is Taylor's article. This is primary source. All cats are british (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Notable?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social media site. All cats are british (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is full of defamation and propaganda. It's all against Wikipedia's purpose. All cats are british (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm doubtful of this article's notability. This is a twitter account with a sub seven figure following which was the subject of a recent Washington Post article. Not a single one of the top 50 twitter accounts have Wikipedia articles. Perhaps its time to submit an article for deletion and collapse this under Washington Post's "Criticism and controversies section." Astuishin (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Astuishin As others have been told, if you think it should be deleted, take it to WP:AFD. CUPIDICAE💕 01:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Relying too much on primary source?

A few editors have brought up concerns that the article relies too much on one primary source. Is this an issue per WP:PRIMARY? If so, we should instead replace the WAPO refs with refs from secondary sources. X-Editor (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

This isn't an issue as it's been picked up by multiple international and national reliable outlets. CUPIDICAE💕 23:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Also not being neutral and doxxing. All cats are british (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The article reflects what reliable sources have to say about the subject and should not be subject to false balance and whitewashing by removal of negative info. It is not doxxing to say her name because her name is already public knowledge. X-Editor (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that the WashPo article would be considered strictly a primary source. It compiles primary information and verifies it through research by WashPo. That said, I agree that it would make sense to include a greater diversity of sources for the content here & I agree with Cupid above. Could be wrong here, but my 2¢. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2022

Entire background and history is an article from Washington post that is behind a paywall and has been stolen and uploaded here without their consent. 2601:447:4101:FAF0:C4D3:54EF:6FF8:91FE (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done, it is not in violation of WP:Copyvio. --Pokelova (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Should the personal information about the creator of Libs of TikTok be redacted?

Per WP:BLPPRIVACY, the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified. While a few sources have published the full name of the creator of Libs of TikTok, she is clearly limited in her notability as a public figure (WP:NPF) and we should therefore be cautious about including information like full names. This is especially the case considering the political controversy over the publishing of personal information about the person by The Washington Post, and the fact that the person in question evidently didn't like the disclosure of the information. While the relevance of the desires of the subject with regards to full names isn't directly addressed in WP:BLPPRIVACY, it's clear that the spirit of the policy is that we should err on the side of acquiescing to subjects' desires (e.g. If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year). This means that if a subject does not want her information to be made public, we should err on the side of that unless enough reliable sources have established it as notable. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The subject has more or less confirmed their identity with posts like this. --Pokelova (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Confirmation of identity should be distinguished from expressing a desire for one's identity to be known. In WP:BLPPRIVACY, for instance, If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth presumes that the subject is confirming that the date of birth is accurate. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

a vague notion they might want it redacted isn’t good enough considering the numerous reliable sources reporting it and the fact that they themselves haven’t said anything. CUPIDICAE💕 03:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

There is also WP:BLPNAME, which is specifically about names: Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. I think when your name is being printed in news headlines: https://www.google.com/search?q=Chaya+Raichik, it's probably widely disseminated enough that the balance of an individual's privacy interests (described in WP:BLP) and the encyclopedic interests of the inclusion of information is tipped towards the side of inclusion. So I think it should stay (but the name being in the lead is I think too much). Endwise (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This source published today should put an end to the claims this is a BLP violation. CUPIDICAE💕 12:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

"Through a later-removed hyperlink, her home address [was revealed]"

I think we should remove this section, none of the sources linked state that her home address was revealed. In addition, all of the information published in the article was already publically known, so it feels disingenious to state that the article "revealed it", thoughts? Googleguy007 (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it came from The article even included a hyperlink that exposed personal information including her address. The Washington Post later removed the link[1]. I somewhat agree with the complaint about "revealed" though, as it was not Lorenz who originally publicized this stuff, it was just her article that brought the information to the wider public's attention. Is there a better word to use here? Endwise (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I must have missed that line while skimming, I feel that the term "Further Publicised" would work in place of revealed, I will also look to find more information on the removed hyperlink. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I did a bit of digging and it appears that the link was to Chaya's real estate business website, which she had included her home address on, I will update the article to reflect this https://dailycaller.com/2022/04/19/washington-post-address-user-libs-of-tiktok/ Googleguy007 (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey there Googleguy, The Daily Caller is not considered a WP:RSPSOURCES and that article should not be used as a citation. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I dont intend to use the daily caller as an article citation, Im planning on finding a better source later, this is just the first source I found that included details on the link. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd also note that the FoxNews article doesn't use the word "home", adding that modifier would be WP:SYNTHESIS. I made a similar comment over on Talk:Taylor Lorenz. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2022 (2)

Change In August 2021, Joe Rogan began promoting tfhe account on his podcast To

In August 2021, Joe Rogan began promoting the account on his podcast

Typo fix 64.222.180.90 (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Bad "Controversy" section heading

"Controversy" is as bad as "Trivia", "In popular culture", and "Legal issues" when it comes to section headings. It's what people all too often do when they have news reports and do not fit them properly into an encyclopaedia article. The content about the software developer uncovering the identity of the account's owner clearly belongs with the other paragraphs sourced to the same source, and equally clearly the section title should be something like "Identity of the account creator", or even just "Creator", because the identity of the account creator, who uncovered it, and what the fallout of that was, is clearly what all of that content is about. It's not "background" to a "controversy". We aren't writing a news piece on an event with soft leads, nut graphs, and backgrounds. We're writing an encyclopaedia article, on a thing, and the thing's creator is not "background", but simple encyclopaedic discussion of the thing. Uncle G (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• This is a good point -- do you have a specific suggestion to fix this issue? SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Maybe changing Background to Creation, and then adding a sub-header Account management (or similar)? I wonder if there are good models to follow or other Wikipedia articles about internet accounts? SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
    • It's only semi-protected, so I can put my ordinary editor hat on. Mind if I adjust the layout to show you what I'm getting at? I think that it just needs some rearrangement, a paragraph split, and perhaps an extra sentence. Uncle G (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Please do! Appreciate the help. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• The changes you've made are a significant improvement, thank you for stepping in! SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• I'm also happy with the changes. The article's format looks way better now. X-Editor (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• No worries. Only the one actual prose change needed, to give the section a better start. I hope that it has a positive effect. I'll leave you all with it, now. Uncle G (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't say gay bill

Wikipedia, in order to stay neutral, should call the parent's rights in education bill by it's proper name, instead of calling it the don't say gay bill. Or if you do call it the don't say gay bill, say that that is what critics call it. for example, say the parent's rights in education bill, which critics call the "don't say gay bill". 100.16.159.129 (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.16.159.129 (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 100.16.159.129 (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. X-Editor (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

And if "what critics call it" or "Don't Say Gay" is necessary to use in text, then it should instead say something like "opponents erroneously call it the 'Don't Say Gay' bill", y'know. 2603:6011:9600:52C0:81AE:BBA8:FC4B:5497 (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thats a very biased phrasing that I would argue violates NPOV (talk) Googleguy007 (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

lede not sourced or reasonable

I know a lede does not need sources, but to say LOTT is a 'conservative' account, and it reposts "with the intent of mockery" is judgmental and mind-reading. Actually these are the sorts of statements that would always be judgmental, so finding a source would be like finding a source who said "nobody likes Trump" and then stating in an article "Nobody likes Trump". --142.163.194.32 (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

There are three reputable sources backing up these claims. At the very least, Libs of TikTok is a conservative Twitter account, regardless of your stance on what the account is, and most would agree it does attempt to mock other people (even fans of the account itself). If you feel the lead is too biased, be bold and edit it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Good source on the topic

Linked here. 2001:8003:DDAA:5A00:84F8:10E2:7B7E:9253 (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

A white supremacist live stream is not a good source. --Pokelova (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Nick Fuentes? X-Editor (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

See the below section on Fox News and attributing sources with a clear bias. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

~~Nick Fuentes is more than a biased source, he's an out and proud white supremacist homophobic transphobic xenophobic fascist, there is no possible scenario in which he would be a reliable source Googleguy007 (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not speaking about if he's a reliable source. I'm speaking about if him as a source can be included, and in this context as an inline citation (i.e. "The white supremacist Nick Fuentes reportedly enjoys the account", obviously that's badly worded but point still stands). elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Fox News is considered an unreliable source for politics.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Fox News should only be used with caution to verify contentious claims, as it is the only source for Chaya's address being revealed in the WP article it appears that we should remove that line. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree, I've been unable to find any other cites that support this claim. Same edit should be made on Taylor Lorenz if made here. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Ive also been unable to find any reliable sources that support this claim, ill do a bit more digging but if I dont find any I will make the edit on both pages. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Ive made the edits, interestingly the section stating that Lorenzy revealed information about Chaya appeared to be copy pasted between articles, Im not sure if those were good faith edits or someone pushing a narrative. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Good faith edits I would guess. I've noticed the talk on both pages have brought up similar issues. I've also done some work to maintain the wording in both sections. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

No Fox News is not "considered an unreliable source for politics". It is listed as option 2/orange (no consensus). I.e. Determine its usage with more scruntiny based on the context. If Fox News were "considered an unreliable source for politics" it would be listed as option 3/red.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

No one has suggested that FN is strictly unreliable, this discussion is about a specific source and follows the guidelines of WP:RSP. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The title literally said "Fox News is considered an unreliable source for politics".  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay — maybe that's misworded... but that's not what the actual discussion is about. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I've read over WP:RS. Fox News seems to be okay as long as in-text attribution is in place. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Media Matters

I reverted Media Matters as a source because, last I checked, WP:RSP said that there was no consensus for reliability. But now, it says the source is marginally reliable. But what exactly makes Media Matters any more reliable than Fox News? Both are biased and opinionated, so why not use both? X-Editor (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Reliability does not exist in a vacuum. Fox News is unreliable because they are known for publishing patently untrue, false stories and standing behind them when proven wrong. A source can be marginally reliable or mostly unreliable based on consensus if there is a lack of (perceived) editorial oversight, but it does not mean that they are publishing false information, so comparing anything to Fox at face value isn't a good standard. CUPIDICAE💕 16:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. This discussion would also be better for WP:RSN anyways. X-Editor (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean it's been discussed there which is why it says on a case by case basis and I think that should be handled here. If the problem is bias, I think we'll be hard pressed to find completely neutral sources (which in itself isn't an actual problem, a bias doesn't inherently mean unreliable) on this topic because of the nature of it and the nature of the subject being reported. CUPIDICAE💕 16:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

There are other sources on the topic -- are a few I've found so far (& the Daily Dot currently cited). I'm not strictly opposed to swapping out for the MediaMatters cites, but IMO MediaMatters provides useful context here and strikes me as reliable. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Media Matters is an advocacy group and content on it's web-pages is self-published. If an independent source is quoting media matters we can include what they say with attribution. But we cannot be sourcing any content directly to Media matters itself, and be compliant with BLP. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSP states: There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. As a partisan advocacy group, their statements should be attributed., so the discussion here is about the specific cite and not the media organization as a whole. That said, they are certainly not self-published, I'm not sure what you mean by that. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Who is the independent reviewer (One without a conflict of interest per WP: V) for content on Media Matters website? You're not going to find one since Media Matters is an advocacy group, and any internal process has a conflict of interest with respect to their advocacy. That's what makes all content on their website self-published. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I understand, who would the "independent reviewer" be for any publication? Traditionally articles are written by a member of an org, then edited by other members of that org, and finally published by that org. Outside academia I'm not sure the term "independent reviewer" really means anything. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 12:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

You're missing the advocacy aspect. Organizations like traditional publishers (E.G. newspapers, and traditional magazines) don't have something they specifically advocate for or against so there is no inherent conflict of interest in their internal review processes. An advocacy organization makes it's life by advocating and selling a specific viewpoint, this is why any internal review is insufficient and makes all work on their websites self-published. And independent reviewer is defined on WP: V, it is a person without a conflict of interest. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

To my understanding there's a distinction between being "self published" (i.e. a blog) and being an advocacy group with a publishing wing. RSP is pretty clear that there are cases where MediaMatters can be treated as a reliable source, and if you think that's worth revisiting then it might be worth bringing the conversation over to RSN. MediaMatters is no longer being used as a citation in this article without explicit attribution, so I don't think this is an issue anymore here — interesting discussion here so far and glad to get into the weeds a bit, though. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 14:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Being an advocacy group doesn't inherently make something unreliable, especially if they are subject matter experts. For example, Everytown for Gun Safety. CUPIDICAE💕 14:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say it made them unreliable, I said it makes their content on their websites self published. Which means their content would not be usable for BLP content, even if they are subject matter experts. If we were talking about an organization and not an individuals twitter account this would be a different story. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

References

No See also section

Aren't there some links we could add there? What about any liberal counterparts that make fun of conservatives? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

... could you give an example that has a wiki entry? SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I also noticed that there is no see also section. The problem is that I cannot think of any article similar to this article on Wikipedia. X-Editor (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

See also sections are by no means mandatory (many Featured Articles lack them), and when present in politically charged articles often serve only to bludgeon or reinforce a POV using guilt-by-association, or to showcase tangential-at-best articles written by the same editor. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

True. X-Editor (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I was only fishing for suggested tangentially related articles. If there aren't any, so be it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Repetitive Use of Sources

Throughout this article the same sources are repeatedly used. The highest I counted was fourteen for a single source. If another source cannot be substantiated for a specific claim then best to take that claim or statement all together.

FictiousLibrarian (talk). 02:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

A good chunk of this article is about the WaPo article's publication so it makes a certain amount of sense that that citation is used significantly, and there's nothing inherently wrong with citing a single source many times. Are there specific claims you find questionable because they only have a single citation? SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 02:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Change "conservative" to "far right"

"Conservative" is too vague and in this instance, not accurately reflective of the nature of the subject. I don't personally make the distinction but the overwhelming majority of people do, and an openly homophobic propaganda account, run by a conspiracy theorist who participated in the January 6 insurrection isn't what most people think of when they say "conservative". 46.97.170.50 (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

We try and proportionally reflect the viewpoints that get published in reliable sources. Generally I have seen the account described as "conservative". Endwise (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The sources call it conservative, not far-right. — Czello 11:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I personally would say that the account is far-right, however due to Wikipedia:NPOV we should go with the more popularly used term "Conservative" Googleguy007 (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

conservative contains anti trans

just because far right is anti trans too doesn't make every 'anti trans person' automatically far right.

Not a matter of neutrality but of truth 95.91.203.150 (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Does "conservative" also contain Q-Anon conspiracy theories and participating in a violent insurrection? Like I said, people like you and me might not make that distinction, because american conservatism is so far to the right, it would fall manifestly outside the overton window in any other civilized country, but more regular folks do draw a line, and the subject crosses that line by a significant amount. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, but the majority of reliable sources say it is conservative. X-Editor (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I would not have an issue with that, if the common definition of "conservative" did include all of the above. In think reliable sources might be overestimating how well informed the average reader is on what "conservative" means these days. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The Federalist, Spiked

I question the necessity of the inclusion of right wing fluff pieces written on the subject by unreliable sources. The article does a good job illustrating the subject's popularity with the right wing, her influence on political discourse, and her role as a propaganda mill. There's no need to cite some partisan outlets praising her, except maybe to platform their rethoric - which I find highly questionable. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

They're notable figures, both inside and outside of the right wing; their inclusion is justified. In response to the idea that we should remove it as we're "platforming their rhetoric," I'd direct you to WP:NOTCENSORED. — Czello 09:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

As currently written, it doesn't seem glaringly WP:UNDUE. They're noted publications. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The federalist is generally unreliable for anything other than their own personal opinions. And unless the intention is to bloat up the article with right wing praise for the subject (which of course she's getting a lot of) these two mentions are indeed undue. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 10:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

But that's exactly what the Federalist is being used for - as a primary source to report on Jordan Boyd's view. Per WP:RSP, "However, it may be usable for attributed opinions, so its inclusion is appropriate. Given that I can only count two examples of "right wing praise" I find it difficult to agree that the article is at all bloated up. — Czello 10:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The section already has information on how the subject was promoted by right wing figures, and how the subject's activity contributed to the adoption of the "Don't Say Gay" Bill. How does adding Boyd's comments about "radical leftism" (whatever that is) contribute to this particular article?

Same for O'Neill, though he has an article of his own. At most, "woke indoctrination in public schools" could be added to his beliefs in his own article - it would go nicely with the other wonderful things on that page, such as "queer imperialism". 46.97.170.50 (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The point of the article is not to detract from potential sources to leave an impression on the reader; the only impression readers should be leaving on themselves is the one they created or already have. There are plenty of iffy sources outside of this article used as in-text citations or even inline citations, and to my knowledge no one without some sort of preexisting knowledge of the subject has become indoctrinated because of it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Ultimately the section is about the account's reception; these are notable figures and their commentary is warranted for inclusion - for the same reasons criticism is. We're not aiming to write a hit piece where only criticism is included. — Czello 14:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a hit-piece. I'm asking that fluff-pieces are not given more weight than what they deserve. Quoting comments about "woke indoctrination", "radical leftism" and other fairytales are entirely unnecessary, when the only relevant information to be discerned from these articles is the simple fact that they promoted the subject.

The section's first paragraph says "Libs of TikTok has been promoted by Joe Rogan, journalist Glenn Greenwald, and political commentators Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham. It has been featured in the New York Post, The Federalist, The Post Millennial, Fox News, and other right-wing news outlets. The account has been retweeted by Meghan McCain. In speaking on the Parental Rights in Education bill, commonly referred to as the Don't Say Gay bill,Ron DeSantis's press secretary Christina Pushaw credited the account for "opening her eyes" on LGBT education." And that is what's relevant here. Adding the last two sentences does not add anything to this. It just platforms fringe views which is not in line with what wikipedia is about. That's all I have to say on this matter. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Given that we're attributing the source rather than writing them in Wikivoice, I can't agree that this is us platforming fringe views. Ultimately all we're doing is quoting a notable subject who's commenting on the subject - inclusion isn't an endorsement of their commentary. However, this has made me think there is an opportunity to organise the section a bit more by keeping positive comments together rather than these being tacked on the end. — Czello 14:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that we should just wipe the sources and quotes as suggested here, but there must be more reliable commentary to include in the reception section. Including exclusively Spiked, The Federalist, Media Matters as the canon examples of commentary on the account does seem a bit off -- they're all pretty clearly partisan publications. Maybe including the commentary from NBC, Newsweek, The Week, DesertNews (a less mainstream outlet, but perhaps useful), would improve the section. I'm not going to swap these in because I don't have a huge amount of confidence here, and it may be WP:TOOSOON for more reputable opinion pieces to come out. We also need to keep in mind WP:BALANCE, if the only prominent Conservative opinion pieces are coming from extremist publications, they shouldn't be overemphasized. Open to other thoughts & ideas. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I added some commentary from three of the sources. Commentary from the NBC News article was already included in the article. As for including commentary from sources like The Federalist, it's fine as long as it's attributed and not in wikivoice. X-Editor (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry for the edit back, I didn't see your comment here. Solid summary of the opinion cites -- hopefully more pieces will be published over the coming days from more notable sources and quotes can be swapped out. For now it might also be worth making distinct the responses to the WaPo article and responses specific to the account. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 01:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, we all make mistakes. I'm not sure if responses to the WaPo article and responses to the account can be made more distinct, since a lot of the commentary touches on both at the same time. X-Editor (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Even if Newsweek wasn't unreliable post 2013, a headline saying "Shaming Private Citizens who Dissent" to describe the Libs of TikTok incident is a blatant falsehood, and should not be promoted by wikipedia. This is not a private citizen who got shamed for dissent. This is an individual with a long history of inciting harrassment, ruining the lives of private individuals, and generating propaganda to influence legislation, getting exposed by an investigative journalist and being held accountable for their own actions - as evident from all the reliable, neutral sources that cover the incident. Newsweek should not be referenced, except with attribution, as an example of right wing support for the subject. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I tend to agree here. Generally I think we should trim content from the reception section at this point, and cutting the extremist or known unreliable publications makes the most sense. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 12:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I've made some edits to this extent. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 12:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with your suggestion, because these sources are only unreliable for facts, not attributed commentary. X-Editor (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

And when the attributed commentary contains blatant falsehoods, like the Newsweek article? "Just commentary" is exactly the excuse right wing media organizations use to avoid accountability for publishing misinformation. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Firings -- section reverts

Hey User:Fiveby, I'm going to switch to talk as I'd prefer not to work within edit summaries and reverts. I'd ask that you be wary of using BLP too aggressively in your reasoning for edit reversions. Though there is content about an individual in the article, the article as a whole is not a BLP, nor does the article attribute the posts on the account as views of the individual managing the account. I'm working within the bounds of the WP:RS covering the topic of the account.

Could you clarify how the account advocating for teachers to be "fired on the spot" for coming out as gay is not accurately summarized by the phrase "called for teachers to be fired based on their sexual orientation"? Independent coverage of harassment and targeting by the account is significant and notable to the point it should be covered in this Wiki article. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, BLP applies everywhere, not just biographies, and the account is now clearly connected to a person. Just need to be accurate in following the sources. I don't see the "based on their sexual orientation" content at issue in the article any longer so is this resolved?

For this content 'several' can be synonymous with 'multiple', but most often implies more than two. Just say along the lines of: one teacher claims they were fired resigned and one was removed from the classroom following posts, and there is no issue. The current wording "Several teachers have been fired or removed" is better but still misleading, unless there are further sources available. Can't find where it was added in the history, but I don't think it is necessary to name the one teacher fired who resigned, that also has BLP implications and really doesn't add anything to the article. fiveby(zero) 19:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't want re-add the phrase "based on their sexual orientation" until getting more feedback here, but generally I don't see a reason not to include it in the Content section -- though that exact wording isn't in sources, it's an articulate summary of the actions of the account as described in WP:RS. Your suggestions w.r.t. firings makes sense -- I'm not opposed to changing this to "at least two" or similar wording to make it more explicit, and I agree that it makes sense to remove the name of the teacher mentioned in the article. Thanks for your help here! SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 21:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I've applied the suggested edit, FYI 😊 SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 21:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Fiveby, SiliconRed and others.... I've done mostly organization type edits to this page, and lots of punctuation fixes.... but this "firings" section also caught my eye and I added a hidden comment that this statement really requires additional verification - just because someone in an article said that someone said" they were fired because of a Libs of TikTok post" doesn't mean that was really why they were fired, if they were in fact fired. If the facts can't be independently verified using reliable sources, then it should not be published in any wiki, let alone a BLP. All statements must be factual - literally factual and verifiable. I'm sure that it's a fact that someone said that someone said they were fired.... but was that person fired? Why? Where is the reliable source with the actual fact. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 23:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the formatting changes! The sources are secondary, both quote statements by school boards. WP emphasizes WP:VERIFIABILITY over WP:FACTS, and this content is easily verifiable. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 00:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

How about: two teachers faced disciplinary action following posts? It seems one person resigned and one placed on administrative leave pending investigation according to most sources. Don't want to say anyone was fired where they resigned, or there is no news on the outcome of an investigation. Their names are mentioned in the cited sources. fiveby(zero) 03:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, I'm not totally sure that better reflects the sources. I'll wait on other thoughts to make the change. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 18:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem with this is that it reads more like they were fired/received disciplinary action for posts to LoTT rather than because LoTT effectively doxed them. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't find evidence anyone was fired. One former English teacher...told Lorenz from PinkNews is doubtful, all other sources found say 'resigned'. I'm not sure how one resigned and one placed on administrative leave turns into "several fired/removed"? fiveby(zero) 13:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@X-Editor:

• Fox23 In a statement, the district said, “...no longer in the classroom and the Board of Education accepted his resignation
• The Times resigned earlier this month
• told Lorenz for her piece, no mention of firing is in the Lorenz piece

"several fired" is inaccurate, and this is a BLP, why restore this and remove the fv tag? fiveby(zero) 15:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I see that point, I also see fiveby comment about the *reason* for the firing. If they were fired (let's assume they were) then the question is -- was it because something they posted publicly was reposted, or was it because the content of their original post was inappropriate and resulted in disciplinary action? The latter of course leads to the conclusion that the only role the LoTT account had in the disciplinary action/firings is that it put attention on the posting, that's all. Having lived in the teaching world my whole life, and with the powerful teacher's union - firing teachers isn't easy...... If they're tenured it's nearly impossible even when guilty as charged, and when they're not tenured, the union is very strong and supports their teachers well on all legal and or disciplinary matters. My point is -- if the act of reposting another person's publicly-posted content caused people to get fired, then everyone who ever re-posted even a kitten picture would be fired.... and we know that's ridiculous. So it's the content, not the act of re-posting it that drove the firing that was indefensible for lawyers, the teachers union and the school boards. Just my two cents on this point. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 21:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

If the reposting causes a backlash, what are the odds of the school firing the teacher just to appeas angry parents and avoid a potential scandal? Because if that's the case, is stands to reason that the LoTT account reposting the videos and whipping up outrage is specifically the reason for the firing. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I do feel that reposting doesn't get one fired. The originating content, if viewed by people who disagree strongly with it -- can get you fired. Same teachers posting kitten pictures, if reposted, would not get them fired. Same teachers putting that content (whatever it was) up on their classroom bulletin boards during back to school night, would get them fired. The teachers in question did the bad behavior, LoTT just ensured that parents saw it. If the posts were "good" (in the minds of the viewers), then it would be viral in a positive way. People need to realize there are consequences to their behavior and accept accountability. That's all I'm saying. I think it's important because this LoTT account owner, is being publicly harrassed, and i'm not defending her because she chose her actions and these are her consequences, but this page is not telling the story in a neutral manner/presenting a truly unbiased view. And if that type of stuff continues, then the LoTT will move on and include wikipedia as a problematic platform too. And then, where does it end? America tapping phone lines of everyday people just to see who's saying good things vs. whose saying bad things. It is a society unraveling for sure. Let's hope it only gets better from here! I'm moving on to english grammar edits on less controversial pages. :)The Real Serena Joy^Talk 21:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

There are two teachers whose careers have been linked with this account. WP:RS in use suggest there’s controversy over whether the content they posted constitutes a fireable offense. Seems to me that your argument hinges on the idea that their content is inherently fireable, an argument which goes against the RS. Unless you mean to suggest that any time someone is fired, it’s for good reason, because it’s difficult to fire people. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 13:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Re: flag, there's a quote directly from the school board used in the article: “The teacher is no longer in the classroom,” district spokeswoman Annette Franco wrote in an email. “We follow due process and our investigation continues [...] We take this matter seriously and are investigating and addressing it. You're right, RS do seem to agree that the English teacher resigned, but it does also seem clear that the flag teacher faced (or will face) consequences from the workplace. Similar to your earlier suggestion, how about updating to: Some teachers have faced disciplinary action as a consequence of reposts from Libs of TikTok. This accurately reflects the sources being used & should also help address some of the ambiguity (with a added re) that Praxidicae mentions. Open to other ideas. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 22:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

What disciplinary action did what teacher receive? Why not be more specific? Otherwise it reads a like a little bit of original research. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Made an edit here with another cite. The teacher was placed on administrative leave -- I think the new wording should fix this issue. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 13:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE discussion

Changes from this discussion were applied, and this conversation is no longer relevant -- seperate conversation about article length and WP:UNDUE might be worth raising in a new topic, though 😊. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 15:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm opening a section here specific to the topic of WP:UNDUE. It's been brought up in a few places already but I'd like to address the topic directly. IMO both Identity and Impact and reception are sections that have far too much content, mostly as a consequence of the significant number of (often redundant) attributed quotes in use. My recommendation would be removing quotes from unreliable or marginally reliable sources and paraphrasing other quotes when possible. I'm happy to put together a specific proposal if folks think this would be helpful. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 21:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Unsurprisingly, I support your general proposal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC) I'm fine with removing more unreliable sources for the sections stating facts, but for commentary, even more unreliable sources are usually considered fine if they are done with attribution and clearly stated as opinions. X-Editor (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC) I would personally recommend against "commentary" that's obviously pushing a specific narrative or agenda. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Just because something could technically be included in a WP article doesn't mean that it should be included or that including it would make the article better (in this case, it shouldn't, and it won't, see Elli's comments above on WP:FALSEBALANCE). SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Fair enough. X-Editor (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Alright, let's do this. I've cut down pull quotes significantly. I've broken up the Impact and reception section into multiple sections, and I've removed the Carlson quote. I would recommend moving the DT jr. quote to Media attention. I've also consolidated the he said-she said back and forth in Identity to its salient points. Ignore citation errors for now, they can be fixed on merge to the main article. I only removed one quote, from Alex Pareene (because it was self published), to my own surprise, and I'm finding that better organization and reducing the length of pull quotes is more effective than just cutting content. Open to commentary. And: SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Honestly I think it could probably be cut down further but this is a start. Also, note that I draw a hard line between news articles (in the Identity section) and opinion articles (in the Reception section. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC) That looks much better. I endorse the proposed change. I've added a summary of reactions to the account content from The Jerusalem Post at the top of the proposed section. The paragraph about teachers being fired should be moved to its own section called "Firing of teachers". X-Editor (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC) I think actually the mistaken identity thing and teachers firing thing could be kept in the top, outside a specific subheader, as they fit under the topic Impact. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 21:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC) I also disagree that the Carlson and DJ jr quotes should be included in the article at all. Both topics are covered effectively in the Media attention section and don't require pull quotes. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 21:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC) I disagree because Tucker Carlson is the most influential media personality in America and Donald Trump Jr. is the son of the former U.S. President. IMO, it makes sense to feature quotes from at least two influential figures like them. However, I do agree with you about the firing teachers and mistaken identity being at the top. X-Editor (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Hmm... You might use the same argument to suggest Glenn Greenwald, Meghan McCain, Laura Ingraham should have direct quotes in this article -- which -- shouldn't happen. It's enough to list in Wikivoice that they've acknowledged the existence of the account in a positive light, ditto with these other two figures. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 12:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC) I think this is very well written, and an enormous improvement. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Thanks both, I added in the changes before it gets too out of sync. On inclusion, I removed Spectator and UnHeard as both are marginally reliable and weren't clearly adding more nuance to the included commentary. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 12:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Apologies, I was not aware of this talk page discussion when I did my recent edits to the article. If editors here disagree with this, please feel free to revert my edits. --QueenofBithynia (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC) References

Manager in lead?

Should this article include the name of the manager in its lead section? (Not talking about the merits of including this in the article main text, as there seems to be consensus on that) --QueenofBithynia (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely, yes as the identity unmasking is a notable aspect of the topic. She is not a "manager", though. This isn't a Wendy's, and that isn't how one generally describes the user of a social media account. Nor does either citation describe it that way. ValarianB (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

What's the right word? "Account owner"? "Individual running the account"? "The account is managed by"? "The account is administrated by"? "The person behind the account" strikes me as quite informal. I don't think it should be e.g. "it is Raichik's account", though I still am not clear on whether the consensus here is whether we should be treating the account and the individual as the same or separate entities (IMO they should be treated as separate entities -- the account is an LLC and has a trademark filed for it as a "news reporting service".) SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 14:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

"it is Raichik's account" seems to be straightforward, we can say account owner but this is a personal account not a group account so just saying X's account is the best way forward. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Worth pointing out that because this account appears to be run by one person doesn't make it a "personal" account, in fact the article notes this distinction, suggesting it used to be a personal account but no longer is. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 15:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Even if its a professional account its still "Raichik's account" just like it would be "Raichik's laundromat" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think naming her in the lead is necessary. There is nothing notable about the person behind the account. The account is the notable topic. If the only thing that makes her personally notable is the unmasking by Lorenz, then BLP1E applies, specificaly "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Mr Ernie (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

BLP1E does not apply here. BLP1E is about whether or not to have an article about the person "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:" it is not about the coverage of a person in an article other than their own. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. We should restore the name in the lead. There's too much widespread coverage of the name in reliable sources to justify exclusion on BLP privacy grounds. She is now a public figure. She was just interviewed on Tucker Carlson's show. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Even when they were doing media interviews anonymously they would still qualify as a public figure for our purposes, nobody said that the media attention had to be sought under their birth name. Definitely not low profile. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

In this case the fact that she is giving interviews with Tucker Carlson and the like definitely means that LOWPROFILE no longer applies. But I think that whether the twitter account alone would have qualified is a trickier question that we might want to raise at WP:LOWPROFILE / WP:BLP; I'm uneasy about the idea that anyone who runs a twitter account that "takes off" could in theory be classified as a public figure. At the same time, a twitter account that is used for activism on a national level and is clearly seeking to influence national policy through its own "brand" (as this one has) might be sufficient to qualify under has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause - basically, what is the dividing line here? Is it possible for someone to engage in attention-seeking behavior using an anonymous username? --Aquillion (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Good questions, perhaps best raised at the talk page of LOWPROFILE, or maybe WT:BLP for more eyes? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I think in that case it would depend on whether or not they were actively promoting the social media profile, if theres no active promotion and the account just blows up because of factors beyond their control (lets say the account is named Shane Trump and Donald Trump decides to change his name to Shane Trump) I could well see the owner of such an account being low profile despite there being significant coverage. If we're being philosophical I think the better question to ask is can someone participate in a Twitter style social media platform in way that isn't attention seeking? Besides read only users aren't they all attention seeking? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Specious WP:CRYBLP argument. ValarianB (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• There is nothing notable about the person behind the account. This is definitely not true anymore. Are you suggesting we remove every mention that she is an Orthodox Jew from the article, for instance, despite significant coverage discussing it? Significant amounts of coverage discuss the person behind the account in extensive depth, and she's started giving interviews under her own name. Right now she is aggressively promoting herself and a narrative about herself using her own name and identity (in a way that already makes it unreasonable to claim that she's WP:LOWPROFILE); there's no reason to think she's going to stop; and huge swaths of coverage are discussing and debating that in a way that goes beyond just being about a Twitter account. People are going to come to this article googling her name, so to speak, which is already enough of a reason to include it given that it is well-cited and well-covered to the point where there can't reasonably be any BLP issues.--Aquillion (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. Notability (whether or not to have an article) and due weight (how much of which things go into an article) depend upon the available sourcing, and by now the available sourcing includes documentation both about the account and about the person behind it. Moreover, a great deal of the article concerns the revelation of that person's identity. Basic MOS:LEDE practices suggest that the name be included in the intro. XOR'easter (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)