Talk:Libs of TikTok/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

insurrection mention

it seems worthwhile to mention in the article that the creator, maintainer and owner of the account were live tweeting the insurrection, which can be easily sourced to multiple others per [1][2][3][4][5][6][7](irecognize the two newsweek sources are dubious) [8]CUPIDICAE💕 02:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

We're not going to be baited into a "they were just a peaceful mob" debate. WP:DNFTT. Zaathras (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How can you Livestream something that didn't happen? Innican Soufou (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC) @Innican Soufou: Could you be more specific as to what "something" you are referring to here please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Bias

It's not only biased but also quite nonsensical. In one sentence it says it linked to her home address and in the other sentence that conservatives accused newspapers of ALLEGED doxxing? First, it can't be alleged if we say it actually linked her home address, second they are accused of doing it, not accused of allegedly doing it. 95.82.133.2 (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight, and simply came here for more information, but this article is horrifically biased. Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased source of information. This article very clearly has a strong slant against the subject of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2c1:8200:620:e118:c627:b6aa:166a (talk • contribs)

What parts of the article are biased? X-Editor (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Really? The entire article reads from a very clear left-wing perspective. Just about every line in the content section of the article is extremely biased. About the only line from a right-wing perspective mentions how they are outraged she was doxxed. And after reading the rest of the rest of the article, that line gives the impression that conservatives are just being whiny babies. This article could very well have been written for any left-wing website. Here's an exercise... imagine this article on a left-wing site and imagine an article about Libs of Tiktok written on a right-wing site and how different it would read. Now throw both out and start over without a clear bias from either side.  Gamezero05  talk  19:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)\

If you want to add the right-wing perspective, go ahead, nobody is stopping you. X-Editor (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to add the right wing perspective. I want to remove the left-wing perspective and make it neutral.  Gamezero05  talk  19:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Removing the left-wing perspective does not make the article neutral, it would only make the article biased against the left, which is the opposite of neutral. X-Editor (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

That makes no sense. This article is filled with left-wing bias. Not right-wing bias. The only bias to remove is left-wing bias. In doing so would make the article neutral. Presenting different viewpoints is fine as long as it's made clear that these are the opinions of a particular group. But this article as a whole in the way it is written is completely biased when it should be neutral.  Gamezero05  talk  21:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

"Presenting different viewpoints is fine as long as it's made clear that these are the opinions of a particular group." That's exactly what I was suggesting. Fix the article if you think it is biased. X-Editor (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

You did not fix the article or add any new perspective, you just resorting to whitewashing the subject. X-Editor (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Gamezero05: If you think there are specific neutrality problems with the article, go to WP:NPOVN. X-Editor (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fairly neutral if it stays as is after I did some cleaning up.  Gamezero05  talk  22:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

You didnt "clean up", you whitewashed credible information Googleguy007 (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you can't see the bias means you need to recuse yourself from editing or discussing this article, as you are clearly experiencing said bias yourself. 108.45.179.249 (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It needs to be cleaned up big-time.  Gamezero05  talk  19:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The whole page is Leftist transgender and covid mandate propaganda. It's not neutral. WP has became a political ground for modern western leftists. All cats are british (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@All cats are british: If you think there are specific neutrality problems with the article, go to WP:NPOVN. X-Editor (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Transgender and covid mandate propaganda are not neutral. All cats are british (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@All cats are british: Did you not read what I posted above? X-Editor (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

You say "nobody is stopping you" and then undoing their edits? You are the one who is stopping. All cats are british (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

That's because you are whitewashing the article by removing content. X-Editor (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm removing the content that was against the rules. I'm neutralising it with removing political POV. - all cats are british

I agree with @Gamezero05: about removing the collection of previously expressed personal views which are clearly listed to discredit the account holder. The views were expressed under her own name and not under "Libs of TikTok". ––St.nerol (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I've improved the wording to attribute the views to the account rather than to the individual, which should solve this issue. Cheers, SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

SiliconRed You removed my edit, say to "see talk" but I don't see anything specifically explaining why... Bendespain (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I should have been more clear. Discussion of the wording in the lead is in the Media Matters section. Cheers, SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It would balance the article if it explained why LibsOfTiktok is so popular, which is because quite a bit of what it exposes is legitimately indefensible, people who are clearly not mentally fit in positions of authority over children. Exposing such things is ethical journalism because it protects children. I'm not sure of the best way to articulate this in the article. 72.48.20.137 (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem with this is that Wikipedia depends on sources (reliable sources) and citations. If an article or piece of media can't explain why a thing is popular, then another (reputable) source should be found that can. If no reputable sources can justify what you suggest, then it can't be included, even if you believe that your viewpoint is correct (full disclosure, I don't think Libs of TikTok is doing the world a favor and I don't think it's engaging in ethical journalism).

Content-wise about what you suggest, even if there is a reputable source, it's playing two sides. Ideally, an article should non-biased (like PBS or the AP), not biased in both directions. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's "bias in both directions" to present the best version of both sides of a controversy, currently, only one side is presented. I don't know if this is suitable because it's an opinion piece, but this article makes the argument that the coverage is unfair because it doesn't address the fact that at least some of what libsoftiktok is exposing is legitimately concerning: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/04/20/the_new_class_chasm_in_the_culture_wars_147496.html 72.48.20.137 (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The article is fine as-is with how it's presented. I've browsed the account, and while some of what they say (such as the stuff they say about actual groomers in classrooms (albeit from already public knowledge), the major rhetoric on the account is focused on anti-LGBT messaging.

I will attempt to work on the article more on the weekend and iron out some of the creases in terms of wording. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Editing out the dialogue of the Oklahoma English teacher's video in which he said “If your parents don't accept you for who you are, f*** them. I'm your parents now” is misleading, because in this instance @libsoftiktok called for his removal due to comments against his students' parents rather than for "supporting LGBT youth" Senseidavidtav (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I changed Libs of TikTok promotes conservatism and anti-LGBT rhetoric into Libs of TikTok is accused of promoting conservatism and anti-LGBT rhetoric because implying that Libs of TikTok is homophobic implies left wing bias. I included the phrase 'is accused' to maintain neutrality, since some don't believe Libs of TikTok is homophobic Senseidavidtav (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

This seems like WP:UNDUE. Libs of TikTok does spread both of those things, whether you're on board with it or not. What the reader takes away from that is their independent beliefs. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Deletion request

This article breaks several rules and is full of defamation and propaganda. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a social media site for callouts. Nobody in real life cares about a tiktok repost account.

Also deleting this won't make it any better. Streisand effect, if you will. All cats are british (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

"this is not a forum" agreed, that's why you should not dox people and be neutral. All cats are british (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@All cats are british: you're free to open an Articles for Deletion discussion if you believe this article should be deleted. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The info about her is already available to the public, so featuring it here doesn't change much. X-Editor (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality isn't a binding agreement to never write anything negative or consequential, it's the opposite. Reliable sources are reporting this and we are simply summarizing it. CUPIDICAE💕 23:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Why do you delete my reply? It is just straight up Streisand effect. Don't worry, it won't hurt to tell that your guy did wrong.q All cats are british (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:BLPVIO and take your nonsense somewhere else. CUPIDICAE💕 23:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Like what Elli stated, this article can be requested to be deleted through articles for deletion. This article's topic is within the notability guidelines with reliable sources and no copyvios (and is encyclopedic). It also appears that everything in this article is backed up with citations. This article is on the main namespace because it's mentioned by various reputable news sources.

If a news organization chooses to publicize an account's name (albeit, negating neutrality here, using basic OSINT tools to determine their name), that is the responsibility of the news organization, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not involved in the actions of the Washington Post or any other news organization, and as you so claim, it's an encyclopedia. If your worldview doesn't align with Wikipedia's, you're free to find another site to provide you that perspective, or, if you feel that Wikipedia (or this article) is too biased, you can edit the articles yourself. This is neither the time nor the place to discuss matters that are outside of the scope of this talk page, however, and if you truly believe there is an issue with this article's promotion to the main namespace you can open an articles for deletion request. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

This is not a forum or social media site. You don't have callout posts on physical encyclopedias (if you ever seen one) All cats are british (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@All cats are british I agree. this article needs to be deleted. there is no prof of mocking and this is just an article to cause controversy. I also belive that this article is just a way of retaliation against someone who is just retweet what someone has already posted. I nominate this article to be deleted. 2600:1004:B0E4:8DCE:45AE:8E49:64F2:F526 (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no proof of mocking? The proof is the entire account. X-Editor (talk) 03:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

they are only reposting what the other people have posted. its no different than someone retweeting (sharing) a comment or video. I will be notifing someone eles to deal with this. your info is incorrect and this is not the place for such mess. Tony Alan Creswell 04:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The WaPo article shows that this is clearly not the case: "Her anti-trans tweets went especially viral. She called on her followers to contact schools that were allowing 'boys in the girls bathrooms' and pushed the false conspiracy theory that schools were installing litter boxes in bathrooms for children who identify as cats. 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." This is going far beyond simply reposting videos. X-Editor (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Her reposting is not mocking. It's criticizing and exposint what she believes is inappropriate. Bro rick (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The proof is provided in the three sources, and as I stated earlier to another user, most would agree (even fans of the account) that it does mock other people. This article was not designed to start drama, although its original author may have a personal bias (which Wikipedia doesn't allow in the contents of articles, see WP:NPOV). The author's original intentions are murky, however, because this article is worthy of being on the main namespace and has been altered by many other people regardless of its origins. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

This article reads 100% like a hit piece, it devaules the entire mission of wikipedia and from the moment it claims the intent is to "mock", the author of this article exposes themselves as presumptive and biased, and juding anothers intent would be thrown out in any court of law and should be thrown out here. The intent might simply be to expose. This is the same intent as this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:180:2C0:3821:DAB9:EC16:C363 (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Did you even read my comment? What they've said makes it pretty clear what the intent of the account is. X-Editor (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is encyclopedic so, no, it doesn't devalue the mission of Wikipedia. I've stated this a few times, but if you believe there is an issue with the content on Wikipedia, edit it. However, the account does make an effort to pitch itself as mocking other people (regardless of your stance on that) and Wikipedia is not a courtroom. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

WIkiepedia is also not a venue for (mostly white) progressive males to propagate their leftist ideology. This article is unbelievably biased and should either be completely rewritten or deleted. 2601:602:180:2C0:9177:3CE8:BC55:1DDC (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I myself identify as a "leftist", but I leave my politics at home. If an article suggests something about a subject, politics shouldn't get in the way. I'm willing to fight both sides here, but at a certain point there needs to be an establishment of truth and there is an establishment of truth in this article. If you disagree with the idea that Libs of TikTok is spreading conservative ideologies (contrary to the sources), then you haven't been viewing the same Twitter account. If you disagree with the idea Libs of TikTok shouldn't be mocking other people (which this article does not suggest), then you have an ideological difference.

The basis of Wikipedia is sources, reliable sources, and this article's information is derived directly from those sources. If you have an issue with how the article presents itself, then this is more of a systemic issue with how these sources are used or their reliability on all of Wikipedia. I would suggest, for the former, WP:BEBOLD (but be bold with caution and keep in mind the aforementioned reliable sources). For the latter, this is not an argument that should be had on this article, but rather WP:RSN. From what's seen by the sources (held to much more scrutiny than most of Wikipedia), Libs of TikTok does directly try to hold a conservative and anti-LGBT point of view. Whether that's okay is your opinion and I'm not going to try to sway it either way. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

BLP?

This article isn't a WP:BLP, the topic is a Twitter account. I would recommend removing this article from Project:Biography.

The Biography WikiProject concerns the creation, development, and organization of Wikipedia's articles about persons (including but not limited to biographies). It includes only articles about individual persons, not about an organization or group or association, unless a substantial section of the article is a biography of a person related to that organization or group

There's no biographical information in this article about the manager of the account, the content is solely about the content the account posts and press surrounding the account. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, there is no reason for this to be in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Googleguy007 (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

A twitter account owned and operated by one person. You can't separate the twitter account from the person, so BLP applies to this article. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Information about Raichik in this article is subject to WP:BLP, but this article as a whole is not subject to BLP. That said, if there is specific content you feel does not fit with BLP, could you describe that? SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Any information about the account is inherently about Raichik since Raichik is the sole owner and operator of the account. So any information in this article is inherently about Raichik and is subject to the requirements in BLP. Which means this article should be written using high quality sources, be dispassionate in tone, and not be sensationalist. Which by large this article is not. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The name behind the account is prominently displayed and several sections are devoted to elaborating on this person, including a list of her views on different topics, expressed before "Libs of TikTok". This should clearly be discussed as a BLP issue. Pragmatically, this should be a BLP article, and I understand that the reason for this category is pragmatical. –– St.nerol (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you find there are specific BLP issues or poorly cited content in the Background section? SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. 1) The account is anonymous. Should her name be stated? 2) The statements about her intent. 3) The list of her personal views meant to discredit. ––St.nerol (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this edit should solve (3), (1) has already been discussed at length here on this talk page to consensus. Could you be more clear on (2)? What specific statements, and where are they attributed to Raichik and not to the account? SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you point to one place on this talk page where a lengthy discussion has developed into a consensus? --St.nerol (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The section Should the personal information about the creator of Libs of TikTok be redacted? covers this in detail -- generally I'd suggest bringing this topic to that section if you'd like to reopen discussion. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

So, if you're known under a pseudonym and secretive about your private life, you should not be categorized as a "living person". Does that apply to musicians, youtubers, artists as well? St.nerol (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that wikipedia should self censor to protect widely publicised information from public consumption due to the fact that the subject of the article desires to remain anonymous? Googleguy007 (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Independent coverage of this account (WaPo, Daily Dot, The Week, etc.) has described it as a brand rather than a pseudonymous personality. We don't consider articles about brands or publications strictly biographies even though they may include information about living persons (including here -- in which case, BLP policies exist for very good reason, but don't apply to the article as a whole). For better or for worse, it's pretty new territory writing articles about Internet accounts, and I wish there was more precedent on how to proceed here, but the best we have are the WP:RS on the subject.

None of this to say that we shouldn't be careful about sources, but blanking content of this page under broad interpretations of BLP isn't a constructive or particularly useful approach. If there's specific, questionable content in the article regarding the individual please do bring it to attention. Cheers, SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 21:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Remove preposterous lies

Libs of TikTok does not use so called «anti LGBT» rhetoric unless you want to argue reposting videos made public by the creators is somehow anti LBGT which is a MAJOR stretch to claim. Furthermore the claim she has been saying the election was stolen is currently unsourced and should either be sourced or removed 46.230.132.31 (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

We go by what our reliable sources say, and they support the current wording. You'll also find the citation for the stolen election claim at the end of the paragraph. — Czello 09:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Reposting videos and adding commentary about "degeneracy" and "grooming" is definitely anti LGBT Googleguy007 (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Like what Czello stated, the reason why that's mentioned in the article is because the article's reliable sources say it to be that, and posting other people's TikTok videos is not all Libs of TikTok does; even fans of the account would agree it doesn't do the LGBTQ+ community much service. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

What is the subject matter? The Twitter account, the unmasking, or Chaya Raichik herself?

Having thoughts on what the primary subject is here, because of late the source coverage is pretty much all about the reveal of the identity of the user and things she has done to warrant this attention in the first place. Perhaps that means an article renaming? Chaya Raichik (which should be a redirect if it isn't already). Or some form of Libs of TikTok identity incident?

In the short term, IMO some of the article test should be rewritten to phrase things as the actions of a person, not as it is now, as an account. e.g.

Libs of TikTok is focused primarily on conservative ideas and anti-LGBT rhetoric...

to

Raichik is focused primarily on conservative ideas and anti-LGBT rhetoric

. This isn't a role or brand account, not is it a corporation. These are a single person's opinions. ValarianB (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

A single person who's notable only for their activity under this account. The article is about the account itself. Chaya Raichick is relevant as the person behind the account and the unmasking is an important moment in the history of the account's activity, and as such, the article has information on both those things. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with 46 above. There's a clear distinction made by WP:RS between the account and the individual managing the account, and the article should reflect that. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 15:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Actions like the Babylon Bee deal, trademark request from Grant Lally as a "news reporting service" suggest the account is an entity that's quite separable from the individual. Maybe there should just be a section that focuses exclusively on the account manager and other sections don't mention her, comparable to how e.g. articles on crimes will often contain a short bios of the perpetrator/victim and the rest is focused on the event. Bad example maybe, but maybe a good article structure to base this off of. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 15:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

It is in fact an LLC, and I would say as a whole, along with the drama about the creator, Libs of TikTok is the primary topic and should remain the primary topic. Everything else can be covered within the article. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Not convinced it should focus on the person, per others. But things could always change over time. Zaathras (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Entirely unconvinced here, esp. as we have Raichik claims to run the account alone and said she moved from New York to California to work on the account full-time. right in the article. The only reason it is named after the account handle is that was all we had to go on in the beginning. ValarianB (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Please stop deleting factual information to push bias

This article is not going to be used as another driving range to push left-wing bias. If you're going to mention detailed accounts of the controversial things posted by Libs Of Tiktok, then there is also room for the fact that the account criticized educators who were openly promoting peadophilia and masturbation among young children. Whether you feel this is moral or not is irrelevant - the public deserves to know as it is these very posts that has made Libs Of Tiktok so popular among conservatives. These are relevant details.

If you do not agree with the particular wording, there is always room to discuss ways of rephrasing, but deleting information that you don't like in order to keep the article focused solely on negative posts is a clear violation of neutrality. Please stop deleting factual, referenced information. Domiy (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

As someone who's read over this article and heavily amended its lead and structure a few times (including the Content section for the purposes of the complaints you bring up), I disagree with your claim that this article is in any way pushing a left-wing bias.

The detailed accounts you bring up, such as quoting various tweets that Libs of TikTok (LoTT for future purposes) brings up, come from two sources; The Daily Dot and the Washington Post. They're directly mentioned in this article because they come straight from those sources. If there is a reputable source that can claim that LoTT brings up direct pedophilia and masturbation among young children (not LGBTQ+ content; that is a huge NPOV problem), then add it yourself.

I went to the article's history to attempt to see your side of the argument, and I see two things. One, the mention of "in a derogatory manner" is removed from your edit, which is not an accurate depiction of what the account is. The account does directly mock members of the LGBTQ+ community, you don't have to be on the left to see that. Whether or not is moral is the dividing line between the two parties. Two, the mentions of what the account actually does is completely shifted from "reposting left-wing content (often in a derogatory manner)" to "critiquing pedophilic behavior". Prior to the Washington Post article coming out, the account was mostly posting the former, not the latter, in terms of content (prior to LoTT's quote retweet of Christina Pushaw's mention of the WaPo article, the tweets that followed involved two tweets about a pilot announcing the lift on the mask mandate from passengers mid-flight, one about the Family Sex Show which seems to fit with what you mention, a repost of a TikTok video about the definition of woman, a New York Post screenshot about a school district secretly allowing gender transitions, a Florida teacher's take on the 'Don't Say Gay' bill, and a University of New Hampshire professor's discussions about sexuality). Mentions of actual pedophilia or grooming are infrequently mentioned, which makes it unfitting to replace the mentions of reposting TikTok videos with such. Three, the source "The Spectator" is used. I've consulted WP:RSPSS and The Spectator appears to be a risky source to use due to its opinion-based journalism, and would not be suitable for a lead (instead, suggest directly quoting the person instead, i.e. 'So and so from The Spectator said this').

There is something to be said about the (rough estimate, 20% of content) content on the Twitter account that does call out actual pedophilia, but such mentions require a reputable source mentioning it (not The Spectator) that is simply lacked from any source on the perennial sources list. If you have an issue with The Spectator's placement on the list, I suggest you bring up a discussion there. There's nothing anyone here can do about it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

If there is a reputable source that can claim that LoTT brings up direct pedophilia and masturbation among young children (not LGBTQ+ content; that is a huge NPOV problem), then add it yourself.

The Spectator article links to an actual Tweet made by LoTT. As far as I know, Wikipedia also allows using Tweets as a source for what someone said. Here is a direct link to the Tweet in question. The Tweet and the pedophilia reference (as well as the fact that the poster was fired for it) was also reported by News.com.au,, a very reliable Australian news source which also links to the tweet made by LoTT.

Your attempt to pretend that the videos of LGBT activists promoting pedophilia or child sexualisation never happened are blatant delusion and a breach of neutrality. You cannot, and will not, use this article to focus solely on left-wing criticism of the account. There are numerous reliable sources which confirm that the account gained notoriety for calling out LGBT members who expressed outright inappropriate, sexually explicit views of children. This will be re-added. Domiy (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to discredit LoTT by any means on that front. However, if you're going to mention that they do this, you need to do it tactfully and with regard to WP:RSPSS. The New York Post is not reliable, and if you take issue with that you are more than welcome to challenge the source elsewhere. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I am more than happy to use a direct link to the Tweet in question if you have doubts on whether the alleged Tweet criticizing pedophilia or masturbation really did occur.?

I am also not using the New York Post as a source, I'm using a collaborated source from news.com.au, one of Australia's largest and most trusted news sites. Domiy (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, please note that a dispute resolution/mediation request has been opened here Domiy (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a debate about whether or not they did that, I believe you, but you need to be tactful with how you approach this kind of thing. Two parts to this. One, the reason why X-Editor and I are mentioning the NYP is because the news.com.au article is reposted from the NYP (as stated in the background). Two, the article (in its current form) doesn't state that it's popular among conservatives for that reason.

I would redo this by finding a better source that comes directly from a reputable source (or from it itself) and by stating something like "The account also posts such and such[ref]" elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I've taken a brief look at the News.com.au source, and I would not consider it to be reliable in this instance. It is very clearly marked as a repost of a NY Post article, which as already discussed is an unreliable source. Reading the two pieces side by side, the only content changes between the NY Post original and the News.com.au repost are that the first paragraph was re-worded to better reflect an expected Australian audience, two images were removed, and one video and two inline tweets from Libs of TikTok were added. Other than that, the content is verbatim identical to the NY Post. Accordingly it is not a collaborated source between the two publications. It is one publication (News.com.au) reposting the content of another (NY Post).

I've also done a brief search for reliable sources on this. While I've found several on the suspension of the academic, when those sources do mention Libs of TikTok they only do so very briefly, within the context of linking the LoTT posts to the suspension. No mention has been made on the claim that LoTT brings up direct pedophilia and masturbation among young children, at least in connection between LoTT and the academic.

I would also suggest that the DRN request is premature, and non-compliant with the DRN instructions which require extensive discussion on this article's talk page. This discussion section has been open for a little over 24 hours, with only 8 comments made thus far. That said, in those 8 comments there seems to be a rather clear consensus against what Domiy is proposing. Unless Domiy can find a suitable reliable secondary source, I would suggest that they WP:DROPTHESTICK as without such sourcing any further discussion is pointless and doomed to failure. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm happy with your suggested compromise. If it's the part about "popular among conservatives" that you have doubts about, I'm happy to omit that. However there's no reason for the Content section not to include the 2 aforementioned examples of a transgender professor making apologetic remarks about pedophilia, and a woman who claims to teach children to masturbate "as soon as they can talk". I believe this content is just as noteworthy (if not more) than the rest of the examples cited in the article, particularly because these posts from LoTT led to those in the videos being fired or disciplined.

Like I said, I'm happy to mention these in the "Content" section, using the direct Tweets as a source. That is the only reasonable compromise I can see here. Domiy (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Tweets from LoTT are not a strong enough citation for content about firings, as it will need to stand up to WP:BLP. Secondary sources need to report on the content you describe and connect it to LoTT before it could be added to this article. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 02:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Doimy, this article is going to reflect what the preponderance of reliable sources say. If that is contrary to your personal opinions, that's rally not something the Wikipedia can or will accommodate. spectatorworld.com will not be cited as a source in this article. The article will not repeat Raichik's fringe opinions regarding LGBT advocacy and pedophilia. This is not negotiable. Zaathras (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

We've also removed references for the left-leaning Media Matters per WP:RSP, so this doesn't only apply to right-wing sources. Per WP:RSP, The Spectator is mostly opinion based journalism, meaning it is questionable to use as a source for facts. If you want to dispute this categorization of the source, head over to WP:RSN and make your case there. X-Editor (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Nipping the proverbial bud. Don't make this into a criticism page of Taylor Lorenz

This edit is sub-par. We should not be collecting random right-win opinions who are critical of Taylor Lorenz, who if one needs reminding, X-Editor, is not the subject of this article. The Washington Times in particular should not be used for commentary about living persons, per its entry at WP:RSP. Zaathras (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Zaathras I tried to restore your well written version but it appears X-Editor disagrees and believes we need to include all criticism and far right sources. Ideally they would've discussed it since it's a contested edit. Oh well, I tried. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Zaathras:@Praxidicae: I reverted it to add back the non-conservative stuff that was accidentally reverted and then removed the conservative stuff immediately afterwards [9]. X-Editor (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Zaathras:@Praxidicae: I'm fine with not including the commentary purely about Lorenz in this article, but I don't see what's wrong with saying "Conservative news outlets also accused Barr and the Post of lying." instead of simply saying "The Spectator also accused the Post of lying." because more than one conservative news outlet has accused them of lying. X-Editor (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

X-Editor, I think you're on the right track in inquiring what Zaathras and Praxidicae's specific issues are with that specific change. But restoring it despite knowing it's disputed is still edit warring. Can you please self-revert until there's at least rough consensus for inclusion.

For my part, I oppose giving additional weight to the views of unreliable sources. The article as a whole has that kind of WP:UNDUE problem, and needs work to get to NPOV. Do editors with a better sense of the RS coverage know if there are sources to replace the many unreliable and marginally reliable sources (e.g. Federalist, Fox News, Salon, Rolling Stone, Daily Beast)? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

meant to ping X-Editor ... Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I removed Salon and The Daily Beast. Rolling Stone and The Federalist are only cited for attributed opinions, so there's no need to remove them. I also removed Fox News references backed up by better sources. X-Editor (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you're not understanding Firefangledfeathers's point. Yes, they're only cited for attributed opinions, but getting a bunch of attributed opinions from otherwise unreliable source is likely going to be WP:UNDUE. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I still disagree because removing these sources would remove a lot of insightful commentary, which would make the article worse. X-Editor (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Elli on this, well said. There is so much mainstream commentary at this point that there's no encyclopedic reason to put emphasis on fringe commentary. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 02:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that there is essentially no mainstream commentary defending Libs of TikTok, which a lot of people are doing. To compensate, we must include more unreliable sources for the sake of balance, at least until there are better mainstream sources. X-Editor (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

That's not what we're supposed to do; please read WP:FALSEBALANCE. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. X-Editor (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I've been AfK all day but I was planning to open a section here regarding the sheer volume of commentary and pull quotes that's being added. It's worth removing the more extreme commentary and the commentary that's more focused on Lorenz than on the account. It's not encyclopedic nor an accurate summary of reliable commentary to go about finding every published opinion piece and sticking a dozen pull quotes into this article. I made an edit to this extent yesterday but it was reverted. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 23:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry my time is being cut short tonight, only time to skim what's ben added since. Generically citing that (reliably sourced) conservative outlets are critical of Lorenz is fine, what I am mainly opposed to is directly quoting the bad ones like the WTimes. Zaathras (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that this article is not about Lorenz, it is about Libs of TikTok. Those sources focus mostly on Lorenz and not Libs of TikTok. X-Editor (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not reliable sources (WP:RS) for statements of fact - especially for a WP:BLP

OP indeffed. By the blocking comment, largely because of their behavior in this thread. Zaathras (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Quoting the most pertinent passages from WP:RS and WP:BLP: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion. Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. 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. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC) What is the relevance of quoting from these policies? Are you trying to say that there are what you think to be opinion pieces being used for statements of fact in the article? If so, you may wish to give a list detailing both the sources you believe to be opinion pieces, and which facts those are being used in support of. Otherwise this seems pointless. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Only two sources are used - both opinion pieces - the WashPo and DailyDot articles. Sorry, I assumed that much was obvious. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC) What makes you feel they are opinion pieces? Neither is labeled as such and the WaPo has a labeled opinion section that this isn't in; furthermore, both pieces have secondary coverage treating them as news. The WaPo piece in particular has extensive secondary coverage, virtually all of which describes it as reporting; the fact that the subject might disagree with or dislike their reporting does not automatically render it opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Ahh, you're referring to the content erroneously removed twice ([10] [11]) this evening/morning (timezone dependent). Neither of those sources is an opinion piece, and both are considered reliable. I would also note that another editor has recently added a third reliable source. None of the three sources nor the content they are being used to support are violations of BLP. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Please familiarize yourselves with WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP if you are unsure as to what qualifies as an Opinion piece. In short, only material that is stated as fact in the voice of the publication and not the individual author, can be attributed to the publication (e.g. "According to the NY Times...") and not the author (e.g. "Jane Doe writes that.."). EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC) I can assure you that I am intimately familiar with those those policies and guidelines. Accordingly I will direct you to the reply directly above in this section by Aquillion. Neither the Washington Post nor Daily Dot articles are opinion pieces. And the same applies for the recently added citation to The Times as well. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Then you will kindly cease reverting. The article, as it stands, reads: "Libs of TikTok promotes conservatism and anti-LGBT rhetoric. The account has targeted schools and teachers, referring to schools as "government run indoctrination camps" for the LGBT community and encouraged followers to contact schools that allowed transgender students to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity." None of that is attributable to The Times, the WashPo, or DailyDot. As WP:BLP clearly states, the "burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." Even if those particular phrases are to be found in all three pieces (which of course they are not), they would only be attributable to the columnists - not, the publication. As it stands, they feature no attribution at all - which is in blatant violation of WP:BLP. I invite you to self-revert. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC) You will have to be more specific about what you feel those sources are not stating as fact and why? The WaPo source simply 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. That's a statement of fact in the article voice, which should be similarly covered as fact in our article voice unless there's a reason to doubt it or think that it is just opinion. We can't attribute it because per WP:NPOV it is a NPOV violation to state a fact as an opinion, and you haven't actually given any reason why you feel it is just an opinion. Is your assertion that the simple fact that the article has an author makes it an opinion piece? Because that is definitely not how it works. Normally, WP:RSOPINION refers to things published in labeled opinion sections or in sections and sources devoted to opinion; in some situations it can refer to anything from a source that fails to properly distinguish news and opinion. But the Washington Post does make a clear distinction, so if you want to argue that the article is an opinion piece you will have to be more specific about why. Alternatively, you can take the issue to WP:RSN if you think that the Washington Post itself is not generally reliable for statements of fact, but that seems like a stretch? I'm genuinely not following your argument beyond that - the sources do seem to say these things as fact, and they're definitely not opinion pieces. --Aquillion (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia Policy is clear. Pieces by columnists are, by definition, opinion - not reportage. Either this is a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or one of competence (WP:INCOMPETENT). If you have been editing all these years without knowing the difference between commentary and news reports, then you are going to have to ask yourself some very serious questions. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC) With respect to reverts, you appear to have me confused with another editor. I however have only reverted once. I will not be self-reverting, as there is no violation of BLP occurring. I agree with Aquillion's analysis of the Washington Post article, with respect to what it states in its own article voice, how other reliable secondary sources have also concurred with what the WaPo has published, and how that impacts upon our policy of NPOV. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC) With all due respect, your or my opinion (or "analysis") of any given column is irrelevant. WP:BLP is clear (as is WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NPOV). I invite you a second time to self-revert, and remind you again that "Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Just because you say "BLP VIOLATION!", it doesn't automatically make it true. We even have an essay for this, WP:CRYBLP. I will gladly revert an attempt to remove sourced an accurate information from the article when it is based on a disingenuous claim of being backed by policy. Zaathras (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC) I have already said both here and on my talk page I will not self-revert. I would also suggest you pick a single point for arguing, instead of what now appears to be a gish gallop of BOLDTEXT links to various policies, guidelines, and essays. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Article text reads: "Libs of TikTok promotes conservatism and anti-LGBT rhetoric. The account has targeted schools and teachers, referring to schools as "government run indoctrination camps" for the LGBT community and encouraged followers to contact schools that allowed transgender students to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity." Those two sentences include at least 6 separate claims that aren't attributed to any RS. That's in breach of WP:RS, WP:SYNTH regardless of the fact that it is a BLP. I've also quoted above specifically what elements of WP:BLP such claims are in breach of. I can't make it any clearer. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC) At this point, the content is cited to three generally reliable sources, two of which are newspapers of record in their respective countries. If there is some nuanced change that we're missing to better adhere to the sources, please let us know. A full removal on BLP grounds is unjustified. I commit to providing quotes from the reliable sources to justify the article text if anyone else agrees with EN1792's view here. Right now, there's clear consensus that the content is supported and the sources reliable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Our opinion ("consensus") is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a democracy. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC) The article text is supported by the citations that immediately follow said text. The citations are denoted by numbers encased in brackets. I can't make it any clearer. Zaathras (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Read the relevant policies please. E.g. "A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion." It's not complicated. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC) My good sir, first off, it appears that those of us here discussing this have been around the Wikipedia for a bit longer than your *checks notes* 5 months. So, kindly, pipe down with the condescending "read the policies!" and the endless linking thereof. Second, it is painfully aware that you do not actually know what an "opinion piece" is, as none of the 3 citations for the above text are that. Zaathras (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Then this is a question of competence. If you are unable to distinguish between commentary and reportage, then you have no business whatsoever editing on such topics and discussing reliable secondary and tertiary sources - given you admit to not comprehending what Wiki Policy plainly states. To avoid further embarrassment, you have two possible courses of action: either make a good faith attempt to understand WP:RS, or recuse yourself from such ill-informed argumentation. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 05:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC) There are ways to evaluate competence... For instance... EnlightenmentNow1792, is this[12] an opinion piece? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC) I hope you're joking. But yes, there are ways, indeed, for instance... [13] I mean.. wow. Just... wow... EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC) I am not joking. What is the supposed competence issue in the linked diff? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC) EnlightenmentNow has been blocked indefinitely (not by me). Doug Weller talk 17:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Media Matters study

I am aware of Media Matters being determined to be an unreliable source for this article, meaning this recent study from them on its own would not be usable. However, two more reputable sources have republished their study's findings[14][15]. Can this study's findings be featured in the article if it comes from these more reputable references and also has in-text attribution to Media Matters? X-Editor (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

With a secondary source that seems fine. I don't see any problems with something like According to analysis by the left-leaning media watchdog group Media Matters for America, the account has named more than 222 educational institutions in 2022 alone as of April 28.[16][17] Endwise (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks good. Zaathras (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, wording looks solid as it is included in the article. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 20:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)