Jump to content

Talk:Libs of TikTok/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Colorado

collapse as mostly unproductive wall of text

LOTT posted nothing directly about the Colorado night club. It's a complete stretch to even include an article about it. Why not include the same for anyone/everyone who has said something against drag queen shows? 2600:1700:F21:9570:3CF3:F0DF:7311:22E2 (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia are constructed based on what credible sources say about a given subject. Several reliable sources have mentioned LOTT in their coverage of the Colorado Springs night club shooting as context for all the violence that has been committed this year against LGBT venues and drag queens, and at least two -- the Washington Post and The Advocate -- have noticed she incited against drag queens in the same state just hours after the massacre took place. If it appears in reliable sources, it can appear on Wikipedia. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
In addition, not everyone anywhere has the power to incite harassment and violence in real life with mere posts on social media. Several reliable sources, however, have noted that Chaya Raichik possesses just that power. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree that it is a stretch and kind of a non sequitur. I do not personally see any incitement. But as @Peleio Aquiles mentioned, several news outlets have brought this up and it is well cited. Amarg9494 (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You used "incite" in both justifications for the inclusion of referencing articles. Could you please cite the specific "incitement" of harassment and/or violence from LoTT? 2600:1700:1CD0:D9C0:8C3F:AC03:2FCB:E6D3 (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't you read the entry before criticizing its contents? The entry lists many incidents where her posts against LGBTQ venues and drag performers were followed by harassment and violence from right-wingers. Start here. Also in the entry now are the words of a former Dept. of Homeland Security official Juliette Kayeem claiming a causal link between Libs of TikTok's posts and right-wing violence. You're free to dislike all these facts if you want to. But they have been voiced in reliable sources, and so belong in the entry. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I disagree here. I think we can take it as given that there are people in the media and government who dislike Libs of TikTok (and similar activists) and will instinctively mention them any time there's anti-gay violence in the United States, regardless of any actual linkage. Does that mean this article will need to have a section for every well-publicized anti-gay attack (assuming this was indeed a bias crime) from now on? It seems pointless, and perhaps WP:NOTSCANDAL applies. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I would respectfully disagree here. I have not had the chance to actually examine the sources, so I am not necessarily arguing for inclusion here, but as a general principle, if reliable sources continue linking LoTT to attacks in a proportion that makes such a linkage due, then we need to include them. I would however agree that perhaps the first few days after such a tragedy is probably not enough perspective for a Wikipedia article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Interesting, we don't have any sources which refer to LoTT as activism, we do have a number which call it a hate site. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
"Activist" is my term, yes. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
BLP prohibits you from using your own term to describe a living person. All characterizations whether in the article or on the talk page must be directly supported by a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
That's quite an opinion to hold. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Not my opinion, see WP:BLP. You can no more call someone an activist without a WP:RS then you can call them a farmer, billionaire, rapist, or terrorist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP prohibits "harmful" or "titillating" claims. Would you say "activist" (or "farmer", for that matter) falls into either of those categories? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
With all due respect, I would say the quotes about harm and titillation are more normative claims than statements of policy: they explain reasoning. I would say the policy itself is All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Now, there may well be instances where the appellation "activist" is noncontroversial, but in this particular instance I should think it falls under that broad category. As ever, reasonable minds may certainly differ on the subject. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
That's for articles, of course, not talk pages. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Touché! I came away with the idea that we were discussing the article; I agree that use of the term on the talk page is unproblematic. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
BLP applies to talk pages. 46.97.170.38 (talk) 12:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
False. "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
HEB, with all due respect, I would suggest this is not worth the fight: if even relatively neutral descriptors required citations on talk pages, discussion would be so unwieldy as to be impossible. I agree with you in general, but I don't think is the sort of BLP violation that demands action. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The context is that Korny is an absolute stickler for BLP (including on talk pages) when it furthers their argument... To now pretend like they think that BLP doesn't apply to talk pages is either trolling or amnesia. I agree though that its not worth arguing over outside of that context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I admit I'm a stickler for BLP in articles (everyone should be), but on talk pages? I have no idea what you're talking about. (And now it sounds like you're saying you brought us down this rabbit hole just to make a point, but that's another story.) Korny O'Near (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
You should refrain from making accusations of bad faith about other editors. Your past comments, apparent inconsistency in the way you select your arguments, and fitness to contribute to this entry, are legitimate topics for other editors, especially as the administration board has once considered warning you over the support you've given for extremism and conspiracy theories in this Talk Page. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
With all due respect to everyone involved, I suggest we wrap this up and continue discussing article content. Where are we on the Colorado shooting section? I am of the mind that it definitely needs to be included, though I go back and forth on whether it should be trimmed a bit. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree with going back to the actual discussion. There should probably be a new section for it; this one has gotten a little cringeworthy to read through. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

A reminder that Korny has voiced support for some the hate rhetoric and conspiracy theories that Chaya Raichik has spread, such as the idea that the Trevor Project is a covert grooming operation. Wasn't there a discussion in the administration board to topic-ban him from LGBT entries a little while ago? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This feels like harassment, but I'll let others judge. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Seems relevant, doesn't appear to be wp:harassment as we define it here on wikipedia at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Disinformation from editors about Colorado shooting

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

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

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

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

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

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

I put "non-binary" in quotes, because I was quoting the shooter. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Has nobody here anything better to do than edit-war over a talk page section heading? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Enough warring @Horse Eye's Back:, this is not the one. --Pokelova (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Just a note of general interest (not yet usable on Wikipedia), that the defense attorney seems to be referring to the suspect exclusively with he/him pronouns. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Colorado Springs shooter is allegedly non-binary

another wall of text Dronebogus (talk)

The latest news about the Colorado Springs gay nightclub shooting is that the shooter now claims to be non-binary. Is this proof that Libs of TikTok is not somehow responsible for the shooting? No - the shooter could be trolling, or maybe he's sincere but still a fan of Libs of TikTok, and was motivated as a result to specifically target gay people. And no matter what the real situation is, the fact remains that the previous speculation by The Independent, PinkNews, Juliette Kayyem etc. was published in reliable sources, and will forever be notable by Wikipedia standards, even if it turns out to be completely false. However, I think this news underscores the pointlessness of simply arguing that anything published in reliable sources belongs in Wikipedia. We exercise editorial discretion, and that includes avoiding speculation that appears to be baseless, even if supposedly reliable journalists state it. I think WP:NOTSCANDAL applies here, as does a general sense that we should wait for the real facts to emerge. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

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

There is a direct link between accounts like Raichik's Libs of TikTok and angry and potentially violent men showing up at drag queen story hours and Pride events, Juliette Kayyem, former assistant secretary for intergovernmental affairs at the Department of Homeland Security under President Barrack Obama and expert in counter-terrorism, said in August.

Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Again, you don't seem to understand our role as Wikipedia editors. A fact could appear in every reliable source, and be unimpeachably true, and we could still decide that it's too trivial, gossipy, etc. to include. In this case, of course, it's not a fact at all, but rather a half-stated, evidence-free piece of innuendo, that this Twitter account indirectly led to murder. There's no obligation to include it at all. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
The Washington Post, NBC News, and so on, don't often write gossip, especially in their news columns. And Raichik's choice to attack drag queens in Colorado on the same of the Colorado LGBTQ shooting is not trivial or gossipy. It does not pertain to her personal life, but to her activities as a public and very influential account. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
If every fact written in the news sections of the Washington Post, NBC, etc. were worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, this website would be quite a bit bigger. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
So you think every statement in every article ever published by every reliable source belongs in Wikipedia? Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, then. Korny O'Near (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Please do not attribute points of view to others which you know they do not hold in order to make a point. That is disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Should LibsOfTikTOk be categorized as Category:Disinformation operations?

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

I don't think we have any sources which talk about a disinformation operation, remember it isn't the same thing as spreading disinformation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
No because it is not disinformation and honestly this whole article is siting a left wing source with no proof or evidence. It has been reveal as of rachak's instagram that there has beeen no bomb threat and the local police also did not know what happened. The narrative was an attempt to defame rachiak ExperimentXOfficial (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
What are you even talking about? If it's about the bomb threat to the Boston Children's Hospital, an arrest has already been made in connection to that. And police have already confirmed that, actually, dozens of bomb threats have been made against that target following Chaya Raichik's posts. You're either confused or lying, and you should not be allowed to edit this entry. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Nothing you (ExperimentXOfficial) wrote here is true. Please stick to facts. Jibal (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

"Disinformation"

wall of text

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

all of its content are reposts of other people's videos this is blatantly false. Agree that describing the account as disinformation may be a bit much, though I would still mention it in the first paragraph (something along the lines of "the account has been known to spread disinformation"). Elli (talk | contribs) 01:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Then the rest of its content would be essentially be political/cultural commentary, correct? 24.156.179.25 (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
That Chaya Raichik is a distributor of disinformation is more than adequately sourced in the article. Zaathras (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, we have excellent sourcing attesting that she has spread disinformation. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Whether or not she has spread disinformation is not the point. The point is how *much* disinformation has to be spread in order for the account be deemed as a disinformation account; thus putting that in the very first sentence of the article? If it just takes one instance, that could apply to virtually every social media account. There has to be proof her account is used to *frequently* spread disinformation, and based on her tweets, they primarily seem to be sharing of TikToks with her opinionized summary of the video. And you would also need to distinguish a wrong opinion from disinformation; perhaps this article (and many others) conflates the two. 24.156.179.25 (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Asked and answered. Zaathras (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Not really actually. Just because articles say LoTT is a disinformation account doesn't mean it automatically is. What is their criteria for calling it so? These articles are often partisan which do sway credibility. There is no basis as to how frequent "disinformation" has to be in order for the account to be considered a disinformation account. If I tweeted 2 + 2 = 5 on twitter does that make my account a disinformation account?
Also saying LoTT reposts content with "hostile/derogatory commentary" is simply hyperbolic. Most of the time the commentary is more or less neutral. Take this tweet for instance, nothing hostile here. https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1598034705164926976?s=20&t=js3vQTejA9Hyh49WhqtFhQ
That sentence in the article makes it seem as if every tweet is of that nature, when in reality, yes while you can see some partisanship/opinionated view from the tweets, they are not outright "inflammatory". As I've reiterated, a simple opinion of others' content is not inherently derogatory. There is little to no actual commentary made by LoTT, instead there are mostly summaries with, again, slight partisanship after some analyzation. 24.156.179.25 (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
"Just because articles say LoTT is a disinformation account doesn't mean it automatically is." If the sources are reliable, then as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it does mean that. Everything else you're saying is just your own opinion, which is irrelevant. We follow the sources, period. --Pokelova (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
But that's part of the problem. The sources are "reliable" as long as they don't lean right. If they lean left (such as Media Matters) more often than not Wikipedia will find them a-OK to use. Meanwhile sites like the New York Post & Daily Wire are seen as far-right disinformation sources. There is no objective "reliability" when it comes to politics as it is not math or science. Maybe one day NYP & DW will be seen as reliable enough to be used on this website, and then these sources can be used to counter the narrative that LoTT is some hate machine only used to spread false information (rather than opinion). 24.156.179.25 (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
We don't judge sources by the ideology they lean to, but rather if they have a history and reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and such. That most reliable sources lend to lean left and many right-leaning ones are deemed unreliable is just a reflection of the real-world situation that "reality has a well-known liberal bias". Zaathras (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Take it up with WP:RS/Noticeboard, talk pages of individual articles aren't really the place for this discussion. --Pokelova (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
This seems like you disagree with how Wikipedia determines a source is reliable, not with the specifics of this article. if that's the case, then the proper place for this discussion is over at WT:RS or WP:RSN, not here on this specific talk page. On this page, we are tasked with applying those policies and guidelines to this article, not with rewriting policies to fit what we want in the article. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
That's part of it, sure, but mostly using left-leaning sources (which do include their biases) lead to violating WP:NPOV. It can't be neutral if almost entirely all the sources used are against LoTT. 24.156.179.25 (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
With all due respect, this is not how WP:NPOV works, despite its perhaps somewhat misleading name. NPOV means means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. That does not mean we strive for any sense of false objectivity or "fairness." If something gets a reception in the reliable sources with a notable angle, it should have it on Wikipedia as well. That's what you are seeing here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't The New York Times; we don't give equal validity to any and all opposing viewpoints. No actual leftist would say that mainstream sources like The Washington Post and the CBC are left-leaning either. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The Washington Post and CBC are both obviously left-leaning, but they're considered reliable sources, which is what matters here. Still, referring to Libs of TikTok as a "disinformation Twitter account" is ridiculous, and doesn't even reflect what the sources say. A few articles do say (I think incorrectly) that Libs of TikTok includes disinformation, but none of them refer to it as a "disinformation Twitter account" - a phrase that would seem to imply that this Twitter account exists in order to deliberately mislead. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
You understand that the difference between misinformation and disinformation is whether or not the misleading is deliberate, correct? You don't get to disagree with the sources, you can only offer other sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I do disagree with some of the sources, but that's not the relevant issue here. A few sources do say that LoTT has provided disinformation, but none (as far as I know) have called LoTT a "disinformation account" - a much stronger accusation. I think Wikipedia alone, at the moment, is making that claim. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Its either not relevant or its the core of your argument... It can't be both. How is that a stronger accusation? It seems like a different way of stating the same thing, a "disinformation account" = "an account which publishes disinformation," no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
No, just like (to take an anodyne example) "singer" does not mean "anyone who has ever sung in front of an audience". This is a massive accusation, and it needs extremely good sourcing, as opposed to the current extremely weak sourcing, which is a few articles that put "Libs of TikTok" and "disinformation" in the same sentence. (The WaPo article doesn't even actually say that Libs of TikTok has committed disinformation, though it does imply it.) Korny O'Near (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Just because articles say LoTT is a disinformation account doesn't mean it automatically is. What is their criteria for calling it so?
We don't deal with what "is", nor with what criteria RS use for deciding what to write. We take RS to be just that: reliable sources. Jibal (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Bias

Per user:Zaathras, glorified complaining thread Dronebogus (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

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

And frankly, this article is a borderline defamatory hit piece. CandleinDarkness (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Everything in this article is backed by reliable sources. There's no defamation taking place here. — Czello 09:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
does "reliable" mean that it came from cnn or daily beast? because that is not neutral or reliable. it has been proven that cnn is a far left news organization which intentionally slants media, same with washington post and new york times. if you only claim that cnn is "neutral" and claim that fox is not equally as unbiased, then you are defaming intentionally groups. check out allsides media bias chart. cnn, nyt, vox, etc are far left, washington post is fairly left, rcp, new york post, washington times, those are less biased than cnn, nyt, wp, hp, etc. 2603:6080:A000:721E:E83F:799B:7352:9277 (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
First, please take note of WP:NLT. Secondly, have you considered that allsides may have something of its own agenda? Or does the fact that it gives you answers you like mean you trust it? Either way, Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Bias is not equivalent to how far away from the centre you are. The allsides media chart itself acknowledges this. Wikipedia determines which sources are reliable based on their historic accuracy, not on their slant. 58.178.108.163 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Actually this is untrue, though it is untrue because of an unsourced statement that seems to be conservative-biased. There is a claim in the account suspensions section that on December 9 it was revealed that "twitter operated with bias" in suspending the account, and cites a source that does not support this. The Al Jazeera article is focused on how reach was affected, and only mentions that conservative accounts tended to be affected (which isn't what bias is). In fact the article is just saying that a journalist concluded there were blacklists, and that Musk still thinks that twitter is biased. 58.178.108.163 (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I was planning on bringing that up actually, I believe you are correct that that addition is not entirely supported by the source. @Domiy:, would you care to comment as the person who added it? --Pokelova (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I would wager the essence of the article can be conveyed by removing the statement of bias, and just leaving the proceeding statement on Musk's beliefs, which would convey that there is an opinion among conservatives that internal documents show that LOTT and other conservative accounts were treated with bias. 58.178.108.163 (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Please see the block at the top. While you are entitled have such opinions, expressing them here does nothing to improve the article. This is not a blog; please take blog-like comments elsewhere. Jibal (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Korny -- how in heaven's name in any universe is your example wrong, or much less "defamatory"? The Post language says She also purported that adults who teach children about LGBTQ+ identities are “abusive,” that being gender-nonconforming or an ally to the LGBTQ+ community is a “mental illness,” and referred to schools as “government run indoctrination camps” for the LGBTQ+ community. The post from LoTT said Stop sending your kids to government run indoctrination camps over a post from a preschool. There is literally zero interpretation in the Post quote. It doesn't matter if LoTT intended a few discrete schools, some subset of schools, or all schools, precisely because all of those same ranges could apply to the language used by the Post. Dumuzid (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, that's the silliest form of verbal trickery; I think everyone knows that "all schools" is implied. Here's a random example: do you believe that some people in Norway are criminals and degenerates? If you do, can we have it on record that you have "referred to Norwegians as criminals and degenerates"? Korny O'Near (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Korny, it is the exact same ambiguous language. Your magical simultaneous mind reading of both LoTT and the Washington Post is not a reason to change a Wikipedia article. Dumuzid (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
If the Washington Post writes something that you admit is ambiguous, why do we need to quote it at all? Especially when it's so easily prone to misinterpretation? Korny O'Near (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Because it's a reliable source's interpretation of an undoubted statement by the article subject. Whether referring to a few schools, many schools, or all schools, calling them "indoctrination camps" seems notable and worthy of inclusion. Dumuzid (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Sure, any of those specific statements would be notable. But if, as you claim, the Washington Post's statement is ambiguous and we don't know which of those they mean, it seems awfully confusing to just put that wording out there (in wikivoice!) and let each reader decide what it means. Our goal is to inform, not obfuscate. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
But it's ambiguous because the source statement is ambiguous, as you said initially. When a source statement is ambiguous, it make sense that the reporting would be so as well . I went in to this thinking "well, Korny says 'defamatory,' must be something there." But it's about the furthest thing from. Dumuzid (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I do think it's defamatory (and unambiguous, and incorrect). You clearly think it's ambiguous. Either way, it doesn't belong in its current form. The philosphy of "If a reliable source says something confusing, put it in wikivoice without further explanation, to pass on the confusion to readers" is silly, and I think contrary to Wikipedia principles. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
When you have consensus for that change, go ahead and make it. Dumuzid (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Hang on, you're saying that because the source isn't as accurate as possible, it should be ignored? That is surely a greater obfuscation. Additionally, the Post is being no more general than LOTT - their original post is not being specific. They use a preschool as an example, then say to "stop sending your kids to indoctrination camps". This latter part is imprecise language as much as the Post's language was. If it's obvious the Post is referring to all schools then it's just as obvious that LOTT is too. There's no reason for us to think they aren't referring to primary schools or high schools that teach the same things.
But I disagree strongly that saying someone referred to schools as indoctrination camps reads as "they think all schools are indoctrination camps." Regardless I don't see how this is indicative of strong bias, it's very slightly ambiguous but it's not going to be significant unless you think that referring to a subset of schools as indoctrination camps is much more sane than thinking all of them are. In liue of better sources the alternative would be leaving this information out which would be far worse. 58.178.108.163 (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
What, in your view, is the important information that readers should know about Libs of TikTok, based on this nine-word tweet? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Well content guidelines aside:
As you rightly imply, there is limited information in this tweet. That's why this tweet is only being used as an example of the account's rhetoric as well as how it targets schools. In the context of this article, the statement that is apparently derived from this is also being used as an example - The first sentence in the paragraph sets up the point that the account "promotes conservatism and anti-lgbt rhetoric". It is not so relevant that they think a specific subset of schools are indoctrination camps, but rather that they are using this language at all to describe schools that give support for LGBT issues. It additionally serves as an example of the language that, as mentioned elsewhere in the article, RS's believe encourage harassment.
It would be inappropriate to flag this as a single example, since 200+ educational groups/individuals have been named by the account. If you can find a source stating that such attacks tend to be against certain schools e.g. Schools in democratic states, that could be a good way to ensure that readers don't see this as an anti-school thing.58.178.108.163 (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
What do you mean by It would be inappropriate to flag this as a single example - are you saying that it doesn't make sense to use this tweet as an example, given its ambiguity? If so, I agree. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I do believe that when it comes to some current event related pages, there is a heavy left wing bias and a sort of “dog pilling” effect for lack of a better word. For example, this page starts off by labeling LibsofTiktok “far right” and then using as its sources what I would consider questionable sources for this claim. Obviously this is a contentious topic, so taking left leanings sources definition of them at face value should not be done. It becomes a problem of letting “the other side” define them, which is not productive to writing a neutral article. Digital Herodotus (talk) 10:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Is NBC News widely regarded as a left-leaning source beyond right-wing circles that traditionally treat most all media outlets as liberal? I can understand your concern about some of the links being used as a source to the description of LoTT as "far-right" (I have never heard of Coda Media, for example), but as demonstrated recently in the debate just held about LoTT being an 'anti-LGBTQ account', it's not hard to find better-known, reliable sources for the same description. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
,,,what I would consider questionable sources for this claim, yes, but what you personally consider questionable is not important here. We go by what the community has decided, listed at WP:RSP. Zaathras (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Woah hold on there pal. We do not JUST go off of 1 page for our sources. A source can be questionable if it has bias, sidedness, history of misinformation, self-proposed claims, ect. Please do not just use the Perennial sources page for all of the source information. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
We don't, RSP only records consensus which results from extensive centralized conversations in which all of that is covered if relevant. If you disagree with the consensus recorded at RSP the only real way forward would be to start a new centralized conversation on WP:RSN to re-evaluate the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not you pal, sir. We use the RSP page as an FAQ of discussions past, so "new" users will not waste our time with perennial whinges about "bias", which is just shorthand for "I don't like it". Zaathras (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Chaya Raichik posts blatantly fake news slandering Democratic politician

Snopes has a page up debunking LoTT's shameless and shocking distortion of Katie Porter's argument. Where should this be placed in the entry? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

CNN's fact-checker joins the chorus: [1] Peleio Aquiles (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn’t the link in the final section about her appearance on Tucker Carlson be to the actual appearance, instead of an Advocate article on the appearance? The Advocate article includes subjective language in its opening sentence. The readers should have the right to think for themselves and have the chance to form their on opinion on the actual appearance, instead of a private publications TAKE on that appearance. StephenWolf1891 (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

No. The actual appearance could also be added, but we're under no obligation to remove otherwise-reliable sources merely because you disagree with their perspective. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Also, we generally don't link to primary sources on a topic, but secondary coverage of those events. Hence, using a secondary source discussing the video is the appropriate choice as a reference. SilverserenC 05:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't work with primary sources and, in any case, none of the "subjective" judgments of the writer were transcribed into the entry, only Raichik's own words on the LGBTQ community. It's ironic that her defenders, for lack of a better term, now have a problem with just "reposting" what people say. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Jan 6th Attack - Criminal Actions?

Following Raichik's appearance on Tucker Carlson, some left-wing commentators have potentially linked her to illegal actions during the January 6th attack. Can anyone find a more appropriate source than the one I used? CyanCat8991 CyanCat8991 05:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

This should probably be left out until we have mainstream sources reporting on it - we're talking about possible allegations of criminal acts and I'd rather we err on the side of caution here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Got it, I'll keep looking to see if I can find anything more credible given the allegations are really recent. CyanCat8991 CyanCat8991 05:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Stop censoring this talk page

I stand by my stance that aggressive removal of non-productive content is justified on an extremely controversial page like this, it’s a flamrwar magnet and a fundamental threat to civility and site respectability. Collapsing this was the right choice. Dronebogus (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Edits like this, this, this and this are all censorship and should be stopped. Dronebogus is the biggest offender, though sadly not the only one. WP:TALKOFFTOPIC makes it quite clear what can be deleted from talk pages: gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself (as opposed to comments and discussion about the treatment of the subject in the article). Opinions that you disagree with about this article do not fall into any of those categories, and thus should not be deleted, no matter how dumb you think they are. If you think a particular argument is very wrong, feel free to ignore it and move on - or collapse the section. But deleting it is not the answer. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a First Amendment platform, and talk pages are not free speech zones. Unconstructive posts can and should be removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
There's a specific guideline stating what can be deleted, and "unconstructive" is not one of the criteria. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
There’s also WP:IAR Dronebogus (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Plus some of these edits are borderline trolling Dronebogus (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Just want to briefly chime in to say that I personally wouldn't be as aggressive as Dronebogus here, but I think he is within a reasonable interpretation of the guidelines. As ever, reasonable minds may differ on where to draw such boundaries. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
It seems like even Dronebogus disagrees with you, since he went straight to "ignore all rules". But since you think the deletion was justified - I'm curious, what part of the guidelines do you think justifies deleting talk page opinions one disagrees with? And these aren't outlandish opinions, it's statements like "Libs of TikTok is not far right". Korny O'Near (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Considering you've argued that calling the LGBTQ community a poisonous, evil cult of groomers who are out to brainwash children isn't an anti-LGBT position, you're probably not the best judge on what's outlandish or not in this conversation. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
So, is it your view that "Libs of TikTok is not far right" is an outlandish opinion that deserves to be deleted from this talk page? If not, then what you just wrote is irrelevant. (Well, it's irrelevant either way, but still.) Korny O'Near (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Chaya Raichik's opinions on the LGBTQ community go well beyond those of mainstream conservatives, and can be described as incitement. By definition that's far-right. In addition, she participated to some degree in a far-right insurrection against an elected center-left government, hardly the hallmark of a moderate. And, most importantly, she's described as far-right in reliable sources that have already been inserted in the entry. I don't think we can walk that back without violating the guidelines, since it's unlikely a consensus will emerge that Raichik is only moderate right, especially with the kind of statements she's made the last few days. Her fans barging in every day as anonymous IPs or with 1-day old accounts to relitigate an old discussion without bringing any new facts to the table or an argument apart from the same old falsehood, that she only aggregates and reposts without comment, is getting tiresome and becoming disruptive. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
What you're saying may all be accurate, but again, none of what you're describing is deletable according to WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Spreads disinformation?

this is getting repetitive, WP:BLUDGEONy and WP:SEALIONy. Politely cease making similar requests to this. Dronebogus (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Do any reliable sources state that Libs of TikTok spreads disinformation, i.e. deliberate lies? I had previously thought that there were some, but now I don't see any - certainly not among the citations offered for the one sentence in this article that says something that effect: The account has been described as promoting harassment against and criticizing teachers, medical providers, and children's hospitals, while spreading mis- and disinformation and hateful commentary against marginalized groups by reposting videos and social media clips of LGBT people, teachers, schools and other institutions out of context and with incendiary framing. (Maybe not the most artful sentence, but that's another story.) Of the five citations for that sentence, only one even includes the word "disinformation" - this NPR article, which has it in the following text: Joan Donovan, who studies online extremism, media manipulation and disinformation at Harvard's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy. One editor, Zaathras, feels that is "sufficient" proof that someone has said that LoTT spreads disinformation. Obviously it's not, but I wonder if anyone knows of any actual citations for this claim. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, did you notice what that NPR special series is called? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh, interesting - "Untangling Disinformation". No, I didn't notice that. Does the name of the series count as proof that NPR considers LoTT to be disinformation? Or does it fall under the same aegis as headlines? Korny O'Near (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I've never had to deal with this in the context of a radio program before, prior contexts have been academic books... For example whether an event having a chapter in a book about war crimes was enough to call the event a war crime in wikivoice or whether we really needed it to explicitly say "X was a war crime." The decision there was that it was acceptable to make the characterization in wikivoice, but there is a world of difference between an academic book and a popular radio program... Here I think I'd err on the side of not making the characterization, but I do see how the argument could be made. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Korny, we recently went over this. I would invite you to review the hatted section "Disinformation" above. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I did read that "Disinformation" section, but couldn't find any articles linked there that actually say LoTT produces disinformation. But reading it again, I do see one now: this CBC article, which says The accounts often target and spread disinformation about the LGBTQ community. Interestingly, this article is also one of the only reliable sources for calling LoTT "anti-LGBTQ" - which perhaps suggests that this article, whose main thrust is that Shopify should ban LoTT, is more activism than sober journalism, but that's outside the scope of this talk page. It does seem like this CBC article should be added as a reference for "disinformation", and hopefully at the same time that huge sentence can be rewritten. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
You should stop projecting your grievances like that. At no point does CBC call on Shopify to drop LOTT, and you're unlikely to successfully cast doubts over the reliability of Canada's national broadcaster just because it describes Libs of TikTok, whose owner explicitly calls LGBT people an evil cult of groomers, as an anti-LGBT account. LOTT is anti-LGBT. LOTT has been linked even by police to online harassment and real life violence against LGBT people. Acknowledging these facts is not a violation of objectivity and reliability rules.Peleio Aquiles (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

If we say LoTT ONLY spreads disinfo, that's callously boneheaded, because LoTT largely simply reposts boneheaded TikToks. You have to be pretty delusional if you think it's all disinformation. If our article suggests the entire account is false, we're playing along with that delusion. 2600:1012:B02C:E082:258B:6205:3B60:9D50 (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

In what world is this only "reposting"? The pro-LOTT propaganda has gotten to a point on this Talk Page where it can only described as blatant lies. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I meant "only" as in, being misleading isn't the only thing the account does. If some sources say the account does disinfo, fine, but surely seeing how the account is behind some very well-deserved firings that were the result of a simple repost, that's not a fair characterization of the entirety of the account's work. If you ignore the commentary by Raichak, most people, especially those with children, would say LoTT has done significant good for the world. 2600:1012:B02C:E082:258B:6205:3B60:9D50 (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Your positions would be far more persuasive if you pointed us to reliable sources to support them. Cheers, and Happy New Year to all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Any news article about a teacher who lost their job due to LoTT is an affirmation of their work, in my opinion. My positions are irrelevant, but in case you're wondering, I do think she has erred with a lot of her commentary, as much as I admire the action. 2600:1012:B02C:E082:258B:6205:3B60:9D50 (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Can you point me to such a story in a reliable source? Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous argument. And especially hypocritical considering that conservatives are always whining about taking the risk of losing their jobs or incurring in some other form of social penalty for supposedly just voicing their political views.Peleio Aquiles (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I doubt there's a single political or activist source, including among those that are generally described as conspiracy theorists and disinformation agents, that lies 100% of the time, so the point you make is a very banal one. I don't think, either, that the fact some of LOTT's targets have lost their jobs proves the righteousness of her crusade, considering how weakly workers' rights are protected in the US, and that the firing could be a result of the employers' own biases or lack of courage to stand up to a braying mob shouting obscene insults and death threats. In fact, by way of gauging popular sentiment, lately we see that, even in states like Texas, LOTT-inspired protests against drag events and children's hospitals are significantly outnumbered by counterprotesters. I understand that it's a quirk of conservative thought to believe they always speak for the so-called silent majority, but that stubborness only leads to complacency and disappointment, such as the failure to foresee Trump's defeat in 2020, the recent pro-abortion results in petitions voted in such states as Kansas and Kentucky, and the shabby performance of the GOP in the midterms. Most Americans are turned off by social conservatism nowadays, and few things are freakier to them than the trans/drag obsession incited by the likes of LOTT. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Hey Dumuzid, are you going to ask for reliable sources to back up this litany of opinion? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Why should they? I'm not trying to insert my opinions in the entry, like you're doing with yours. And my post was prompted by another from an anonymous IP that baffingly argued that having people fired from their jobs is proof of one's righteousness and popular support. Weird how for that opinion you don't ask for sources... Peleio Aquiles (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
As I say below, I basically agree with you here, though I also think it would be helpful if we could pull back on the content veering towards WP:NOTAFORUM territory. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
No. One strikes me as seeking changes to the article, the other does not. Dumuzid (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

If you're going to try to make the argument that public school teachers are easy to fire in the US, good luck... 2600:1012:B04F:4EF3:467:489:2F43:A38C (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Dronebogus - I don't especially care if you collapse this section, but referring to my questions as BLUDGEONy or SEALIONy is rather ridiculous. There was a rather aggressive statement being made (that some have accused Libs of TikTok of disinformation, i.e. lying), and none of the references provided for that statement backed it up. My attempt to improve the situation was not just justified but necessary. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Unverifiable categories

There are a number of seemingly unverifiable categories here - categories not backed up the article text, either because the statement is attributed to someone, or it's not stated at all. For example, the fact that someone from the ACLU once said that Libs of TikTok "is finding new characters for right-wing propaganda" is not enough to qualify this article for the category Propaganda in the United States. Here are the categories that I think are not backed up, and should be removed:

  • American conspiracy theorists (doubly unverifiable, since Libs of TikTok is not a person)
  • Anti-black racism in the United States
  • Conspiracist media
  • Disinformation operations
  • Political extremism in the United States
  • Propaganda in the United States

Korny O'Near (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument that Libs of TikTok is not a person given your repeated arguments that BLP applies to everything about LoTT because it is the work of a single person. Is this the page for Libs of TikTok/Chaya Raichik or does she have her own wikipedia page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
That's an odd question - the answer is neither; it's a page about Libs of TikTok. That's why this page doesn't belong to categories like, say, "Living people". Anyway, this is a rather minor issue in this context. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Chaya Raichik is bold in the intro. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Looking through the sources and the article the last three do not appear to be supported. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
For #1, this article is about a person who is more widely-known by her Twitter handle. A personal twitter account does not exist in a vacuum, independent of the individual who logs in as it. Korny can't seem to wrap his head around this despite several very patient attem0pts to explain. #2 appears to be a stretch, and I would not fight for its retention. 3-6 are supported in the article. Zaathras (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I would respond more to the "Twitter accounts are people" argument, but I don't think it's that relevant here. Anyway, where is the justification in the text for adding any of these categories? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I accept your concession of #1, then. As to 3-6, I think this is pretty self-evident. If the body mentions Raichik spreading disinformation, and that passage is sourced, then a categorization as a disinfo operation is appropriate. Zaathras (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
As I said in the beginning, the issue is attribution vs. wikivoice. The article notes that some people have described LoTT as spreading disinformation, but it doesn't say that LoTT spreads disinformation. (And actually, calling it a "disinformation operation" is a step beyond that.) Korny O'Near (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
@Zaathras: "The Hate-Fueled and Hugely Influential World of Libs of TikTok" supports #2, it says "Raichik … holds an especially pronounced animosity toward … Black people who have been killed at the hands of police." CJ-Moki (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Chaya Raichik was present at the January 6 United States Capitol attack

The phrase is misleading without mentioning that she didn't enter the building Levolkha (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Entry into the building is not necessary to establish a violation of the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752 CyanCat8991 CyanCat8991 18:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a citation that confirms a violation of the law? Levolkha (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I apologize if I am missing something, but I am not quite sure what you think is misleading? The present text does not appear to me to say she broke the law. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
So it should elaborate that she didn't enter the building, in order to not be misleading? 73.73.127.102 (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
No, only if that's what the sources say. --Aquillion (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

"Fans and supporters" sentence in lede

Fans and supporters of Libs of TikTok describe the account as simply reposting content showcasing "sex and gender ideology" that was already publicly available.[1][2][3][4]
  1. ^ Bond, Shannon (26 August 2022). "Children's hospitals are the latest target of anti-LGBTQ harassment". All Things Considered. NPR. Retrieved 27 August 2022.
  2. ^ Hansford, Amelia (2022-08-18). "Hate-fuelled Libs of TikTok suspended from Facebook: 'Your move Twitter'". PinkNews. Retrieved 2022-08-18.
  3. ^ Starr, Michael (2022-04-21). "US Right, Left clash on orthodox Jewish activist's 'doxxing'". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2022-04-24.
  4. ^ McLaughlin, Dan (2022-09-07). "Don't Apply Different Speech Rules to Libs of TikTok". National Review. Retrieved 2022-09-08.

The NPR source doesn't go into the supporters' views in depth, the PinkNews and Jerusalem Post sources mention their opinions in single sentences, the former of which also notes that "the account’s followers are rabidly anti-LGBTQ+ and routinely attack individuals whose content is shared," and WP:NATIONALREVIEW says that "Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be attributed." I believe the sentence in the lede is placing WP:UNDUE weight on the supporters' opinions. CJ-Moki (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

There's a whole section of this article with all kinds of commentators saying essentially variations of the same thing - that the main focus, and benefit, of the account is in its reposting of already-public content. Surely a one-sentence summary of this sentiment belongs in the intro? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The National Review is indeed a suspect source for factual claims, but as an established, prominent source of views from the American right-wing perspective, there should be no problem using it as a source for partisan positions, and this is how the entry handles the (false) argument that Chaya Raichik does nothing but make reposts -- as a position of her supporters and not as an objective truth. In short, I think the use the entry was making of the National Review was appropriate. And the introduction should also acknowledge this argument again, in my view. If there can be a sizable section detailing what LoTT supporters have said in its defense, then there's nothing wrong with reinserting that argument back into the introduction, which, after all, should serve as a summary of the article as a whole. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

"Animosity toward black people" quote

We've had some back and forth on this in the lead, and in the interest of stopping (or ceasing) any edit wars, I think we should discuss here. My gut instinct (without much investigation) is that the source is good, but I am not sure it belongs in the lead, where it might be a bit unduly prominent. That said, I'd like to hear from any and all other interested parties. So, CJ-Moki? Korny O'Near? Anyone else? Thanks in advance. Dumuzid (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Support with a direct quote. The source describes it as an "especially pronounced animosity" with multiple manifestations, as opposed to an otherwise non-notable prejudice. CJ-Moki (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I think on balance the quote should be in the article, I am just not sure it belongs in the lead as it strikes me as something of an outlier (though from a reliable source). I would, ideally, want this from multiple places to have it "up front and center," as it were. Do you have thoughts on that prominence aspect specifically? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: Several other claims in the lede are sourced to one source. Should they also be removed (not a rhetorical question)? I think not, and thus believe that the quote about "animosity toward black people" should be in the lede, sourced to the Slate article. CJ-Moki (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Again, it's not strictly about single sourcing, but it's something that doesn't feel to me especially present in other sources (though I could absolutely be wrong about that). Is the account known for anti-LGBT content? Without a doubt, and there seems to be wide agreement on that. I don't see as much notice of racism, even in regard to police violence and the like. But again, I am old and though I am on Twitter, I curate the experience pretty carefully, so my social media knowledge is parochial at best. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@CJ-Moki: Could you please discuss this addition of yours here, instead of just engaging in a slow-motion edit war? The justification you offered for your latest revert, The lede is supposed to summarize the article, this info is included further down, seems absurd on its face - since, if every fact contained in the article merited inclusion in the intro, the intro would by necessity be as long as the article. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep in lead. But no one is proposing we duplicate everything into the lead. This quote summarizes content better developed in the body that deserves mention in the lead. It describes a common far-right, white nationalist, racist phenomenon we've seen every time a high-profile killing of a black man by the police happens. It's a "blue lives matter more than black lives" expression of racism. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
There's exactly one sentence about it in the body. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
But it covers more in that paragraph. See my comment below. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep in the article, not in the lead, and remove the anti-black racism category. Both a lead mention and compliance with WP:CATDEF would require more coverage of this aspect than just the one article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, right at this moment the case for this one in the lede is a little thin, and IMO it weakens the legitimate stuff that 100% should be retained, e.g. disinfo and propaganda categorizations. This is one Slate writer making one observation. IS there anything else out there regarding Raichick's overtly anti-black posturing? Zaathras (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The sentence in the lead summarizes the content matter in this paragraph:

"Libs of TikTok has denied the existence of systemic racism, but argued that racism against white people was "flourishing" in the United States. Reporting by Slate stated that "Raichik's feed is colored by an intense hostility to liberals generally, but she holds an especially pronounced animosity toward LGBTQ people, city dwellers, and Black people who have been killed at the hands of police", noting that the account has defended and endorsed incidents of police brutality, including the murder of George Floyd and the killing of Ma'Khia Bryant.

One sentence covers that. The alternative is to flesh it out even more in the lead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

So according to Slate, LoTT has said various right-wing things about race and racism. There's no way to summarize them in the article other than via synthesis, since Slate hasn't summarized them; it just lists them all. The sentence in the lead doesn't summarize them either; it just repeats one of them. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
So are you implying we should also mention more from the body, IOW the two examples in the body that are referred to by that one sentence in the lead? I think the sentence covers it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You have raised an existing problem, and that is the fact that the sentence is inadequate. Here's the current version:

"In addition to attacking LGBT people, Raichik "holds an especially pronounced animosity toward ... Black people who have been killed at the hands of police.""

The solution is to make it fully summarize the parts of the paragraph not already covered in the lead:

"In addition to attacking LGBT people, Raichik shows animosity toward city dwellers and Black people killed by the police."

That covers it better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, that's not a summary, it's a copy of one sentence. (Though changed from a quote to wikivoice, for some reason.) There's no need to summarize/excerpt any of this - among reliable sources, only one writer for Slate thinks LoTT's views on race (or city dwellers, for that matter) are important. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Revision 1126499715

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

With all due respect, WP:NPOV says that neutrality for our purposes means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Wikipedia should have the opinion(s) of the reliable sources. If you can get consensus for this change (maybe you can), then it's certainly warranted. I don't think it's an improvement, but I am just one editor. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I believe that the sentance in its current state can be taken as Wikipedia being directly against the subject in question. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
That's fair, but I believe differently. As such, we have to trust to the wisdom of consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Neutrality is not both-sideism. It is not a breach of the website's impartiality rules to identify conspiracy theories and harassment as such. At the basis of Wikipedia's current politics entries, are the news articles published in reliable sources, and if these articles have no compunctions about describing Libs of TikTok as an anti-LGBT account that drives harassment against its targets, then neither should Wikipedia.
And just one more thing: when news broke out that police was investigating a bomb threat against the Boston Children's Hospital, Raichik repeatedly claimed the threat must have come from a "leftist troll" who was trying to get her suspended. Unsurprisingly, it turned out she was wrong about the identity of the would-be bomber, but her posts showed she understands very well the connection between her posts and the violence that subsequently reaches her targets. So, it would be nice if all of Wikipedia's editors remained as clear-minded about Libs of TikTok's impact as Raichik herself is. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 Courtesy link: Special:Diff/1126499715
If RS generally consider something to be the case, Wikipedia does too. This is just WP:WEASEL ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
This change is WP:WEASEL and I agree with its reversion as above. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
This site is not "Far-Right" and it does not promote or encourage violence against others. This site merely reposts videos made by people without edits or changes. It is right wing but it is not "Far-Right" Jimsabode (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
If it was true that Chaya Raichik does nothing besides reposting content, half a dozen fact-checkers wouldn't have needed to come out last week to say she was spreading dangerous misinformation about US Rep Katie Porter. That she just reposts can only be described as an Orwellian lie. In any case, at no moment the entry alleges that Chaya Raichik explicitly condones the violence she arguably incites, so that's a moot point. Far-Right is not synonym with violent. She has, however, voiced plenty of opinions that, though not explicitly violent, are extremist for a liberal democracy: that openly gay teachers should be fired, that men should be banned from cross-dressing... Lately she's also described the LGBTQ community as evil groomers. These are not mainstream conservative positions, at least not ones conservative leaders voice in public anymore. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2022

collapsing purely for utilitarian purposes

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

 Not done. Please provide a Reliable Source stating that. –Daveout(talk) 00:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Lol. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Is there actually a reliable source stating that Libs of TikTok is an anti-LGBT Twitter account? If so, I haven't seen it. There certainly are reliable references for it being a far-right Twitter account, but I haven't seen any for calling it anti-LGBT. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
The Slate article I recently added explicitly calls it anti-trans, and basically all of the coverage focuses on it's anti-lgbt activity. I do not think calling it an anti-lgbt account is a leap. --Pokelova (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
There are two Slate articles cited - this one from April 2022, and this one from December 2022. Interestingly, they both say that Libs of TikTok includes anti-trans content - the first mentions "anti-trans missives", while the second mentions "anti-trans activity" - but neither one actually says that the account itself is anti-trans. (The second one does call it an "Anti-Trans Hate Account" in its headline - which is what you may have been referring to - but headlines don't count.) "Anti-trans" is of course not the same as "anti-LGBT", but it still would appear that there's not a single reliable source calling Libs of TikTok either one of those. Korny O'Near (talk) Korny O'Near (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I disagree, Anti-Trans is very much anti LesbianGayBisexualTrans PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
This not the first time you've made this argument that anti-LGBTQ can't be reduced to any of the constituent letters, consensus was against you last time and is against you this time. Drop the stick. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Drop what stick? "Anti-trans" is obviously a subset of "anti-LGBT", not a synonym. Anyway, this is all irrelevant if there are no reliable sources calling Libs of TikTok either one of them. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Al Jazeera English has a recent article on the Twitter Files, and it says Libs of TikTok drives harassment against LGBT people. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Does it say that Libs of TikTok is itself anti-LGBT? There's no shortage of sources that say that this account has written one or another anti-LGBT thing - but I haven't seen any sources that say that the account itself is anti-LGBT. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I would start with these: The New Republic; The Washington Blade; an NBC News opinion piece by a professor; The CBC; and Gizmodo. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful. I don't think this is quite the preponderance of evidence that it appears to be. The NBC News piece I don't think actually calls LoTT anti-LGBT (plus, it's an opinion piece). According to WP:RSP, opinions in The New Republic should be attributed (and this is clearly an opinion), there's no consensus on whether Gizmodo is reliable for topics outside "technology, popular culture, and entertainment", or for controversial statements (and this clearly fits the bill for both), and the Washington Blade is not even listed. So I believe the only unimpeachably reliable source found so far for LoTT being an anti-LGBT Twitter account is the CBC article, which indeed refers to it as "multiple anti-LGBTQ social media accounts" (they're counting the Facebook, etc. accounts as well). Given the relative paucity of evidence (many reliable sources have written about LoTT, but only one fully reliable source has called it anti-LGBT), I think this is better written as an attributed opinion, e.g. "Various sources have described Libs of TikTok as anti-LGBT". Korny O'Near (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I would also add this from the ADL. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
The ADL is also not considered reliable for this exact purpose ("the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL (particularly as antisemitic) should be attributed"), but it's still interesting. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Fair point. For me, I still think there's enough to use wikivoice, though I am not militantly opposed to some "various sources" or "widely described" phrasing. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Slate says of Chaya Raichik that, "she holds an especially pronounced animosity toward LGBTQ people..." Is there a brief way to formulate that in the article? Yes, and it's by calling Libs of TikTok "anti-LGBT". People with anti-LGBTQ positions will resist being called that once the label is stigmatized, but we don't have to bite the bait. Raichik's activism has harmed plenty of LGB people, starting with the obvious example of drag queens, most of whom are gay men, not trans people. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Let me quote that Slate sentence in full: One notable trend was clear: Raichik’s feed is colored by an intense hostility to liberals generally, but she holds an especially pronounced animosity toward LGBTQ people, city dwellers, and Black people who have been killed at the hands of police. I see no way to briefly formulate this, not that we're obligated to briefly formulate it. This also doesn't seem like something that should go into wikivoice, unless you also want the intro to call LoTT an "anti-city-dweller account". Korny O'Near (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
A typically moronic and boring reply. City-dwellers don't make up even 1% of her targets on social media posts, and almost no reliable source articles pay attention to that one position of Chaya Raichik's. You can WP:BLUDGEON all you want, but has that served you at all so far? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
It sounds like you're using your personal analysis to determine which of that Slate article's statements are true (and thus should be put in wikivoice), and which are false (and thus should be ignored altogether). Please see WP:OR; not to mention WP:PA. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Actually, my argument is based on one of Wikipedia's key guiding policies, WP:DUE. Chaya Raichik's anti-LGBT activism receives orders of magnitude more coverage in reliable sources than her other positions, so that's where the focus of editors should be. Also, Korny, let's not pretend you actually want us to call LoTT "anti-city dweller" or "pro-police violence against Black people", like Slate does; you merely want us to remove the "anti-LGBT" label, so don't pretend to be following the spirit of the Slate article; you're doing the opposite. Keep shopping those policies, though; the previous 5 months didn't seem to lead you anywhere, but I'm sure victory is just around the corner, now! Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what you're getting at (other than just being rude) - the last big change I tried to get made to this article, removing "disinformation" from the first sentence, was in fact done. And I certainly am not pretending I want to get "anti-city dweller" added to this article; I was making a rhetorical point about the benefit of attributing opinions, instead of putting them in wikivoice, when they're controversial and there's no unanimity on them. Many sources have indeed commented on the statements made by LoTT about gay and trans people, but few (maybe just one) have called the account itself anti-LGBT. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
There's no controversy about Libs of TikTok being anti-LGBT in reliable sources, as opposed to the opinions of LoTT's fans on Wikipedia. You've posted in this section 10 times in 3 days. That's plenty of opportunity to present an actual RS making the claim that LoTT is not anti-LGBT, if there's even such a source at all, but you've done nothing of the kind, so I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you know of no such source. Instead, you're trying to hang on a source, the Slate article, that far from saying that LoTT is not anti-LGBT, says, on the contrary, that LoTT practices a number of bigotries in addition to the anti-LGBT one. You must know the anti-LGBT description can't be removed based on that article. Why not letting go, then? Why keep WP:BLUDGEONing? You're not helping yourself; you're just giving the impression that you're trying to strong-arm other editors by inundating the Talk Page with your posts (and using arguments that are, frankly, very lazy and ill-thought out), thus making other editors more resistant to your suggestions and distrustful of your ideas. Friendly advice: pick your battles. And trying to convince people that LoTT, an account that says gay teachers should be fired from their jobs for being out in their workplace, is not anti-LGBT, is the most uphill of battles. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I think both of yall are starting to get a bit heated over this article. There are identifyiable reliable sources that state that Libs of TikTok is anti-lgbt. Lets try to not start a talk-page war over this, as it is getting out of hand. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Someone here is indeed getting overheated (and making constant personal attacks) - I don't think I am, but others may disagree. Anyway, I believe there's exactly one identifiable reliable source that has explicitly called Libs of TikTok an anti-LGBT account: the CBC. We should at least be able to agree on the facts. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
This is a lie, as you know; you yourself quoted above the Slate article as saying that LoTT is especially hostile to LGBT people among others, which means the same thing as being anti-LGBT. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
No, it doesn't mean the same, thing; "anti-LGBT account" implies an additional level of intent, i.e. that being anti-LGBT is inherent to the account. Whatever you think of Libs of TikTok, the Slate article doesn't say that. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
A distinction without a difference. Saying the account is especially obsessed with maligning or mocking LGBT people, is the same thing as saying that the account has an anti-LGBT intent. And Slate is not alone. The Guardian comes very close to describing LoTT in the same way as the entry does: This weekend’s story time event was shared by Libs of TikTok, a rightwing anti-LGBTQ+ social media account with more than a million followers, SFGate reported. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, okay, you've found a second source - that does change things, in my opinion. This and the CBC article should be added to the WP article as references. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I dont see any obvious personal attacks? Who is attacking? PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Peleio Aquiles has called my responses "typically moronic and boring" and "very lazy and ill-thought out", and generally been rude. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
You can avoid criticism by trying to give more thoughts to your arguments and treating other editors' intellect with more respect. Don't try to claim, for example, there's a difference between being "especially hostile to LGBT people" and being "anti-LGBT"; that is not a clever addition to debate -- and doesn't reek of good faith discussion, either, to be honest. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
"I would stop insulting you if you just agreed with me" is not a great defense, really. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I would respectfully suggest that what we're debating here is the porous border between synthesis and summary. Obviously the finer distinctions are always going to exist in the eye of the beholder. Peleio, Korny is right that this exact phrasing isn't found in straight news sources all that much, but Korny, Peleio is somewhat right in that we can summarize some other sources in good faith and wind up in basically the same place. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Other instances of direct description of LoTT as "anti-LGBT(Q+)": [2][3][4][5][6] Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I think of those, only The Hill counts, but still, that's something. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
No, PinkNews I’m pretty sure is reliable. Dronebogus (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
WP:RSP says that There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. So it's pretty borderline. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Chaya Raichik has now gone on record as referring to the LGBTQ community as an evil cult that brainwashes youth. This should put to rest the absurd debate as to whether or not Libs of TikTok is an anti-LGBTQ account -- supposing this debate was ever held in good faith, that is. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I think there's still the open question of what she means by "the LGBTQ community" - does she mean every LGBTQ person, or does she mean activists and others who view themselves as speaking for a larger community? My guess would be the latter, since as far as I know she's never said anything negative about anyone based solely on their sexual orientation/identity. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
You're free to believe what you want no matter how baseless, but that's original research. Raichik doesn't come across as bright at all in her interview, so I'm not convinced there are layers to her argument.
If Raichik cared about not inciting against LGBTQ people as a whole, she could have made this (odd) distinction in the interview or in her comment about the interview, but she did no such thing either time. She's leaning in on being outrageous, either because that's what she truly feels, or because that's what's good for business.
As to the idea she never incited against anyone on the basis of orientation and identity: she has referred to being trans/LGBT as a mental illness, called on openly gay teachers to be fired from work, and opined that men should be banned from dressing in women's clothes. In fact, relatively few of her targets are professional activists. They're usually, instead, teachers, doctors, or drag queens. To call them all activists is to politicize LGBTQ existence as a whole.
Her new comments are consistent with the widely held impression that she's hostile to LGBTQ existence in itself. And the most parsimonious and objective interpretation are that she meant what she said, that the LGBT community are an evil cult preying on children. Anything else is mind-reading. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
No mind-reading, or reading of "layers", is required - a surface evaluation of her beliefs would suggest that she is against teaching about gay and trans identity to children (whether from teachers or entertainers such as drag queens), against trans-related medical intervention in children, and generally doesn't think "transgender" is a real identity. Whether those collectively constitute being anti-LGBTQ is a matter of opinion, but I don't think her latest statement is proof of anything beyond that. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that a "surface evaluation" of her beliefs absolves her of homophobic or transphobic agitation. And even if all she did was calling for a ban on "teaching about gay and trans identity to children", that's still a homophobic and transphobic position. Why censoring knowledge about gay and trans identity and not straight or cis identity if not for homophobia and transphobia? How about gay parents of children — how can they raise children, and explain to them what their family is like and why it differs from most other families, without explaining what being gay is? Selective censorship of gay people is homophobic by most people's standards. But Raichik goes beyond even that homophobic position — she's called on gay teachers to be fired for being out at work. This is putting gay people back into the closet. And this is most consistent with her now clearly stated belief that the LGBTQ community are just evil and guilty of grooming.
Regardless, what you propose here — "a surface evaluation of her beliefs" in order to change the meaning of her new comments — is WP:SYNTH, and it would be very surprising if you didn't know that. Attacking "the LGBTQ community" as evil is objectively an inflammatory and homophobic position. If this debate was held in good faith, as I said above, her new comments should bury any doubts, but... Peleio Aquiles (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's synthesis, though you could argue that it's original research. (As are all of your opinions here, of course - but that's allowed on talk pages.) But not wanting gay teachers to come out to their students fits in with not wanting the concept of homosexuality to be taught to children, and doesn't necessarily indicate a wider animus towards gay people. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
No offense but I think it's time to cut the bullshit and the whitewashing that you have been trying to push for too long already. Peleio Aquiles is saint for having that amount of patience to explain the obvious. –Daveout(talk) 20:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
By the way, that "not wanting gay teachers to come out to their students fits in with not wanting the concept of homosexuality to be taught to children, and doesn't necessarily indicate a wider animus towards gay people" reminded me of this article from The Onion: "Teacher Fired For Breaking State’s Critical Race Theory Laws After Telling Students She’s Black". Lol. –Daveout(talk) 21:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful commentary. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Raichik is now on record referring to the LGBTQ community as groomers. Why did you remove that from the introduction? For months the entry has quoted things she said during her call-ins on Tucker Carlson's show. I don't see a reason to banish her recent comments to a section at the end of the entry. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, this is already a separate topic, but if this is the edit of mine you're referring to, there were various things wrong with the wording you chose - the phrase LGBT people, especially supporters of LGBT youth doesn't make sense, for instance. As to why her recent comments on Tucker Carlson Today don't belong in the main section, it's because this article is called "Libs of TikTok", not "Chaya Raichik". Korny O'Near (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Korny O'Near Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see anything wrong with what you’ve said. It seems you’re just trying to ensure the article is being held to its encyclopedic standards. Either way, it’s disheartening to see a seemingly well-meaning editor being treated this way. MiddleAgedBanana (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Korny O'Near I agree with MiddleAgedBanana. Thank you for taking the time to argue with these bigots. 195.189.27.22 (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I find that he really gets in the way of my bigotry, and I could do without that, but to each their own, I suppose. Dumuzid (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Lol what? this article is called "Libs of TikTok", not "Chaya Raichik" is an absurdity, they are literally one and the same. "LibsofTiktok" is just Chaya Raichik's twitter handle, it is not operated by anyone else but her. Zaathras (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
That's true, just like most books only have one author - but the author is not the same as the book. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm embarrassed on your behalf that you actually think that is an apt analogy. This is very, very simple...Chaya Raichik is Libs of TikTok. Libs of TikTok is Chaya Raichik. Libs of TikTok is not even an incorporated entity, it is just a twitter handle of a person. Understand this, please. Zaathras (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
It seems like you're missing an important distinction between "is a" and "has a". Let me pose a hypothetical that might shed some light: what if Raichik started a Twitter account for recipes, which became popular and gained its own notability - could that second account get its own Wikipedia article, or would all the information about it have to go in here also? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Chaya Raichik's whole claim to fame is the Libs of TikTok account. It's because of the account that she's been invited to take part in debate on Fox media. What she says in these debates therefore makes for appropriate material for this entry in case it's picked up by reliable sources, and doesn't need to be concealed from the introduction to this entry or banished to a section at the end. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
That seems like some strange reverse logic - the account makes the person notable, therefore whatever the person says is notable in an article about the account? I'm not saying her statements shouldn't be included, but in an article about her Twitter account, her non-Twitter statements should probably not be front and center. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libs_of_TikTok/Archive_6&oldid=1135422896"