Talk:Libs of TikTok/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Whitewashing?

How is making an article neutral whitewashing? All cats are british (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

You're not making the article neutral, you're introducing WP:FALSEBALANCE given the reliable sourcing that has written about the subject. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

You are removing content that makes the subject look bad. That is whitewashing. If you want to talk, you can come here. X-Editor (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

"You are removing content that makes the subject look bad. " They aren't Hitler. They are just posting random tiktok videos. Wikipedia is not a social media site for callouts. All cats are british (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

They aren't hitler is a bad statement and comparison. Sure they're not outwardly genocidal but how do you think propaganda starts? CUPIDICAE💕 23:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

If reliable sources say things about a subject, then Wikipedia should feature that information. X-Editor (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Equating the account to Hitler is a fallacy of irrelevance and misses the point of why we keep Wikipedia neutral. The point of neutrality is to avoid leaving the reader with propaganda, both ways, because that allows bad actors to exploit the site to spread dangerous viewpoints. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Who decides what a "dangerous" viewpoint is? Definitionally based on the arguments on this page religion spreads literally NOTHING but disinformation. It's all 100% propaganda. I would on a personal level call any defense of religion "dangerous." But I wouldn't expect an encyclopedia to report on anything except what is KNOWN. Also the bias of "reliable sources" makes me laugh out loud. Articles can be true or not true. Just because an article comes from a known "reliable source" doesn't make it ironclad. See the coverage of Covington. 73.60.59.91 (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The people decide what it is. If a viewpoint actively incites for death of other people or spreads harmful misinformation, that's dangerous.

The truth of the article is not a binary thing, either. Articles are shades of how accurate they are, and there is no 100% accurate article. That isn't the point of Wikipedia, the point of Wikipedia is to serve as an encyclopedia, which is why removing content that makes a subject look bad is against the point of a neutral encyclopedia. If you have issues with an article's potential bias, WP:BEBOLD. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is full of defamation and propaganda about an account that people in real life don't care about. All cats are british (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Lol. Imagine, complaining that an article about an account that is literally pushing propaganda, is itself propaganda. It's like the ultimate circle-jerk of conservative gaslighting. CUPIDICAE💕 23:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

This is not a forum or social media. "lol", "circlejerk", "conservative gaslighting". The account does not push any propaganda, they just repost videos of people who try to teach about gender identity disorder and sexualities to underage kids. All cats are british (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

They repost videos to push a certain message about a certain group of people. That is propaganda. X-Editor (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

propaganda, by definition, has to be "misleading". this account posts unedited videos of people with indefensible ideologies. this is not propaganda. it is reposting. Mbkzlt (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"They repost videos to push a certain message about a certain group of people." That sounds like your own research. 73.60.59.91 (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

From WaPo: Libs of TikTok reposts a steady stream of TikTok videos and social media posts, primarily from LGBTQ+ people, often including incendiary framing designed to generate outrage. Daily Dot: Libs of TikTok regularly misconstrues the positions and statements of advocates for liberal causes like LGBTQ advancement and racial equality, such as by misgendering transgender people and maligning civil rights protesters as criminals. The Times: Mocking liberal “hypocrisy” and “wokeness”, Libs of TikTok had amassed about 65,000 followers. The Week: Many have critiqued the decision by Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz to reveal the identity of the woman behind Libs of TikTok, a popular right-wing (and previously anonymous) Twitter account which amplifies and condemns videos progressives have posted of themselves on social media. Other sources, like Newsweek, Deseret, The Spectator, don't seem to agree with the characterization of the account as an active editorial voice, but WP:RSP suggests those sources are marginally reliable to unreliable and can only be used with attribution. There's clear agreement from WP:RS that the account is not passively reposting, but rather posting with a motive -- "incendiary framing", "maligning", "misconstrues", "amplifies", "condemns", "generate outrage", "mocking" are words in use by RS. The current lead, to my reading, accurately summarize these sources. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 15:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

yawn. EVERYONE ALL THE TIME is posting with a motive. 73.60.59.91 (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Suggested slight change of lead

As the article currently reads:

@libsoftiktok, also known as Libs of TikTok, is a conservative Twitter user known for reposting content created by left-wing, liberal, and LGBT TikTok accounts, often in a derogatory manner.

Suggesting change to:

@libsoftiktok, also known as Libs of TikTok, is a conservative Twitter user known for reposting content created by left-wing, liberal, and LGBT TikTok accounts in a satirical manner.

There are a slew of editors on this and before making any change merely asking the question - just thought to try moving it further towards neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any RS which describe it as "satire" or "satirical"? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The definition of satire is as follows - wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly. I checked the two citations after the line in the lead and neither article referenced contains the word derogatory. Considering that the creator has been hired by the Babylon Bee which wikipedia describes as "The Babylon Bee is a conservative Christian news satire website" as do other RS it’s pretty safe to describe LoTT as satirical.71.190.233.44 (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

That's because reliable sources describe The Babylon Bee as satire. I haven't seen a single source that uses that description for Libs of TikTok. X-Editor (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

So, you can reference a RS that describes LoTT as derogatory?71.190.233.44 (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Derogatory is a paraphrase of what the reliable sources say. It means being critical or disrespectful of something, which most of the sources seem to agree on. X-Editor (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

“Paraphrasing” is a subjective determination and should be removed. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Paraphrasing is perfectly reasonable if it's accurate, and it is in this instance. — Czello 19:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I made this comment in a different section, but it's probably worth repeating here. From WaPo: Libs of TikTok reposts a steady stream of TikTok videos and social media posts, primarily from LGBTQ+ people, often including incendiary framing designed to generate outrage. Daily Dot: Libs of TikTok regularly misconstrues the positions and statements of advocates for liberal causes like LGBTQ advancement and racial equality, such as by misgendering transgender people and maligning civil rights protesters as criminals. The Times: Mocking liberal “hypocrisy” and “wokeness”, Libs of TikTok had amassed about 65,000 followers. The Week: Many have critiqued the decision by Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz to reveal the identity of the woman behind Libs of TikTok, a popular right-wing (and previously anonymous) Twitter account which amplifies and condemns videos progressives have posted of themselves on social media. Other sources, like Newsweek, Deseret, The Spectator, don't seem to agree with the characterization of the account as an active editorial voice, but WP:RSP suggests those sources are marginally reliable to unreliable and can only be used with attribution. There's clear agreement from WP:RS that the account is not passively reposting, but rather posting with a motive -- "incendiary framing", "maligning", "misconstrues", "amplifies", "condemns", "generate outrage", "mocking" are words in use by RS. The current lead, to my reading, accurately summarize these sources. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 15:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree. The "derogatory" line stems from two clearly biased online news aggregators. Either state the clear line from the LGBT community with citation or delete the claim altogether. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 18:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Did you read my comment? I (and the article) cite four reliable sources on this subject. None of them are "news aggregators". SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 18:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Pink News clearly has a bent. The Daily Dot is not an established journalistic publication such as the NY Times or the Chicago Tribune. If you want to include an opinion in the sentences, please designate it accordingly. A neutral perspective would be "members of the LGBT community believe content like this is derogatory" instead of publicly declaring to be derogatory because not everyone thinks it is. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 18:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, you definitely didn't read my comment. It's right above yours, take a look. You are also incorrect w.r.t. Daily Dot and PinkNews. Take a look at WP:RSP before classifying sources here. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 18:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I did read your comment. However the misleading lead is still there. I and many other editors have a problem with the way this is particularly worded.That said this issue is one of the most contentious of our time. Neither side is going to be 100% happy with certain words. All I am asking is that you attribute the claim to a specific source and maybe add a counter point so like while some find it offensive and derogatory, others may find it sarcastic. You can however use statistics to prove that this account is primarily right wing and yes is popular with conservatives however to condemn the content all around is a biased statement.

FictiousLibrarian (talk). 19:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

All of the quoted articles above are news articles from publications that are both reliable and do not require attribution, per WP:RSP. I still don't understand the argument that the lead is misleading. Are there WP:RS that say this account is "sarcastic"? What editors agree that the wording should be changed? SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 19:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Your sources have been cited for undue weight and labeled appropriately. The IP users coupled with the others on this talk page want more elaboration in the lead section instead of leaving certain language in place. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 19:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll leave this for other folks to comment. To me, your arguments are pretty hand-wavy and self-referential. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 20:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The arguments of FictiousLibrarian appear to be based on emotion, rather than policy. The arguments of IP editors in a contentious current-event article are largely irrelevant. Zaathras (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

It really does seem as if they're upset LOTT isn't being portrayed more positively CreecregofLife (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Odd how you want to hide a discussion regarding your behavior... please try to follow WP:GF and keep your comments restricted to content. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The three comments above this... "your arguments are pretty hand-wavy and self-referential," "appear to be based on emotion, rather than policy" and "It really does seem as if they're upset LOTT isn't being portrayed more positively" appears to be stepping over the line of WP:No personal attacks Comment on content, not on the contributor.

Off-topic. Zaathras (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It’s fine to disagree, the original post in this section was about pulling back from a prevalent heavy handed slant as one man’s mocking is another man’s satire. I wonder though if sometimes pushing one editorial viewpoint so forcefully rather than attempting a WP:NPOV doesn’t wind up only pushing more eyes to something which would otherwise die a quiet death, LoTT that is. (that’s a personal opinion and an aside). If there is a consensus however not to make the change then it won’t be changed. There should be an attempt though to be open to a suggestion without descending into personal slights. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC) There are no personal attacks in any of the above comments, and it really isn't your place to try to nanny a discussion that involves others. Zaathras (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC) What part of this comment "it really isn't your place to try to nanny a discussion that involves others" isn't a personal attack? WP:No personal attacks71.190.233.44 (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC) I'm sorry that you feel that way. Zaathras (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC) I don’t need you to be sorry, just asking you to avoid the behavior as a matter of WP:GF Thanks. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC) There is nothing to avoid, as nothing happened in the first place. Zaathras (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

"derogatory" is a loaded word. An author supporting a text or with a NPOV rarely describes it as "derogatory"; they use a word like "against", "negative", or "critical". "critical" carries the same meaning without the connotation. The correct word for Wikipedia is "critical". As the user who made a change, the burden is to demonstrate that "derogatory" is the correct word. Unless you can achieve consensus, the edit will be reverted. DenverCoder9 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

So "negative" and "critical" are fine, but "derogatory," defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "showing a critical or disrespectful attitude," is not neutral? Critical is also far too vague. A trans academic whose research focuses on the LGBT community could also have their work classified as "critical," due to its variety of definitions. On the other hand, replacing "derogatory" with "negative and hateful" would seemingly be fine from a definitional perspective. 71.47.212.121 (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022

Remove "often in a derogatory manner." The source quoted is not neutral, further, simply repost exactly what other has posted does not constitute "derogatory manner".

Change "The person behind Libs of TikTok remained anonymous until being publicly exposed as Chaya Raichik by WashingtonPost columnist Taylor Lorenz in April 2022.

Under Content

Add "Libs of TikTok mainly repost, without editing, of liberal TikTok videos." Echoli40 (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Support: This article is about a contentious topic in post-1992 US politics. It has experienced vandalism and edit warring. DenverCoder9 (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• The user you are "supporting" has made 10 edits in 15 years, posted this 6 weeks ago, and never returned for a follow-up. Likely a compromised account or just a WP:SPA. Either way, you're going to get no traction by dredging up stale, dead-end threads. Zaathras (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Deseret

"The real story here is how the Libs of TikTok account was able to skyrocket to notoriety with the anger fueled by radical ideology being spoon-fed to children, and why these videos are landing like bombs among millions of Americans in a pivotal election year."

How notable is Bethany Mandel exactly that this comment was found necessary to include. And more importantly, what does it even mean? It reads like endorsement that deceptively uses words that sound disapproving, to disguise the fact that it's an endorsement. What does "anger fueled by radical ideology" mean? What "radical ideology" is being referred to? The way this is quoted gives the impression that editors are afraid of paraphrasing her, because they're not 100% certain what she's trying to say, so they just opt for quoting the exact words instead and leave interpretation to the readers, despite paraphrasal being preferrable to direct quotes on wikipedia.

We don't HAVE to include everything. The argument for including the spiked article is because O'Neill's personal opinions in relation to this case were deemed notable. Is Mandel equally notable and if so, is her own confusingly written comment really the best way to represent her position? 46.97.170.50 (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

This sentence used to read: Bethany Mandel of Deseret News argued that Libs of TikTok "posts go viral, not because of anything she says, but because the videos showcase the ideology and agenda of the far left in their own words." I'm not sure when or why it was changed, I agree with your criticisms of the current pull quote. Not to say we need to include a Mandel quote here, but the previous pull quote was at least more lucid. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 13:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I am categorically opposed to cherrypicking quotes from opinion pieces, Mandel is marginally notable. I see no real need for her opinion or for O'Neill's, they're political columnists and as such basically worthless for our purposes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Right now, we have pull quotes generally framed as opinions from The Jerusalem Post, Slate, ACLU, Media Matters, The Advocate, Deseret News, Spiked, The Week, UnHerd, NBC News, The Atlantic, and The Times of Israel. This, IMO, is too much and the structure of the article might suggest WP:FALSEBALANCE given that some less notable "support LoTT" viewpoints are being placed next to more prominent "negate LoTT" viewpoints as equal in prominence. Do you have thoughts on whether other pull quotes are worth removing as well? SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 18:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Both "conservative" critics have their own wiki articles, which cannot be said for many of the "liberal" critics. The new quotes are also much better at summarizing their points than the older ones. Deseret News is considered a reliable source per WP:RSP, so any commentary from them is completely fine. Spiked isn't mentioned in WP:RSP, but it does not look or seem unreliable. Just because the liberal viewpoints are more prominent than the conservative viewpoints does not mean the less prominent conservative viewpoints should be removed. WP:FALSEBALANCE does not mean removing all minority viewpoints, it just means featuring them less than the majority viewpoints. X-Editor (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

If the mainstream voices are all one sided in this issue and the dissenting voices are all fringe (again, this is not a "liberal versus conservative" issue), then the subject matter itself is one-sided. Any attempt to strike balance between a mainstream position is by definition a fringe position. Plase read this essay (if you haven't already) for further information. User:JzG/The_politics_of_sourcing 46.97.170.50 (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I think X-Editor's argument is more along the lines of "even if these sources are marginally reliable, it's okay as long as they're attributed, and attributing marginally reliable opinions is better than not including opposing viewpoints". I think this argument misses the point, as it places WP:FALSEBALANCE between opposing (but attributed) commentary from reliable and unreliable sources. If we removed all of the "negate" opinions from marginally reliable sources, we'd just be removing Media Matters. If we do the same for "support", we remove every "support" opinion. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 14:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Deseret is not marginally reliable, it is generally reliable per WP:RSP. Therefore, it would not be false balance to include it as a source. I'm not sure about Spiked. I personally prefer the other pull quote from Deseret, since this pull quote just repeats what The Jerusalem Post says, but worded slightly differently. The other pull quote gives context regarding the current state of American politics. X-Editor (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Pulling quotes for those reasons would be OR and inappropriate, we can only pull quotes to summarize. If the quote or quotes don't provide an accurate summary of the opinions presented in the opinion piece than a summary is to be used instead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd be fine with using a summary instead. X-Editor (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

How about something like this for a summary (basic outline, feel free to adjust):

Conversely, right wing (or conservative, whichever you deem more appropriate) pundits (examples here) have dercribed LoTT as "showcasing" what they describe as "the ideology and agenda of the far left"(deseret citation for attributed descriptor) and a "political cult" (spiked citation for attributed descriptor).

Also possible follow up by commentary of this framing from a reliable secondary source. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a good summary. I've added it to the article with some modifications. X-Editor (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The "some modifications" left out what I consider to be the the most crucial element of my version, and that is to explicitly attribute terms like "ideology and agenda of the far left" and the "woke indoctrination" to the conservatives. Which is why my wording says "what they describe as...". Propaganda terms need to be properly attributed to their sources. The current wording could easily be mistaken for wikivoice, which grants the terms some level of legitimacy. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe it is helpful from the purposes of this talk page to use the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in scarequotes. As with every other "culture war" topic, this isn't a liberal vs conservative or left vs right issue (especially since most sources described as "liberal" and "left wing" are neither, they just happen to be slightly to the left of what currently constitutes the "center" in modern day american politics). This is a matter of mainstream, versus fringe. Any source that pushes an agenda to dismantle public education and describes members of the LGBTQ+ community being allowed to exist and teach as "far left agenda" and "radical ideology" is manifestly fringe, and should not be put on the same level as reliable mainstream publications. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I suppose differing opinions would be better categorized as "support LoTT" and "reject LoTT". Either way there's some sort of partisan divide on this. I won't try to strictly define that, which is why I used scare quotes. There is a lot of commentary in the "support" camp which this article should try to summarize (& there is plenty of work to do on that front, your suggestions are a good start). SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 14:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no need to categorize the opinions like that. The two camps are one that describes LoTT's activity objectively (that being the signal-boosting of easy targets for the right wing to demonize, in order to incite against the LGBTQ community) and maybe follows it up with an added negative value judgement, but not necessarily, and one that argues that LoTT did was a good thing, without getting into the nitty-gritty of what that was, focusing instead on individuals she targetted. Observe:

• "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." - this is an assessment.
• "Libs of TikTok is finding new characters for right-wing propaganda," ... "it's relying on the endless stream of content from TikTok and the Internet to cast any individual trans person as a new villain in their story." - another assessment.
• "Libs of TikTok is basically acting as a wire service for the broader right-wing media ecosystem," ... "the account has been shaping public policy in a real way, and affecting teachers' ability to feel safe in their classrooms" - yet another assessment.
• "posts go viral, not because of anything she says, but because the videos showcase the ideology and agenda of the far left in their own words." - this is political rethoric.
• "The greatest sin committed by Libs of TikTok is that it has thrown open the doors of these new political cults and allowed rational outsiders to peer inside, to see how far things have gone." - also political rethoric.

As you can see, the first three are description of LoTT's own actions, which are independently verifyable, at most, formulated in a way that suggests disapproval. The last two on the other hand, simply put into words the very same ideas that LoTT is meant to plant into the minds of the average joe. I don't think I need to spell it out why equating these two positions and presenting them as two sides of an argument is a bad idea. There are objective facts about a social media account that produces political propaganda. There are mainstream publications that publish the facts. There are also left leaning publications (both mainstream and fringe ones) that have a left leaning opinion on those facts. In a healthy media environment, right laning publications would likewise give their right leaning opinion on those same facts. What happens instead, is that these right wing publications choose to promote the propaganda itself, and assert it as it were the factual truth. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 10:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

You're right that the Reception section does a poor job discerning articles published as commentary (NBC, Deseret, The Atlantic, UnHerd, The Week, Spiked, ACLU -- which is just a quote in WaPo, not a publication) from articles published as news (Slate, The Jerusalem Post, maybe MediaMatters -- plenty of discussion on this source elsewhere). There's a hodgepodge of articles published either as opinion pieces or news that have pull quotes tossed in willy-nilly. If we have opinion or commentary articles published by WP:RS, we should treat them consistently.

I would argue that two commentary articles from The Week and UnHerd, which are less charged with rhetoric, serve the purpose of demonstrating WP:BALANCE just fine and it's worth just removing Deseret and Spiked entirely. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 14:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the scare quotes oversimplify a bit, but there seems to be a partisan divide over this as SiliconRed pointed out, which is why I separated the differing opinions like that. X-Editor (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The essay I linked above does a good job to explain that partisan divide under the heading "Assymetrical Polarization". 46.97.170.50 (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

FAQ?

I feel that it may be helpful to include an FAQ along the lines of informing people that general consensus is that the account managers name should remain up and that the WP journalist was not the one to first publish the managers identity, thoughts? Googleguy007 (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly concur. It will be an easy reference to utilize when the latest outraged new user shows up. Zaathras (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I second this. It never hurts to be proactive when it comes to potential POV-pushers, especially when we know we can expect them. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant information

Another Orthodox Jew named Chaya Raichik, a stay-at-home mom who grew up in Los Angeles, received hundreds of negative messages from people who mistook her for the person behind Libs of TikTok. Her parents' home address was also posted online.

I tried to remove this line but I accidentally broke the citation. I figured I might as well hold it off and ask other users. In my opinion, this is trivia, with no real connection to the subject. Furthermore I get the impression that it's only here to insinuate that a doxxing by Raichik's critics did indeed happen. Thoughts? 46.97.170.50 (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I do not see it having lasting importance to the topic, it was a news-of-the-day curiosity at the time. ValarianB (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree, It seems more like a piece of trivia included to insinuate a doxxing Googleguy007 (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The Advocate

@Korny O'Near:I see no reason to remove the quote from the Advocate. Your argument that no such corellation exists between LOTT and "other anti-LGBTQ stuff" is not based in anything substantial, in fact, the reference you removed argues for the opposite. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say no correlation exists, I said the quote adds nothing to the article. Here's the quote from the Advocate piece: "LibsOfTikTok is voice [sic] in an overall climate of anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric that some correlate to an increase of anti-LGBTQ+ incidents." What exactly is this saying? Note the "some" in there: the author himself doesn't necessarily believe this, but some unnamed people do. And the belief in question is just unspecified correlation, not causation. In other words, maybe Libs of Tik Tok led to the incidents, maybe the climate that led to the incidents also led to Libs of Tik Tok, maybe something else. (There's also no real attempt in the article to prove that there was an increase of incidents, but perhaps that's another topic.) It's all mealy-mouthed, and seems to add nothing to our understanding of this Twitter account. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own article on The Advocate calls it "the oldest and largest LGBT publication in the United States and the only surviving one of its kind that was founded before the 1969 Stonewall riots in Manhattan". I do not believe our subjective assessment of the quality of their article is grounds on removing their commentary. The magazine is clearly notable. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say the magazine wasn't notable. Could you try responding to my actual arguments, for a change? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the argument. The section is called "reactions" and this is a reaction from one of, if not THE most notable outlet that's can possibly react to this subject. If they had proof that there's a direct connection, this wouldn't be under reactions, it would be under "impact" and in wikivoice. But it's not, so I don't see the problem.

Also, regarding Fox, a story about students of colour allegedly harrassing a white student over a blatantly political statement IS a political subject, as it's part of a false political narrative that Fox is pushing. It's not merely a "dispute over a laptop sticker" as you call it. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

No one is disputing that The Advocate is notable. (I think you're confusing between "notable" and "relevant", though no one disputes that it's relevant either.) The issue is whether this quote adds anything to the article. It says almost nothing: just that some unspecified people believe there's some unspecified connection between two things. What information does that add?

As for including Fox News: it's a different topic, but I'll just say that every news story can be part of a political narrative, so that hardly makes sense as the bar. Though your use of the word "false" seems to indicate that you bring a political bias to this article; I hope you're not letting it cloud your editorial judgment. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

There was a better source for this material that I added. In the case of citation disputes it's worth just trying to find a better source for the same material, if a marginally reliable publication has published a presumably verifiable story, it will probably be covered elsewhere in a more reliable publication -- and the dispute over whether a certain controversial citation is reliable becomes moot. I agree with 46, it's hard to interpret simplifying the conflict as a "dispute over a laptop sticker" as wholly good faith, it's clearly not that simple. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 19:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

No laptop sticker dispute ever is. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean this is across the board controversial subject matter, be wary of trying to just brush off disagreeing editorial opinions. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 19:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Obviously. It was a political matter, and Fox is NOT reliable for political issues. Which was my point to begin with. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Fox has a history of pushing false narratives. My personal political bias has nothing to do with this. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This RfC on the WP:RSP noticeboard (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_299#RfC: Pride.com, May 2020) would suggest that the Advocate should be treated either as reliable or to the same standard as Pride.com (they're managed by the same publisher). Generally I don't see a reason to change the quote as it currently stands; it is attributed in a Response section, not a source paraphrased into Wikivoice. I'm not opposed to opening an RfC over at RSP but the precedent seems clear. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 19:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm surprised I have to explain this again, but the issue is not about The Advocate as a source. It's about whether this particular quote conveys any useful information - I don't think it does. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, just doing my due diligence here. To my reading, the quote adds to the article. "Advocate" points to a couple incidents of violence in the piece. It also gives the account the superlative, "right-wing social media troll" which maybe would be a better pull quote for this? SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 19:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe even: Christopher Wiggins of The Advocate argued that "LibsOfTikTok is voice in an overall climate of anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric" and correlated posts from the account to an increase of anti-LGBTQ+ incidents. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 19:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any actual violence is cited in the piece (just harassment), but that's another story. What does "correlated" mean here, though? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't suggest either of those terms for inclusion in the article, and I'm not particularly interested in arguing over what counts as "violence", but rather how to best incorporate this pull quote. If not "correlated" then let's be more specific: Christopher Wiggins of The Advocate argued that "LibsOfTikTok is voice in an overall climate of anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric" and suggested other anti-LGBTQ+ incidents could have been influenced by accounts like Libs of TikTok. This is an accurate summary of the points made by the author (which to my reading haven't been articulated in other attributed quotes). SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 02:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure you know what "pull quote" means, but more importantly I'm not sure you know what "correlated" means. It's not a synonym of "influenced" - please see Correlation does not imply causation. In the original quote, I actually don't think "some correlate" has any real meaning at all; just a vague attempt at some sort of guilt-by-association. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, at this point I'm not sure what you're on about and not interested in continuing this discussion with you. If other editors want to continue down this path have at it, I'm stepping away from this one. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 01:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

And I'm surprised I have to explain this to you again, but the Advocate quote DOES add to the article. It adds the a highly notable magazine's response to the account's content, under the section called "response to account content". The claim isn't that there's a direct link between LOTT and anti-LGBTQ violence, the claim is that an author for the advocate commented on LOTT, and this comment said X, Y and Z. Based on your logic, all mentions of right wing responses need to be removed because they failed to prove that there's a "nefarious far left woke agenda" in public schools, which even I didn't argue against removing, just reducing the disproportionate emphasis their narrative was given. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's my problem with the quote: I don't think it says anything. I think it's trying to sort of imply that LoTT is causing real-life violence (and evidently it does a good job of this, because the other editor thought that's what it was actually saying), but if you actually read it, it doesn't seem to really say anything at all. And no, there's no policy or guideline anywhere that says we have to quote The Advocate in an article about a Twitter account that includes a lot of gay- and transgender-related content. Quotes should add something interesting to the article; otherwise there's no point in including them. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd appreciate that you not point to my arguments in some attempt to undermine me. We clearly have a different reading of the article. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 13:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

It says what Christopher Wiggins said in response to LOTT's content. In a section called "responses to account content". How many times do you intend to ignore that? 46.97.170.139 (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I already responded to that argument: I said, "there's no policy or guideline anywhere that says we have to quote The Advocate". Just because there's a section for responses to the content doesn't mean that we need to include a quote from any particular source about that content - especially if there's no worthwhile quote to include. In this case, the Advocate piece is structured as news analysis and not an opinion piece or editorial, so it's not really meant to convey the views of The Advocate or of Wiggins - which is probably why there's no compelling quote there to use. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

There's also no policy or guideline anywhere that LOTT must have a wikipedia article, yet here it is. That the quote is not worthwile is your opinion, and so far, you're alone in wanting it removed, while two people are arguing that it should stay. If there's any semblance of a consensus, it's not in your favor. Should we open an RFC on this? 46.97.170.139 (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I would say WP:N is that policy, actually. Anyway, yes, an RfC may be in order. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Then feel free to make one. Right now the reference is in the article so I have no objections. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

StateFarm?

Currently the article includes:

In May 2022, a partnership between transgender youth advocacy organization GenderCool and the insurance group State Farm received criticism from various conservative sources, including Libs of TikTok, which tweeted that State Farm "is working to fill schools with books on kids becoming trans and non-binary." As a result of the criticism, State Farm severed its ties with GenderCool, though the founders of GenderCool described an outpouring of support following the campaign suspension from those who wanted to support the organization.

This seems to be WP:TRIVIA and Libs of TikTok only reposted this after the fracas even kicked off. I'd suggest removing this paragraph as it's not really relevant to this article. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC) SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, actually - there's no evidence offered that Libs of TikTok had any impact on State Farm's decision. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Articles which may be used to expand the article

I don't have the mental fortitude right now to write about their bigotry, but here are some recent articles mentioning Libs of TikTok which could possibly be of use to the article:

• https://newrepublic.com/article/166712/pizzagate-comet-ping-pong-pride-lgbtq-republicans
• https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/education/2022/06/07/ankeny-school-board-supports-lgbtq-students-after-drag-show-online-attacks/7539641001/
• https://www.businessinsider.com/illinois-high-school-race-based-grading-fake-news-article-2022-6
• https://www.texasobserver.org/alex-jones-groomer-lgbtq/
• https://www.salon.com/2022/06/07/hijack-pride-month-a-celebration-turns-to-harassing-abusing-and-trolling-lgbtq-people/
• https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/06/conservative-christians-want-cancel-pizza-hut-recommending-lgbtq-books/
• https://www.queerty.com/matt-gaetz-marks-pride-month-coming-drag-queen-story-hour-20220602
• https://www.queerty.com/dallas-drag-show-kids-prompts-street-protest-conservative-meltdown-20220606

--Pokelova (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

BLP in lede

I've reverted the edit that added the personal name of the account owner to the lede.

1. The name isn't recognizable by any readers, so serves no function.

2. There has been a dispute about whether doxxing the author was appropriate.

3. Not notable.

4. General BLP concerns when the author wanted to remain anonymous.

More to the point, why is the personal name in bold? DenverCoder9 (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I think thats just their name, what suggests to you that it is a personal name or nickname? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

No, you will not be removing it. The initial notoriety of this social media account was that is was attacking swaths of people and groups anonymously. Once an investigative reporters uncovered Chaya Raichik's identity, it was reported in numerous reliable sources, and since then, Ms. Raichik has given several interviews, appeared on conservative media, etc...so is going to no lengths to conceal her identity. This person is a public figure now, like it or not. As for the boldface, I assume because her name is a redirect to this article. Zaathras (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You must achieve consensus before re-adding reverted content. Can you explain why "attacking swaths of people and groups anonymously" is a reason to publish someone's name? DenverCoder9 (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Um, no, I must do no such thing. The onus is upon you who wishes to remove long-standing content. Also, kindly stay off my talk page with fake "warnings". The latter half of your comment is addressed by the reliable sources cited in Libs_of_TikTok#Identity_revelation. Zaathras (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

There's existing consensus for this material. It should stay unless there's evidence that consensus has changed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm against this. I realize it's been on the page for more than four weeks. DenverCoder9 (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed ??? @DenverCoder19:, why are you agreeing with yourself, and why did you attempt to delete this discussion? Zaathras (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

It's the other way around. Agreed that it's been around long enough that it doesn't require consensus. DenverCoder9 (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

For clarity, I thought one thing and now I disagree with my past self. That may be the source of confusion. DenverCoder9 (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Good grief... Zaathras (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death already. Check the archives and FAQ if you find anything ambiguous about why this information is included in the article. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 23:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2022

Change "accounts in a derogatory manner." to "accounts."

There is no evidence that re-posting videos in their original form is "derogatory". 203.96.84.1 (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done See thread above for discussion on why the lead is currently worded with "derogatory", it is based on several WP:RS. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 23:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2022

Change Afterwards, some accused Libs of TikTok of inspiring the storming. Libs of TikTok denied these allegations, saying that she was simply "giving free advertisement to beautiful family-friendly Pride events." Also after the storming, on June 13, Libs of TikTok tweeted that she had "received about a dozen death threats", including threats from people threatening to throw a pipe bomb into her house and added that "Twitter has not removed any of the accounts of those who sent the threats." However, one of the death threats was sent by a user who claimed that they sent the threat as a "joke" to "satari[se] similar messages the account received." Glenn Greenwald and Elon Musk condemned the death threats, with Musk adding that "A platform cannot be considered inclusive or fair if it is biased against half the country".

to Libs of TikTok has received criticism for inspiring the storming. Reasons:

1) The first sentence is unencyclopedic and needs to be adjusted.

2) Not only does including denial go against WP:MANDY, in this case, the denial is blatantly mocking and insincere. Including it does not improve the article.

3) The rest are a bunch of fluff referencing unproven allegations and off-topic partisan comments. Citing the actual criticism LoTT got is much more useful. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I actually find your argument quite convincing, but I'll wait and see what others have to say. --Pokelova (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this recommendation, per WP:RECENCY & arguments of WP:MANDY. Much of this content doesn't strike me as generally encyclopaedic beyond its current newsworthy status. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 13:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted that this paragraph consists of two different things: the storming, and the death threats against Libs of TikTok, and I don't believe there's an obvious connection between the two; they really should have been different paragraphs. I think at least the first of these should just be removed completely. The accusations of inspiring the storming seem to have just come from a few random people on Twitter, plus the partisan advocacy organization Media Matters, per this Daily Dot article. (I should note that the "storming" here seems to have consisted of people just walking in to the library and yelling at the drag queens in question - the type of thing that, in other contexts, is just referred to as a protest.) It doesn't seem worth mentioning. The death threats in themselves aren't that notable either, I would say, although Elon Musk's commentary on it probably makes it noteworthy. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

We'd call it whatever WP:RS call it: words in use are "storming", "menace", and the sheriff's office is investigating it as a hate crime. Whether you think it's a "protest" is irrelevant. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 14:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The paragraph consists of ONE thing of note: the storming, and by extension the criticism LoTT got for her part in it. The "death threats" are an unfounded rumour that are part of a long running narrative by partisan actors to paint LoTT as a victim - a narrative that does not conform to objective facts of the matter. And Elon Musk's reaction is just plain off-topic. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Clearly this more than an unfounded rumor, given that Twitter has banned some of the accounts in question. And I think Elon Musk's reaction is quite on-topic, given that this is an article about a Twitter account, and this is the planned future owner of Twitter, commenting (briefly) on that very Twitter account. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with Korny O Near above. These things are relevant to the article and Twitter banning most of the accounts indicates that something did happen. You say that the death threats "are part of a long running narrative by partisan actors to paint LoTT as a victim", but I could just as easily say that the death threats against LGBT people from LoTT followers are part of a long running narrative by partisan actors to paint LGBT people as the victims. The point is, you need reliable sources that repeat these assertions. X-Editor (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

e.g. people accusing others of sending death threats requires WP:RS before being added here, but the best evidence that Twitter was banning accounts in this context are screenshots posted by LoTT (not verifiable). A statement by Twitter or similar would be required to show "something did happen". SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 21:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I concur with SiliconRed. No reliable sources support that LoTT received death threats. This is distraction from her involvement in a pride event getting attacked by a known white supremacist group. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

To add, even in the article Korny posted we have Lorenz doubled down on her criticism of Libs of TikTok in a thread that cast doubt on some of the threats. So that article doesn't even definitively argue the death threats are legitimate... it's more he-said/she-said. We need verifiable RS. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 14:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Update

@Korny O'Near:@X-Editor:@Siliconred: This discussion died down, and over the past weeks the section has arguably become worse. Claims about death threats are still present, Elon Musk and Glenn Greenwald condemning the so-called death threats is still present, Taylor Lorenz debunking the claims that she received death threats has not been added, and the criticism LoTT received for inspiring the far right attacks on pride events has been straight up removed. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

What did Taylor Lorenz do to debunk these claims? I must have missed that whole part. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Mediaite published a piece that comments on Lorenz's response -- "debunking" is a strong descriptor though. As I've said above it's virtually impossible to verify any of the death threat stuff in either direction. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 13:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is still under discussion. I'm closing the request while awaiting user input, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Claim from Libs of TikTok

I'm not saying we should feature every claim LOTT makes in the article, but if this claim is documented in a reliable source, then I don't see what's wrong with featuring it. You also haven't cited a single policy that justifies your removal, but if there is one, please tell me. X-Editor (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Disputed sentence for reference:

On June 14, Libs of TikTok alleged that Twitter employees were "debating a permanent suspension for my account." based on "Leaked internal messaging".

Apologies for not linking in edit descriptions. I'd point primarily to WP:N and WP:V. A quote of an unverifiable claim from the subject isn't in itself notable. It would be notable if Twitter did permanently suspend the account, but an unverifiable claim about a discussion that might have happened suggesting the account might have been suspended is unencyclopaedic under tentpole policy. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 20:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for elaborating. X-Editor (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Specific examples in "Impact on Teachers"

The article currently contains (sorry for orphaned citations):

On March 9, 2022, Libs of TikTok posted a screenshot from a TikTok made by an Indiana teacher who said that she allows the students who participate in her school's Gay-Straight Alliance club (which she leads) to tell their parents that it is a study group instead. Libs of TikTok tagged the teacher's school district in the post, and said that, "We have seen multiple examples already of teachers grooming kids in a GSA club behind parents' backs." The teacher later deleted her TikTok account.

and:

On April 13, 2022, Libs of TikTok reposted a TikTok of a woman explaining why she supports teachers who educate their students about "sexual orientation and gender identity" without parental consent. Libs of TikTok also said that, "This is what the left really thinks", and that, "They want to take your kids to groom and indoctrinate them behind your back." After Libs of TikTok's followers sent harassment to the woman, she uploaded a new TikTok on April 14 in which she said that "bigots" accused her of child sexual abuse "because they thought I was a teacher who thought it's OK to teach kids it's OK to be gay." As of May 9, 2022, the TikTok had more than 500,000 views.

Neither of these strike me as notable examples in the context of WP. It's worth noting that citations only mention these incidents in passing. The purpose of this section is not to describe every instance of altercations between teachers & LoTT, but to describe notable impacts (i.e. well supported by RS). I'd recommend removing both paragraphs unless better citations demonstrating notability can be found, otherwise we have a WP:UNDUE issue. Bringing this here as this is a more significant proposed removal. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 00:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Link to details -- quotes removal

Sentence in question (more orphaned links, apologies):

Cameron Barr, a senior managing editor at The Washington Post, claimed that they "did not publish or link to any details about [Raichik's] personal life". In response, Libs of TikTok said that the article did include a link with personal information that was removed.

To my mind, these quotes should be cut per WP:MANDY (for both sides of the argument). I haven't found strong WP:RS making comment about this "link to details" (and neither of these sources say anything to this end, they just repeat quotes). It makes sense given context that of course, WaPo would say they didn't, and of course, LoTT would say they did. The quote should be removed unless there's another source ABOUT the link, and if so, it should probably be phrased & incorporated differently, not as this battle of words as it currently stands (we already know that LoTT is criticizing WaPo from the rest of the section & visa versa). cc X-Editor (talk · contribs) SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 03:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Isn't WP:MANDY an opinion essay and not an official guideline or rule? And even if it is, Maybe we could just say that "Libs of TikTok said that the article included a link with personal information that was removed" instead? X-Editor (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's an essay guidance on structure, I'm not trying to point to it as the end-all-be-all but generally to suggest incorporating this info differently (assuming there's something verifiable in the claims). Are there any sources that say what this link even was? I haven't found any but I will keep looking. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 03:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I already suggested simply saying "Libs of TikTok said that the article included a link with personal information that was removed" instead. It doesn't specify, but it's still better than nothing. X-Editor (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

It’s a question of verifiability — that’s not useful information if there’s no way for a reader to know what the link was and it’s misleading if we can’t show whether it even existed. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 03:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Without original research, I'm not sure that there is anyway to prove the link's existence. X-Editor (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Presumably if it’s notable to the point of being added as subject matter here then there would be something out there talking about it. My point is that if there isn’t, then this he-said/she-said should be removed altogether. I’ll take a look for coverage tomorrow and see what I can find. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 03:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. X-Editor (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

My most recent edit should fix this issue via a new source. Hopefully this edit also clarifies my issue with the content. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 00:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that AllSides article. Lots of valuable content. X-Editor (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hey, I'm formally objecting to the use of the allsides blog post. This just isn't an appropriate use of one of their blogs, I don't even think their news articles would be WP:RS in context so theres no way in hell we're using one of their blogs. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

This source is published as news, WP:RSP suggests that AllSides can be used on a case-by-case basis was my reason for usage here. I hear your point, I'll look for a different source. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I see a single news label and a half dozen blog labels attached to the article in question... Not including the URL https://www.allsides.com/blog/was-libs-tiktok-doxxed-washington-post. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Note that the URL for allside's news coverage displays either "news" or "story" instead of "blog" for instance https://www.allsides.com/news/2022-06-20-0753/white-house-covid-adviser-touts-moderna-pfizer-shots-good-choices-parents-kids and https://www.allsides.com/story/ukraine-parliament-restricts-russian-books-music. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Yup, I hear you. I didn't check the URL, I was looking at the byline. I've removed the source across the article and restored content where it was cited for prose. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I will admit to also being thrown by "NEWS / APRIL 20TH, 2022 / BY MULTIPLE WRITERS - MIXED" I was half way through the article before it clicked that the odd tone was because it was a group blog post. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ honest mistake on my part but a mistake nonetheless. I stand by my original concerns & I'll see if there's something reliable out there. Even if it's a bad source the actual content seems accurate to my reading. I'd probably make a similar edit to the one linked above but with a better citation (... if I can find anything). SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe the Washington Post's claim counts. This is a reliable source debunking unfounded allegations made against them, while WP:MANDY applies when an accused's denial is presented in a way that looks like a legitimate counter to a credible allegation. As it stands, the most reliable and verifyable source on whether or not the Washington Post published personal details about Raichik, especially when Raichik and her enablers are the only source of this allegation, is indeed the Washington Post itself. It stands to reason, that when partisan actors with zero credibility make an unsupported claim about a reliable media outlet, and that media outled denies this claim, then their denial should be treated as a refutation, unless multiple other reliable sources confirm the initial claim. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Mediaite and Newsweek (both marginally reliable to unreliable, so certainly not sufficient for inclusion) both state that there was a link to the subject's real estate license which was removed. They point to Internet Archive which does in fact show that there was a link to this license at one point in the article. Whether this is "personal information", I don't know, it took me 10 seconds to find it when I looked for the license myself, and real estate licenses are apparently public record. But again we need to lean on RS for this, so if we don't have reliable sources commenting on this issue I'm not sure how to include this information in the article if at all. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 15:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The Deseret News also says it. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Worth noting that article is opinion, also marginally reliable publisher. I'd object to citing from there (same as Newsweek/Mediaite). Still though it's easy to verify there was a link, still nothing reliable on whether that link was "personal information". I don't see that we have a strong enough source to update the current wording (yet). SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 15:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Clearly there was a link to her real estate license, which was then removed. I think the article should say that, whether or not it also includes Libs of TikTok's description of this as personal information. The current wording makes it unclear what was linked to, or whether there was a link at all. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2022

You claim that they posted in derogatory terms however you support that with articles that are 100% opinion based. The fact of the matter is the person post direct copies of other people's post doesn't edit them therefore they could not be accused of being derogatory unless those original people post them that way. 2600:1700:7E0:9BB0:9CA0:51EC:5023:F189 (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

This has been answered several times, there's even a template at the top of the page. Read it. --Pokelova (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Response to account content

@Horse Eye's Back: You reverted the last paragraph of the Response to account content heading without seeking consensus first. The version you reverted was the result of a lengthy talk page thread. The version you reverted to placed undue weight on ideologically motivated support for LoTT. Mandel and O'Neill's comments are cut from the same cloth as LoTT's entire content is, and are only useful for showcasing the position of conservative pundits. If the new version wasn't good, then it's better to just remove the entire paragraph than restore it to the previous, worse version. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I attempted to restore this recently but my change was reverted. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 12:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The previous version failed WP:V. I disagree that its better to just remove it, there clearly was not consensus to do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

How about Conversely, some conservative commentators argued that Libs of TikTok reveals what they describe as "the ideology and agenda of the far left" and as "woke-mocking online phenomenon".? This passes WP:V and addresses concerns from the previous discussion. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

This is more or less how it was after the initial change, with "political cult" replaced with "woke-mocking online phenomenon" (which is a word-salad). It does not address any of Horse Eye's complaints. As I argued, there's no reason to cite Spiked and Deseret other than to showcase that conservative commentators are pushing the same narrative LoTT does. If calling the writers of the Spiked and Deseret articles is WP:OR, then there's no point in referencing them at all. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, how does this fail WP:V? I thought the issue was the previous quote was pulling from the headline, which is what I’ve modified here. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 12:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, ask Horse Eye. Or better yet, read his edit summary here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libs_of_TikTok&diff=1094803376&oldid=1094802048 46.97.170.139 (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "woke-mocking online phenomenon" is a word salad, by the way - it's a mouthful, but I think its meaning is clear. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

So what does it mean? Conservatives describe the people mocked by LoTT as a "political cult", and this was supported by sources. How is replacing that with a confusing term which I'm not even sure is english an improvement over that? 46.97.170.139 (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

References

News18

@Siliconred: You claimed that "this source is not sufficient to cite prose or quotes summarizing a broad array of receptions across multiple topics". Would you mind elaborating on why this is the case? X-Editor (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Here is the quote removed: According to News18, Libs of TikTok "has received support from far-right, conservative and even some liberal commentators.", while "left-leaning [people] and progressives [have] questioned the real intent of the account." News18 also noted "people on the far-left [who] have called for the account owner's death and have threatened her online". This does not add any information that is not already conveyed in the other sections. The source itself is relatively unknown, and fails WP:N insofar as being included as an attributed quote. We already have a very similar broad summary of reception from Jerusalem Post, a stronger source for this subject matter. The death threats aspect fails WP:V and including this information has been called into question elsewhere on talk. We've discussed this several times, but it's worth reiterating that because information is published somewhere is not cause for it to be transcribed into a wiki article. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Siliconred: Thanks for explaining. X-Editor (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

"Groomer"

I wouldn't have thought this would require discussion, but here we are. The article currently states: According to The Forward, Libs of TikTok "helped pioneer the term 'groomer'" as a pejorative reference to LGBT people. Pretty straightforward: before LibsOfTikTok started doing it, no one referred to LGBT people as "groomers", but now (according to The Forward) people do. Unfortunately, it's not true - and neither The Forward nor any of the other cited sources says it's true. The Forward article does indeed say that LoTT helped pioneer the term "groomer", which it notes is "a term referring to adults who gain children’s trust with the goal of manipulating and sexually assaulting them", i.e. short for "child groomer". However, it doesn't say that LoTT, or anyone else, has used this as a blanket term for gay people. Some of the other cited sources do make a connection between the term "groomer" and LGBT people in general - like the possibly reliable Huffington Post, which says, "This last year has seen Republican politicians and right-wing media influencers across the country stir up a moral panic about the LGBTQ community being “groomers”. A gross exaggeration, I think, though undoubtedly some people have used the term "groomer" for all gay people. But no one, as far as I can tell, has said that LibsOfTikTok has used the term in that way. (More accurate, I think, would be to say that LoTT helped pioneer the term to refer to those who want to teach pre-adolescent children about sexuality, gender expression, etc.) Given that this is a WP:BLP article, assertions here must be made carefully - and blithely stating that LoTT thinks all gays are pedophiles is not careful at all. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended discussion w.r.t. above topic. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 23:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree with Korny O'Neal. While some sources do connect groomer with LGBT people, it does not necessarily mean LoTT is doing that. Such a claim would need explicit RS support. The sentence should say According to The Forward, Libs of TikTok "helped pioneer the term 'groomer'", a term referring to adults who gain children’s trust with the goal of manipulating and sexually assaulting them. or just simply According to The Forward, Libs of TikTok "helped pioneer the term 'groomer'". Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC) The claim has explicit RS support. The difference with the use of 'groomer' by Libs of TikTok is that it no longer refers to "to adults who gain children’s trust with the goal of manipulating and sexually assaulting them" but is a general pejorative for the LGBTQ community and supporters. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC) The connection Raichik makes between the LGBT community and the pejorative "groomer" is readily appearent as one reads the Forward article and the JTA article linked from that one is blindingly clear. There's also the Slate article that states pretty plainly ...pushing discourse designed to demonize supporters of LGBTQ rights as sexually predatory “groomers” of children. So, hell, if we're to make any sort of editing decision here, IMO we drop "According to The Forward..." and just state it plainly, as it is exactly what Raichik is asserting. Zaathras (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC) I think the issue here is the word "pioneer", which appears to be contentious. Perhaps it could be rephrased to something like Libs of TikTok has promoted the accusation that LGBT people are associated with pedophilia, regularly using the word "groomer" as an attack. Reword as necessary. — Czello 09:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Zaathras - I've read the Forward and JTA articles, and neither one seems to say anything of the sort. The Slate article does contain the quote you mention, which is closer, although that's about "supporters of LGBTQ rights", not LGBT people, which is not at all the same thing. (Presumably he's referring to supporters of the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act, which some have argued would prohibit gay and trans K-3 teachers from talking to their students about their personal lives.) I suppose we could just quote this article instead of the Forward one, though ideally with some context, because on its own the quote doesn't make much sense. Czello - the contentious part is not the word "pioneer", it's what you wrote. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC) You seem to presume a lot... You're also making a lot of sloppy errors when it comes to reading comprehension... For example "Pretty straightforward: before LibsOfTikTok started doing it, no one referred to LGBT people as "groomers", but now (according to The Forward) people do." is just not what that sentence says... It says "helped pioneer" not "pioneered" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Okay... other than critiquing my paraphrasis skills, do you have a point here? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC) My point is theres no issue here, you think "this sentence makes the extremely bold claim that LibsOfTikTok has referred to all LGBT people as child groomers, and none of the citations provided backs that up" when it doesn't. The "all" part isn't there. This whole thing was born of a reading comprehension (or if you prefer "paraphrasis skills") error. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Well, now we're getting somewhere. The article currently includes the wording the term 'groomer'" as a pejorative reference to LGBT people. Are you saying that (according to the sources) LoTT only refers to some LGBT people as child groomers? If so, which ones? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC) What don't you get? They're using groomer as a pejorative for LGBT people, not describing people as groomers in the traditional sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC) I don't think there's a "traditional sense" for the word "groomer" - the point is that, prior to LoTT (and others') championing of the term in the last few years, people just didn't use that word by itself; they may have instead said "child predator" or "pedophile" or that sort of thing. But you still haven't said whom this term is used to describe, if it's not all LGBT people. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Would they have? "child predator" or "pedophile" does not generally cover "those who want to teach pre-adolescent children about sexuality, gender expression, etc." which is generally referred to as those desiring basic sex education. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC) I'm not sure what term they would have used, but they wouldn't have used "groomer", because that term didn't exist yet, at least not in the context of child grooming. I'm still waiting to hear whom you think LoTT applies this term to - unless you agree that it's "those who want to teach", etc. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC) "Groomer" in the context of child grooming doesn't appear to be new, it certainly existed. Whats new is its use to "imply that the LGBTQ community, their allies, and liberals more generally are pedophiles or pedophile-enablers."[1] which is the novel use that Libs of TikTok has helped pioneer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC) I still think "groomer" as a pejorative is a new term, but it should be easy for you to prove otherwise: just find an example or two from before, say, 2021. Anyway, I'm still waiting to hear whom you think LoTT applies this term to. Do you think it's "the LGBTQ community, their allies, and liberals"? Because that's a very large group indeed. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC) I don't understand why you're asking my opinion, personal opinions are irrelevant for wikipedia purposes even if you repeatedly insist on sharing yours. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC) I meant, of course, whom you think LoTT applies this term to, according to sources. The only source that seems to explicitly state anything is Slate, which more or less states that LoTT uses the term to refer to "supporters of LGBTQ rights". Which is not what the article currently says. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC) I'd be fine hewing closer to Slate's line (Toward the end of 2021 and into the new year, Raichik found her rhythm with memes and videos calling LGBTQ people and those who supported LGBTQ youth “groomers.”) and adding something along the lines of "and LGBTQ youth supporters" to the existing "LGBT people." Does that work for you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC) What would the exact wording be? Korny O'Near (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Your own proposal is as good as mine but I guess the most straightforward would be "Libs of TikTok helped popularize the term 'groomer' as a pejorative for LGBTQ people and those who support LGBTQ youth." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC) I think the only way wording like that could pass is if there were an "According to Slate" in the there, since that Slate article seems to be on its own as far as the broadness of what it thinks "groomer" means or implies. Better, I think, would be to separate this into two sentences: first say that LoTT helped to popularize the epithet "groomer", something for which various references exist - and then some sort of "According to Slate" for their own (rather extreme) interpretation of what this word means in context. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC) What makes Slate's interpretation extreme or materially different from the other ones? I'm failing to see daylight between Slate and the rest of the body of sources here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC) The Slate article says that LoTT has used "groomer" as an epithet for "supporters of LGBTQ rights", or possibly "LGBTQ people and those who supported LGBTQ youth". No other source has said that, as far as I know. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Vox goes as far as to include liberals in those "groomer" is an epithet for, Slate appears comparatively moderate. JTA and WaPo also appear to support it and none of the sources contradict it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC) The Vox article doesn't mention LoTT at all - some people may have by now used "groomer" to refer to all sorts of things, but that doesn't necessarily relate to LoTT. (Unless you want to put in the article something like "The term has since been adopted by various people as an epithet for...".) The JTA article doesn't actually talk about LoTT's use of the term "groomer", it talks about Christina Pushaw's adoption of the term, in her case only in the context of the Parental Rights in Education Act, which is (in my opinion) a much more accurate description of the term's general context. (The Vox article actually talks about it in that context also, but then jumps, without evidence, to claiming that it also encompasses "the LGBTQ community, their allies, and liberals more generally".) But as far as a direct linkage, it seems like the Slate article stands on its own. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC) The Vox article doesn't need to mention LoTT at all, we're using it on the talk page to verify that what Slate said about the term Groomer is true which it does. You mischaracterize JTA, it clearly does talk about LoTT: "Chaya Raichik says she’s responsible for getting teachers who discuss gay and transgender issues in the classroom, whom she calls “evil,” fired. She helped pioneer the term “grooming” to describe teaching about sexuality. Her Twitter account has hundreds of thousands of followers, and she has influential fans, including the spokeswoman for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and podcaster Joe Rogan." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC) Oh, I missed that part of the JTA article. Well, it helps prove my point: that Slate is alone in saying that LoTT has used "groomer" as some kind of slur for gay people. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC) Hard to miss, its the opening three lines. Groomer *is* a slur for LGBTQ people and their allies. Why are you pretending like thats still in question? Horse Eye's Back (talk) Well, there's the question of whether it has been used as a general slur for LGBT people (and "their allies"), and there's the question of whether LoTT has used it that way. I actually think the answer to both questions is "no" - that is, I don't think anyone besides maybe some Twitter randos has referred generally to gay people as "groomers", and I doubt you could find an example of such a thing. My own opinion doesn't matter, of course, but you seem to think that this is not just true but unquestionably true. If you want the article to explicitly say that LoTT basically calls gay people pedophiles (as it does now, rather outrageously), it will have to note that Slate is the only source making this claim. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC) "If you want the article to explicitly say that LoTT basically calls gay people pedophiles" whats outrageous about that? The WP:RS say it and LoTT clearly does it. What is the point of the Grooming rhetoric other than to basically call gay people pedophiles? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC) Its just a fact, you can disagree but that doesn't change the basic fact. "A Juno Beach millionaire is sponsoring a social-media agitator who lobs pedophilia insinuations against LGBTQ people and their supporters. Seth Michael Dillon, CEO of The Babylon Bee "satire" website, said he has a "deal" with Chaya Raichik, owner of a Twitter account who claims gay and transgender people “groom” children to accept sexual abuse from adults."[2] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC) Oh, I forgot about that Palm Beach Post article - a hit piece, in my opinion, but still an article from what may be a reliable source. Here, I think, is the issue for both this and the Slate article: LoTT posts many videos from gay and transgender teachers who talk about how they have discussed sexuality with their pupils; and LoTT often labels them "groomers", in one way or another. It is thus factually correct to say that this Twitter account "lobs pedophilia insinuations against LGBTQ people and their supporters" - however, this is also misleading, because the wording implies that the insinuations are being lobbed against all LGBTQ people, when really it's a specific set. (You alluded to this point earlier when you noted that The "all" part isn't there.) So maybe there's a potential here for compromise by explicitly adding the word "some" to the statement, like "as a pejorative for some LGBTQ people and their supporters"? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC) Thats not what I alluded to, I was alluding to the fact that you made up "all" and tried to pretend like thats what the wording was. The proposed compromise is "Libs of TikTok helped popularize the term 'groomer' as a pejorative for LGBTQ people and those who support LGBTQ youth." If that incredibly mild and neutral wording is too "outrageous" and "extreme" for you then we can add "which insinuates pedophilia." to the end. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC) So, are these sources saying that LibsOfTikTok is referring to some, or all? Korny O'Near (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC) The current proposed text uses neither word, are you proposing language other than whats been proposed? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC) None of the sources indicate LoTT is even using the groomer to describe LGBT people. Slate says "supporters of LGBT rights" and JTA says "teaching about sexuality". The text as written in this article is not RS supported at all. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC) Toward the end of 2021 and into the new year, Raichik found her rhythm with memes and videos calling LGBTQ people and those who supported LGBTQ youth “groomers.” [3] - Slate Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC) So we got one clause? I don't think that's enough. Earlier in the Slate article it said just said LGBT supporters. It's very possible with the conflicting opinions by RS that there is no RS consensus to definitely say what LoTT means by "groomer". Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC) I'm not seeing conflicting opinions, they all appear to be saying more or less the same thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC) Well, what besides that one line in the Slate article is saying this term is being used to describe LGBT people? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC) How does that conflict with the more in-depth description? A short explanation does not generally conflict with a longer explanation which contains the shorter one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC) I think Iamreallygoodatcheckers is exactly right: there's no consensus. I think there's some semantic trickery going on with the Slate and Palm Beach Post articles, where statements like calling LGBTQ people and those who supported LGBTQ youth “groomers.” lack a "some" or "all", so it can be claimed that they just mean "some", though the average reader will probably interpret it to mean "all" - and there's a world of difference between the two. And, of course, other sources have said that the term just refers to (some) educators. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC) I don't see the semantic trickery there, the account is *generally* homophobic and transphobic, not just homophobic and transphobic towards certain people. No actual "grooming" is taking place, its a homophobic libel similar to the anti-Semitic blood libel. If you have sources which say otherwise present them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC) Blood libel or not, there's a world of difference between "all gay people are groomers" and "these 50 [or whatever it is] gay schoolteachers, who post on TikTok about getting their pupils to talk about gender pronouns, are groomers". You can't argue that these sources are just saying the latter while also implying that they're saying the former; it feels basically like the motte-and-bailey fallacy. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC) The sources seem to indicate that LoTT is doing *both.* Where are you getting "gay schoolteachers" from? The sources indicate a wide variety of targets including general gay rights organization "In a since-deleted post, Raichik’s account wrote this about a prominent LGBTQ youth suicide-prevention group: “The Trevor Project is a grooming organization.”" etc. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC) Now I'm confused - you said you made up "all" and tried to pretend like thats what the wording was. But now you're saying that the wording does indeed refer to "all"? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC) I am not. Neither the removed wording [4] or the proposed compromise wording contain the word all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC) You wrote, The sources seem to indicate that LoTT is doing *both.* Meaning, yes, you think LoTT has said that all gay people are groomers. (According to sources, of course.) Yes, I know that the wording you wan't doesn't contain either the words "some" or "all" - that's my point: it takes advantage of semantic ambiguity to imply heinous things about Libs of TikTok while only having to defend much more limited assertions. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC) Imply very true things as asserted by WP:RS... Not heinous or outrageous. There doesn't seem to be a way to use the groomer conspiracy/libel without implying that LGBTQ people and their allies are pedophiles, they clearly aren't identifying actual grooming... As the sources say "Raichik's posts contain no proof that the LGBTQ people, or advocates, she targets with her posts actually engage in pedophilia." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC) That's your own opinion - belied by the fact that not all of the teachers identified are even LGBTQ. The whole "and their allies" bit proves that your "conspiracy/libel" assertion is meaningless, since there's no widespread belief that people who support gay causes are themselves pedophiles. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC) Its not my assertion, the WP:RS are the ones who call it a conspiracy/libel. Do you have WP:RS which say that "groomer" isn't a conspiracy/libel? Also again you keep saying teachers despite that not being accurate, is the Trevor Project a teacher? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC) I'd like to see these sources that say, unequivocally, "LoTT's use of 'groomer' is part of a libel about gay people all being pedophiles". I'm not aware of one. (As we've noted, a phrase like "has called gay people groomers" is not that, because the missing "some" or "all" throws the entire meaning into doubt.) No, the Trevor Project is not a teacher, but they're also not just a random organization: the tweet that caused LoTT to refer to them as groomers reads, "There are safe and anonymous ways to reach out for support. Chat with us at http://TrevorChat.org and press the ESC button 3X to quit and clear your browser history". Whether or not this is evidence of grooming is up for debate - but clearly there's a context for the (since-deleted) accusation that's far from simply, "they support LGBT causes, thus they are child predators". Korny O'Near (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC) "Whether or not this is evidence of grooming is up for debate" if its up for debate then you can find WP:RS that say so, if not then you're going to have to accept that you hold a WP:FRINGE position and move on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC) Is there a reliable source that says, "telling kids to contact you without their parents knowing is not evidence of grooming"? If not, then I don't know what you're on about. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC) "Raichik's posts contain no proof that the LGBTQ people, or advocates, she targets with her posts actually engage in pedophilia." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC) That's true - and if you can understand the difference between "unproven" and "false", then we'll be getting somewhere. In the meantime, I think we can safely say that neither LoTT nor probably anyone else has ever held the view that all "LGBTQ people and their allies" - a group that arguably holds over a billion people - are all child groomers. LoTT's barbs are - as even that quote notes - quite a bit more "targeted". Korny O'Near (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC) Why can we safely assume something thats the opposite of what WP:RS say? The term groomer in this context is used to "imply that the LGBTQ community, their allies, and liberals more generally are pedophiles or pedophile-enablers." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC) That's from the Vox article? Well, even if we take that article's statements as gospel truth, "pedophile-enablers" is quite different from "pedophiles". Korny O'Near (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC) Vox is WP:RS. It also says pedophiles, right before pedophile-enablers: "pedophiles or pedophile-enablers." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC) Yes, that's true. So perhaps they mean that "groomer" implies that .01% of gays, allies and liberals are pedophiles, and the rest are all pedophile-enablers. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC) Why would that be a reasonable interpretation of that quote? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC) Well, because when you say a group is composed of A or B, there's no way to know how many of them you think are A and how many are B. Generally, there are many more "enablers" of a bad act than people who commit the bad act itself. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC) You can just say a group is composed of A and B. There is no requirement to qualify it or break it down. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC) That's true. My point, though, is that even that quote you found is not evidence of some kind of mass libel or conspiracy charge around the word "groomer". Korny O'Near (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC) It's sufficient to support "pejorative reference", since it's pejorative to refer to a group as either being pedophiles or pedophile-enablers. Can we wrap this up? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC) "The thing is, grooming accusations aren’t concerned with making sense; they’re about stirring up fear, anger, and hysteria — which is why they sound exactly like the kinds of fringe conspiracy theories that have been around for centuries. The new pedophile conspiracy rhetoric is essentially the same as all the old pedophile conspiracy rhetoric, but with an added layer of wrongness." "The second irony is that the notion of “grooming” — slowly conditioning someone over time to accept a belief or a state of being that could harm them — arguably applies to the grooming conspiracy theory itself." [5] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC) Firefangledfeathers - no, because, even if it implies that hundreds of millions or more are "groomer-enablers", the actual term "groomer" does not necessarily apply to any of those people. Which is the whole topic of the argument, apparently. Horse Eye's Back - okay, yes, "groomer" can indeed tie in to a conspiracy - I would have agreed to that even without that Vox quote. I should have said, more accurately, that Libs of TikTok's specific use of the word "groomer" does not necessarily tie into a mass conspiracy. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC) Now you're just grasping at straws because your POV pushing has run its course. Your POV is a homophobic conspiracy theory, get over it or I will look into getting you topic banned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC) Please stop with the personal insults, or you're the one likely to get banned. This is a WP:BLP article, and we should make sure every statement here is clearly true and citable, not accusations that you can kinda sorta justify if you string three different think-pieces together. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC) WP:V is satisfied as Firefangledfeathers has pointed out. I've spent hours making sure sure every statement here is clearly true and citable, you've been suggesting that the Trevor Project engages in grooming etc. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC) Again, please stop with the personal attacks. Firefangledfeathers's logic had an obvious flaw, as I pointed out. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC) That "flaw" does not stop WP:V from being satisfied. Where is the personal attack? You claimed that "Whether or not this is evidence of grooming is up for debate" despite that being the opposite of what the WP:RS say, that is clearly suggesting that the Trevor Project engages in grooming and its clearly your unsupported personal opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC) You all need to stop with this. This will never go anywhere. @Horse Eye's Back: making behavior accusations in a discussion about content never is a good idea. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 21:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC) You know that you're part of the "You all" right? I agree there is no need to go further, WP:V has been satisfied and we can move forward to preferred wording. Do you object to "Libs of TikTok helped popularize the term 'groomer' as a pejorative for LGBTQ people and those who support LGBTQ youth." sourced to The Forward, Slate, and the Palm Beach Post? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC) I think with Slate and the Palm Beach post your proposed sentence meets WP:V. I do think sexuality education could be added with the JTA article. Libs of TikTok helped popularize the term 'groomer' as a pejorative for LGBT people, supporters of LGBT youth, and those who teach about sexuality. This proposal includes the variety of RS description LoTT's meaning of groomer. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 21:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC) I think "those who teach about sexuality" is included in "LGBT people, supporters of LGBT youth" based on the context presented in the JTA article, see "Her fiercest focus, however, has been on the LGBTQ community. The Libs of TikTok account searches for and solicits from its followers videos in which adults — often teachers — share their thoughts on explaining sexuality to children." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC) I disagree with that; I think that's a stretch. No harm in having the "those who teach about sexuality" clause. I really have nothing else to put in this discussion. So I'm going to leave it at this. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 22:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC) The proposed wording is classic synthesis, and simply inaccurate. The Forward notes (correctly) that Libs of TikTok helped to pioneer the word "groomer" in the sense of child grooming. That is, before 2021 or so, no one would say, "he's a groomer" in reference to a pedophile. This proposed wording makes it sound like people did use the word before in that context, but now it also just means "any gay person". Which is doubly incorrect, and also not something that any one source says. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC) Thats not what Forward says, nor is it true (you make this same mistake in your opening comment, you've already been corrected. I will again remind you that forward says "helped" and makes no assertion that before LoTT the term was not used). Note the history of the wikipedia page Child grooming. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC) "Helped pioneer" means "one of the people who pioneered". If people were using the term in 2005 or so, then LoTT wouldn't have been helping at all. What are we supposed to see on the "Child grooming" page? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC) Whats your proposed wording then? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC) How about this, in the spirit of compromise: According to The Forward, Libs of TikTok "helped pioneer the term 'groomer'" as shorthand for those claimed to be engaging in child grooming. According to Slate, the account has used the term to describe "dozens of random citizens", with most or all of them LGBTQ people and/or supporters of LGBTQ youth. Thats just not as clean, but both are a good starting point. Based on due weight we're going to end up with a paragraph or two about "grooming." Even looks like we're going to get a stand alone article about the groomer conspiracy theory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Not a fan of that. I'll endorse Iamreallygoodatcheckers's suggestion. --Pokelova (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC) The part where it says "as shorthand for those claimed to be engaging in child grooming", I find unnecessary. A large part of the controversy surrounding Chaya Raichik's account is that she operates under a very idiosyncratic definition of grooming, at least when she's talking about LGBT people. She has said in no uncertain terms that a teacher who's not in the closet to their students should be fired on the spot. And the proposed language is glossing over Raichik's at best unjustifiably hyperbolic, at worst consciously dehumanizing, use of that language. We shouldn't be defining grooming for her. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Are you saying that Libs of TikTok has referred to people as "groomers" based solely on their identity and not their actions? If so, do you have an example of that? Korny O'Near (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC) That's not a very bright interpretation of my argument. Is this bad reading or bad faith? What I said is that her take on what constitutes grooming is very idiosyncratic, at least when applied to LGBT people, and that she has called for teachers to get fired when they respond in the affirmative to students who ask if they're gay. The latter fact is actually in the entry, which goes on to observe that she was forced to delete the tweet where she made this blatantly homophobic point. So what I said is uncontroversial and supported by RS — Chaya Raichik does employ a very low benchmark when implying that a particular gay teacher is posing a risk to students. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be implying that her interpretation of what "grooming" means, is the conventional one. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC) The Forward disagrees you with you, by the way. But what do you think her interpretation of "grooming" or "groomer" is? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC) TF is not disagreeing with me — it's merely explaining to readers what grooming means, as normal people can't automatically be expected to know that it can mean more than fixing one's hair or a dog's fur. At no point, however, does TF argue that Chaya Raichik has steered close to the conventional view of grooming. By the negative tone of the article, it can be deduced in fact that the writer doesn't see her as a real anti-grooming activist. You really should work on reading your sources and what you're responding to more closely before replying — it's annoying to waste people's time like that and turn even commonsense observations into endless back-and-forth. And what is this interrogation about? It's not my job to know in detail how Chaya Raichik and other right-wing hate-mongers see the world. As someone bereft of supernatural powers, I don't know how Chaya Raichik would define grooming. What I do know is this: responding "yes" when a student asks whether you're LGBT is something for which she believes teachers should lose their job, though this is nobody's definition of grooming, or at least it didn't use to be before Chaya Raichik became a player in the right-wing hate-o-sphere. It's therefore commonsense Chaya Raichik is not following the conventional definition of grooming when she's going after gay teachers' livelihood and accusing them of serious misconduct. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC) The whole point of this discussion is to try to figure out in what context Libs of TikTok uses the word "groomer", and since you admit you have no idea, I don't see how you could contribute that much. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC) I didn't say I have no idea how she uses the term — I said I have no idea how she defines it, but that it's clear that she abuses the term to destroy the reputation of gay teachers and affect their ability to hold on to their jobs. This is the second or third time you put words in my mouth — please, stop doing this, or better yet, stop obsessively clapping back to everything I said if adding confusion is all you know. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC) Here is another source from the Guardian; they quote MMFA, saying “The right has manufactured a narrative that gay and trans people are ‘grooming’ children, fueled in large part by Libs of TikTok and magnified by Fox News,” Media Matters for America, a media watchdog, reported in June, but are a good secondary source. We can tweak the attribution slightly (or just include that quote, cited to the secondary source), but I think that the old wording is mostly fine and largely summarizes a key point of the subject's notability according to the sources. Most of the other massive discussion above (and most of the objections) strike me as largely off-topic. --Aquillion (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC) I support restoring a tweaked version of the old wording. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC) That's an unclear quote from an (of course) partisan source, Media Matters. What does it mean that Libs of TikTok "fueled" this narrative - is it by the account's use of the word "groomer"? Or just all the videos it posts? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC) Vice on the new right-wing usage of "groomer": "a catch-all phrase intended to falsely associate LGBTQ+ people and their allies with pedophilia." (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I can't believe this conversation is even still going on. The one user objecting has repeatedly demonstrated that they don't understand, or perhaps are deliberately refusing to understand, how to interpret The Forward's writing. It takes a stunning level of ignorance to read that and the article they link to in that sentence and think "oh, they must be saying LoTT is calling people groomers for actually doing grooming". Like, what?! Are you out of your mind?! --Pokelova (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think it's clear from this discussion that there's a consensus to mention this in some form (by my reading Korny is the only person who hasn't endorsed the inclusion of at least some version, while at least eight people have endorsed at least one version; and past a certain point WP:SATISFY applies.) So you can just go ahead and restore it provided you think you have a version that fits enough of the points above to reach a consensus. At the very least your preferred version is a starting point; I think it's also reasonable to quote Media Matters via a secondary source, since the Guardian clearly treats the quote as significant in terms of explaining this aspect of the topic. I think that it's at least important to get some version back in the article as fast as possible, since there's a clear consensus for it in this discussion and the overwhelming coverage makes it clear it's a key part of the subject's notability. We can hammer out the details from there, but plainly total exclusion is a nonstarter. --Aquillion (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I concur. The original wording can be restored for now, and the tweaking can follow. Zaathras (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Pokelova - since you seem to like personal attacks, let me try to put this in simple words that hopefully you can understand: The Forward is (correctly) saying that, when LoTT calls someone a "groomer", it's an accusation of child grooming - not evidence of child grooming, of course, but an accusation. That's why (as far as I know) the word has only been used on that account in response to specific declarations by teachers and the like, not (say) in response to random videos by gay people. So implying that LoTT pioneered the word "groomer" as some sort of slur for LGBT people is both incorrect, and contrary to what The Forward says. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

You are once again incorrect and the consensus is against you. Have a nice day. --Pokelova (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, you too. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

References