Talk:Libs of TikTok/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Summary of critique of mention of religion

Right now the article reads:

American non-profit watchdog organization StopAntisemitism.org criticized Lorenz for mentioning Raichik's religious identity as an Orthodox Jew, arguing that mentioning her religion was unnecessary.

I revised this to Some critics argued that the mention of Raichick's religious identity as an Orthodox Jew was unnecessary as I have difficulty reading the tweet cited (or StopAntisemitism.org generally) in the Jerusalem Post article as a reliable or notable critique to be singled out in this section. Sideswipe9th undid this -- I agree with the undo (& thanks for your comment), I was incorrectly using WP:TWITTER to justify my change. I'm still generally skeptical of quoting this opinion as attributed to StopAntisemitism.org. I also see the is org quoted by [1], but I don't see any general published opinion articles taking this stance. A news article cited elsewhere from The Times of Israel writes:

Yossi Gestetner, a Haredi Orthodox political activist who for years has posted on social media, blasted the Post for identifying Raichik as Orthodox, saying it was not germane.

This strikes me as the most reliable opinion of the options I've found (Gestetner, StopAntisemitism.org, and The Coalition of Jewish Values being the three agreeing quoted in WP:RS) and as a news article it seems to be the strongest source to cite when Wiki is attributing an opinion based on an article which is also attributing that opinion.

To attach my thoughts to WP policy, it seems to be a minor instance of WP:UNDUE as the opinion that the inclusion of religion was unnecessary is coming from a tweet from an organization of questionable reliability, while the opinion that the inclusion of religion was necessary is a published opinion piece from a WP:RS in The Times of Israel. Open to ideas but I wanted to express my thoughts here on talk. Cheers, SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 20:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Your quote about Yossi Gestetner does not verify to that article, FYI — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I would say the mention should just say Political activist and advocate against anti-semitism “Yossi Gestener” instead of the website or anything else. It’s a summary of what our sources say and avoids the OR of alluding to the organization saying these things. Proper attribution is important. None of the prior verifies to the sources — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I included the wrong link. Fixed now, it should have been [2]. To be honest, I am doubtful Gestetner is a significant enough source to include as an opinion here, but it seems like the most legitimate quote on the subject. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 01:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Derogatory (again) . I would like to replace it with "critical"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article lede still contains the claim LOT making "derogatory" comments on the material they source, despite a long ranging debate and a number of valid criticisms of that term. No consensus was ever reached.

It has been claimed this characterization is based on reliable sources, but it has also been convincingly argued that this actual term itself is NOT to be found in such sources. The problem with "derogatory" used that way is that it is derogatory in itself - it carries this undertone of malfeasance, which in turn is not supported by any reliable source. "Critical" does not carry that same suggestion - criticism in contemporary society is considered legitimate or not based on its content alone.

I would therefore like to replace "derogatory" by "critical" in the lede. Wefa (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not — Here are multiple examples of the account using explicitly derogatory language (emphasis mine):

In a Tuesday newsletter, Libs of TikTok fumed that the hospital “supports castrating kids and I have evidence,” adding that it “had a full menu of castration and mutilation options for minors to choose from.”

Slate scrolled through thousands of Raichik’s tweets, including hundreds of deleted tweets, to understand how one real estate agent could gain such clout and to try to discern her next targets. One notable trend was clear: Raichik’s feed is colored by an intense hostility to liberals generally, but she holds an especially pronounced animosity toward LGBTQ people, city dwellers, and Black people who have been killed at the hands of police.

Raichik’s apparent hostility for Black victims of police violence didn’t end with Floyd. She also tweeted repeatedly mocking the killing of 16-year-old Ma’Khia Bryant, and in another video, the account endorsed random police brutality.

For months, Raichik backed off the “groomer” discourse while still consistently posting videos mocking trans people. But in November 2021, she started up again. 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.” It was around this time that her account also started using what has become a popular online insult: “Ok groomer.”

On March 8, a Twitter account called Libs of TikTok posted a video of a woman teaching sex education to children in Kentucky, calling the woman in the video a “predator.”

By January, Raichik’s page was leaning hard into “groomer” discourse, calling for any teacher who comes out as gay to their students to be “fired on the spot."

She also purported that adults who teach children about LGBTQ+ identities are “abusive,” that being gender-nonconforming or an ally to the LGBTQ+ community is a “mental illness,”

She has also proudly claimed responsibility for getting teachers fired for lessons on sexuality or gender. Many of the people featured on her account are harassed and doxxed by her followers.

Derogatory: showing strong disapproval and not showing respect

Sources

In summary, this account regularly uses hateful and discriminatory characterizations of those it seeks to mock. It attacks the specific character of such persons, uses mental illness as an insult, and calls for such persons to be fired, harmed, or disparaged based on their sexual orientation, gender, or race. E.g. calling for violence against black peoplerandom police brutality, especially against black persons, for laughs. Edited:17:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC), advocating for firing teachers if they are gay or trans, describing LGBTQ persons as "pedophiles" in a blanket manner, and continuing to describe trans persons as disfigured, mutilated, or as pedophiles.

This sort of language is derogatory, full stop. it is not simple "criticism." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Castration, for instance, is not a derogatory term in itself. It is, of course, when applied to children and juveniles who by definition can not consent to it, a barbaric and despicable practice, but if it was actually on offer at this place, it should be called that way. Because it is accurate. The same goes for other forms of mutilation.

Furthermore none of the sources you bring actually uses the term "derogatory" - that classification seems, thus, to be OR.

And lastly, the term derogatory, your dictionary quote notwithstanding, contains an element of malfeasance. If you are a murderer and I call you that, it is not derogatory. It is accurate. In that sense, WP's use of this term here violates NPOV and should be replaced with a neutral description. "Critical" fits that bill. Wefa (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Transphobic and homophobic commentary is by definition derogatory. Zaathras (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Not if you have a broad definition of "transphobic" such as "anyone who thinks puberty blockers should not be given to children". Korny O'Near (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

broad definition of "transphobic" such as "anyone who thinks puberty blockers should not be given to children"

That is a massive straw man argument. In this case, we are talking about someone who describes gender-affirming care as "mutilation", who mocks people for being transgender, who calls LGBTQ persons "groomers" simply for acknowledging the existence of non-straight people to children (and that they should be fired as a result), and who advocates for murdering black people based on the color of their skin random police brutality, especially against black persons, for laughs. Edited:17:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The least we can do to adhere to policy and fair WP:SUMMARY is call these comments "derogatory" — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I dare say "mutilation" is the more straightforward description of surgery to remove children's genitalia than "gender-affirming care" - they're both loaded terms, of course, but the latter term seems quite a bit more removed from reality, venturing into Orwellian. But the rest of what you say is more interesting. All of those statements would indeed be derogatory - but I haven't seen evidence that LibsOfTikTok has said any of these; rather they seem to be even-more-extreme paraphrasing of already-extreme paraphrasing by several hit pieces, most notably the one in Slate. (Which I think no longer deserves to be called a reliable source, but that's another story.) Surely, if LibsOfTikTok is derogatory toward gays, black people, etc., you could find a direct quote or two to back that up? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

If you don't find any of the above already listed evidence to be convincing (e.g. "Any teacher who utters the words “I came out to my students” should be fired on the spot", calling gay people "groomers", etc) then I think it's likely that nothing I could show you would be convincing, and to attempt to do so would be a massive waste of my time. Have a great day. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

One term is accepted by the expert medical community, the other is pushed by fringe bigots... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Chiming in here that I agree 100% with the above arguments of Zaathras and Shibbolethink. I have previously made similar arguments which can be easily found in these talk archives. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been advertised at WT:Internet and WT:Politics.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

SiliconRed - You agree 100% that LoTT "advocates for murdering black people based on the color of their skin"? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Fair point, I misinterpreted the tweet in question [3], I'll strike and add a more accurate description. However, as that's not the only point at which they make derogatory comments, it's a pretty weak argument against the term's inclusion to poke one hole in one tweet. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Korny -- It's increasingly difficult to read your comments as constructive. If you prefer, I'll phrase my opinion as: I agree with the arguments by multiple editors above that the term "derogatory" provides an effective and accurate WP:SUMMARY of how WP:RS (summarized above) have described the subject's editorializing of content being posted. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

If the Slate material above is one of our sources, then we have a sound basis in "Raichik’s feed is colored by an intense hostility to liberals generally" for "intensely hostile comments". NebY (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I would be hesitant to provide a direct quote from a single cite as opposed to a paraphrase of multiple WP:RS. "Derogatory" has similar meaning and is much easier to understand in context of wikispeak than "intensely hostile comments". Arguably "intensely hostile comments" would suggest that "derogatory" is not a strong enough descriptor. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I did consider suggesting "hateful" or "discriminatory" but I think we have the best sourcing (and are most likely to achieve consensus) for "derogatory". That's consensus via compromise for you. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Re your second point, it would only suggest that "derogatory" wasn't strong enough, or was otherwise inappropriate, to a reader who knew that we'd chosen one term rather than another. We don't really need to worry about that. Also, if "intensely hostile" is stronger, is that really a reason not to use it?

When I look at the terms Slate used above to describe her output and the quotes you posted while I was slowly writing this, I don't think "derogatory" really does sum up what they're saying about her output. It's a term people also use about quite mild rudeness ("he called me a liar/drunk/thief, well that's derogatory").

Re "much easier to understand in context of wikispeak", I'm baffled. We should write plain English. NebY (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to "intensely hostile" but I do think there are probably great wordsmiths out there who could come up with a better option for our context. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, these are good points. I would be in favor of modifying to this or similar, e.g.: The account reposts, often with hostile or derogatory commentary, content created by liberals, leftists, and LGBT people on TikTok and on other social media platforms. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 18:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

"Hostile or derogatory" communicates well. NebY (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

So it's visible, here is my previous summary (and full argument, which remains useful in this discussion) of WP:RS not already cited above by Shibbolethink:

From WaPo [4]: 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 [5]: 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 [6]: Mocking liberal “hypocrisy” and “wokeness”, Libs of TikTok had amassed about 65,000 followers.

The Week [7]: 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. "Derogatory" is an accurate paraphrase of this language. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm very grateful to you and Shibbolethink for compiling this source review. I continue to support "derogatory" as a reasonable summary of this coverage. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Based on commentary above, I'll restate my opinion in a specific modification to improve the wording here, based on WP:RS and leaning on exact wording Slate [8] (which is reliable per WP:RSP and the article is straight news, not opinion or contrarian news) and Daily Dot [9] (also reliable per WP:RSP): The account reposts, often with hostile or maligning commentary, content created by liberals, leftists, and LGBT people on TikTok and on other social media platforms. Thoughts? SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 19:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that's pretty good, but I actually think "derogatory or hostile commentary" would be better. It's disrespectful comments, that's what I think needs to be captured here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Where does "often" come from, by the way? As far as I can tell, from just scrolling through the Twitter feed, 95% or so of the posts are just a video (or article, etc.) plus a fairly straightforward description of what's in it (e.g., "This teacher teaches his students that our nation was built on racism"). Korny O'Near (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

We need to use WP:RS, not your WP:OR when we're deciding how to phrase this, which do imply consistency, or "often", in their descriptions. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 19:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Where do you see "often" in the sources? The Slate article does say "consistently posting videos mocking trans people" - but that's talking about the videos, not the commentary around them. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

To a certain degree you seem to be arguing that The account mocks and maligns content created by liberals, leftists, and LGBT people on TikTok and on other social media platforms. is optimal phrasing, and honestly this might be the best path forward, rather than arguing over whether the commentary specifically is "derogatory". To my reading of RS and the subject, the whole point of this account is to spew hateful nonsense so I would honestly agree with this approach. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 19:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

5% of prolific posting is most certainly often. Perhaps you're thinking of "usually". NebY (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

That may literally be true, but I'm sure many readers will not quite parse out the difference between "often" and "usually". Korny O'Near (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It's usually understood well enough without having to parse. It's when picking away at phrasing that such misconstruals are often made. NebY (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

So you think it'll be obvious to just about everyone who reads this article that "often" here means "5% of the time". Korny O'Near (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

5% is your WP:OR. Yes, I do expect that most people will understand the difference without even stopping to think about it. You got it wrong, but even that might not reflect on your comprehension skills as much as on your eagerness to score points. NebY (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know my 5% figure is original research, but then again the whole thing is original research - I'm not aware of any sources that back up the article's current "often with hostile or derogatory commentary" wording. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

At this point it's virtually impossible to read your "disagreements" as good faith. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 21:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Good point Shibbolethink, I have modified above to use "maligning" rather than incendiary, again sticking with wording from RS. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 19:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I am happy with that wording [10] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• I think that "derogatory" is an accurate summary of the sources cited above. Beyond that, the focus in those sources indicates that it's what the article's subject is mostly famous for, so omitting it from the lead would be inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  The derogatory part seems to be well backed, but I’m not so sure that sources back up the hostile part. It would be nice if you could provide the sources which back up the hostile claim. Thanks! X-Editor (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Slate [11]. See discussion above between myself, NebY, and Shibbolethink. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 22:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

One source isn’t nearly enough to back up such a contentious claim. Please provide more sources that back up the hostile claim. X-Editor (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I would encourage you to review the multiple summaries of sources above. Slate uses the language verbatim but every source uses slightly different (albeit similar) language. It is not contentious. There is agreement from several editors w.r.t. using “hostile”. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 20:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Siliconred apparently XE has taken it upon themselves to implement a consensus that I don't see here. PICKLEDICAE🥒 02:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

It would have been helpful if you provided the sources a bit more directly, but I’ve looked at the ones above and it seems pretty clear as to what they are saying. X-Editor (talk) 06:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

This paper describes it as ...a pejorative and mean-spirited account aimed at mocking liberal-leaning Tik Tok social media users, which I think can reasonably be summarized as "hostile." --Aquillion (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Libs of TikTok has already been featured in an academic paper? That was fast. X-Editor (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not exactly a surprise given the consequences of their actions resulting in literal terrorist threats to children's hospitals. And you know, all the stochastic terrorism before that. PICKLEDICAE🥒 14:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OR and Boston Hospital

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A user just reverted an edit I made to add content to the controversy around Boston children's hospital. I tried to add content that showed the hospital had in fact been engaging in gender surgery for minors. The editor reverted this claiming it was OR and synthesis. I would like to point out that some of the sources I cited were from the webpage (archived) of the hospital itself.

To allege OR would mean that there isn't RS for material. How is it possible that the hospital itself is not considered RS for its own practices? Synthesis would also mean drawing conclusions that aren't present in RS, but those conclusions are found on Fox News and other news sites, for which there is no reason to consider them unreliable for this case. Reesorville (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The edit in question: [12]

RSes for controversial material must be secondary sources (see WP:PRIMARY). It is explicitly not our job as wikipedia editors to interpret primary sources. Wikipedia is not the place to engage in investigative journalism or advocacy of your political opinion.

The hospital is a primary source. WP:FOXNEWS and NCR are not RSes for this content, especially considering it is a political controversy. An additional concern is that this content is likely WP:UNDUE, given that it is so difficult to find a secondary RS covering it.

Think about it: common sense tells us that it is a no-go to use a PRIMARY source to allege that a hospital is lying. Fox News is not going to be the place that gives us an unvarnished neutral view of whether or not they are, either. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The conclusion that they are being inaccurate (I'm not sure about using the word 'lying') in how they've presented themselves is found in those secondary sources, so it is not an original interpretation. In my opinion, Fox News is often not a good source when citing information about the last US presidential election, the pandemic or some political events, however, I am not really convinced by the case why it should be excluded here, especially given the fact that the facts they are citing are literally things you can see for yourself in the archived versions of the hospital's webpage. Unless there is a doubt that those facts are true that they did in fact offer to do these kinds of surgery for minors, then there is no reason to allege that the source can't be counted as RS here. At that point we're just citing wiki rules while forgetting the reasons why those rules existed. Reesorville (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was misled by the first part of the paragraph appearing to be cited only to the primary sources, and I also thought you were engaging in original research. Yes there is doubt that the Fox News and NCR coverage is inaccurate or misleading, and if no reliable sources are covering this then content about it is undue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Shibbo above -- but in response here: This edit doesn't represent some general conclusion made WP:SECONDARY sources, it's your conclusion after reading WP:PRIMARY sources -- this makes the edit WP:OR. If you can find the WP:RS — as mentioned by Shibboleth, FOXNEWS & NCR are likely not sufficient in this (it does not matter whether you individually think they're reliable, it matters what the general consensus is from editors here and WP:RSP)— it's possible you could add information to this article along these lines. I am skeptical given WP:UNDUE and my own reading of cites here, but I suppose it's within the realm of possibility. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 15:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

My rule of thumb: If this content is so news-worthy and DUE inclusion, eventually a higher quality source will show up which covers it and we can revisit this then. I would especially want a more neutral and trustworthy source to help us decide how to include it at that point. In the meantime, there is WP:NODEADLINE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It's ridiculous that this obvious, and obviously relevant, information (Boston Children's Hospital changed the wording on its website in response to Libs of TikTok's criticism) is being kept out of this article. (And it's also shameful on Politifact's part that they didn't include this information, given that the website was the one source for their "ruling".) Fox News has written about it, and so has National Review, and on an issue this cut-and-dry, where essentially there's no way to argue that these sources are wrong, that's surely good enough sourcing. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

That NR article is not saying what it would need to say for this to be "cut and dried" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

e.g. "The hospital clarified to Fox News that 17-year-olds can only go to surgical consultation, but must turn 18 in order to qualify to obtain the surgery. That detail was missing from the original website page." and "“For surgical consultation, you must be 17 years of age and between 18 and 35 years of age at the time of surgery. We have since updated this to reflect the protocols for the practice, which we have always adhered to (no surgery under 18 years of age),” a hospital spokesperson told the outlet."

This would dispute the content in the original edit. And gets so far into the weeds, the best approach would be to not cover it at all until a generally reliable secondary source does.

If I were to write something based on the NR source, it would be:

According to a hospital spokesperson, institutional policy has long been that patients under 18 may begin the process of consultation with a surgeon, but are not eligible to undergo a gender-affirming operation until after they turn 18. The hospital has since updated its Gender Multispecialty Service Program website to clarify any discrepancies.

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd be okay with this proposal, though I would be in support of finding other sources that also published this quote to better demonstrate that discussing the website change is DUE. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 15:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

This content is neither obvious nor obviously relevant. Reviewing the citations in use from Axios, WaPo, PolitiFact, and LoTT (and in fact NationalReview too), the changed content tracked in Internet Archive is unrelated to LoTT's claims about hysterectomies or even services that the hospital provides. It's misleading and incorrect to suggest that the LoTT tweets in this context are truthful or that the hospital is being dishonest based on marginally reliable citations (National Review/Fox per WP:RSP, no general consensus on NCR but this appears unreliable) and editor interpretations of the Internet Archive. The NR article even acknowledges that the website change is not related to a change in services provided but rather to a clarification of wording. So at this point it doesn't even seem like we have a case of WP:CONFLICTING. “For surgical consultation, you must be 17 years of age and between 18 and 35 years of age at the time of surgery. We have since updated this to reflect the protocols for the practice, which we have always adhered to (no surgery under 18 years of age),” a hospital spokesperson told the outlet.

Enough. All the sources, including the marginally reliable sources, disagree with the proposed content and it is clearly WP:UNDUE to incorporate apparently arbitrary changes to a website only reported on in marginally reliable sources. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 15:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

unrelated to LoTT's claims about hysterectomies
That's a good point, that LoTT never pointed to chest surgery or vaginoplasties, so this is even more WP:UNDUE for this article. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I see three points for recognizing a conflict in sources. 1) Libs of tiktok on their original page attacking the hospibal were not simply citing hysterectomies but they mentioned other things as well despite the fact the the hospital only responded initially with the denial of hysterectomies. 2) not for this page, but for Boston children's hospital page, libs of tiktok were not the only group/commentator to make these allegations from which the threats and harassment seem to have originated and those other sources also mentioned other things as well. 3) the allegation being made in the sources defending the hospital are that they are a victim of 'misinformation'. If it is written here that they are victims of misinformation without further explanation, it leads the reader to the conclusion that the hospital is in fact innocent of what it's being accused of; the fact that there was lots of false information in the claims, however, (eg. involvement of young children, hysterectomies, etc.) is not enough to support that conclusion, because if some of those allegations in fact were true, I argue the reader is being misled if that isn't mentioned. Even if it turns out there was a misunderstanding in the reading of the hospital's own material and all these surgeries aren't carried out until 18, that misunderstanding and where it came from has no compelling reason why it can't be included in the article, rather than as it appears right now to the reader, which is that the libs of tiktok invented all these things and nota shred of it was true. Reesorville (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

That is absolutely true; reading the article as it is now, you would think LoTT just picked the name "Boston Children's Hospital" out of a hat to launch its attacks. The wording on the BCH website was at the very least misleading. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Who (WP:WEASEL) is arguing that LoTT is correct, or agrees with these allegations? WP:RS do not agree with any of your arguments here. WaPo [13]: New England’s largest pediatric hospital said Wednesday that it was fending off a torrent of threats and harassment targeting staffers who treat transgender patients after conservative influencers attacked them in false and misleading social media posts. Boston Herald [14]: For hysterectomies and other genital surgeries performed as part of gender-affirming care, Boston Children’s requires a patient to be capable of consenting for themselves. Vice [15]: Boston Children’s Hospital said on Tuesday that its staff has faced a flood of violent threats and harassment sparked by a false claim made by the viral LibsofTikTok Twitter account.. Current wording is not misleading; and in fact WP:RS agree that LoTT did invent these claims. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 21:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The "invent" is your wording, not these sources'. The point here isn't whether LoTT was wrong or right; the point is whether there's context to it - which there is. And by the way, I think just the fact that a hospital changed the wording on its website in response to an attack from Libs of TikTok is relevant to an article about Libs of TikTok. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC) Sources agree the claims are false; I am not suggesting "invent" for use in wikispeak but am quoting a previous comment. The change is relevant if RS demonstrate DUE, not based on what you think without proper sourcing. I agree with the proposed addition from Shibbo above but again would encourage finding more sources or a stronger citation to demonstrate need for inclusion. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC) I think the combination of Fox News and National Review is good-enough sourcing. People act as if these sources are unusable on Wikipedia, which is not at all true. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC) Take your argument to WP:RSP if you'd like, not here. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC) It’s more that these sources are not reliable for these controversial claims (which, given this talk page section, this clearly is) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC) There's no consensus on their reliability, which is not the same as "not reliable". Korny O'Near (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC) C'mon... Read WP:RSP. There's criticism of whether to use these sources here on talk from multiple editors and guidelines suggest both should be used with caution, if at all. We are doing just what guidelines suggest: Assessing the quality of these sources on a per-case basis in the context of the subject matter and based on previous consensus around their reliability. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 18:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC) Are we? I haven't seen any assessment here of the quality of the Fox News and National Review articles. I think it's fairly obvious that these articles are both accurate; anyone can click on the Wayback Machine link and see for themselves. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC) Take a look at the WaPo quote below and WP:DROPTHESTICK if you want to continue conversation about how to cite this content. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 18:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC) I was just correcting you. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I have added an additional WP:RS to the article on this subject without changing prose from USA Today: [16]. Note this article (the most thorough I have found so far on the subject) makes no mention of the changes to the website. I would imagine this is because the changes to the website had nothing to do with the hospital policy that is the subject of LoTT's false claims, policy which verifiably has not changed in the aftermath of this incident. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Right, at the heart of the of this issue is that LoTT never actually did what a journalist would have done: clarify with the hospital whether actual operations were being conducted on minors. They simply read the web page and drew the rest of the conclusions themselves. That’s what makes their claims “false”. It doesn’t really matter much what the hospital web page said, if the hospital wasn’t actually performing surgeries on minors. I’m sympathetic to the idea that our page misleads readers, that is of course not something we would ever want to do. But we are beholden to our reliable sources. We cannot draw our own conclusions. We need a source saying that the LoTT claim was erroneously based on confusing wording on the website, a source which we do not have. Not even the unreliable sources actually say this, do they? They all point to LoTT viewing videos, not these policy/patient help pages, afaik. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I've made a WaPo account (sigh, paywalls) and reviewed their article [17] in detail. They dismiss the LoTT claim as false but quote: An archived version of Boston Children’s website appeared to state that vaginoplasties, the surgical construction of a vagina, were available to 17-year-olds. The hospital said that while patients could receive surgical consultations at 17, they must be “between 18 and 35 years of age at the time of surgery.” An updated version of the website reflects that policy, the hospital said. This, IMO, is a sufficient source to support wording as proposed above, without using the marginally reliable sources at all. As you mention though, there's still no link between this webpage and the LoTT claims (which had nothing to do with vaginoplasties, and we don't want to imply WP:SYNTHESIS). This suggestion: According to a hospital spokesperson, institutional policy has long been that patients under 18 may begin the process of consultation with a surgeon, but are not eligible to undergo a gender-affirming operation until after they turn 18. The hospital has since updated its Gender Multispecialty Service Program website to clarify any discrepancies. supported by the WaPo cite could work. I'm open to further workshopping and still have questions about WP:UNDUE given how buried in the WaPo article this is. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 18:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it is important to point out here, since people are still repeating that the original issue was only about hysterectomies, to direct people to look at what Lott's original twitter feed said which led to all of this. Here is the link: https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1557775959217950725?s=20 You can see that the part on vaginoplasties for 17 year olds is quoted right under where they mention hysterectomies. The same is true of other commentators that were attacking the hospital on social media. The Fox News article I mentioned earlier mentions the earlier versions of the website and the information on it that seemed to say they allowed for 17 year olds to get vaginoplasties as well the masectomies for 15 year olds. Despite Fox News's shortcomings in other areas, I maintain the position that there is really no reason to not regard as RS on this issue, considering that the facts in question are literally right there for us to look at. Perhaps it was rooted from a misunderstanding of what was meant on the website, but even if it was, it merits being mentioned on wiki. Reesorville (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it is important to point out here, since people are still repeating that the original issue was only about hysterectomies, to direct people to look at what Lott's original twitter feed said which led to all of this This is original research. Yes that's great that you are able to identify this original tweet. I don't see any mention of vaginoplasties or gender-affirming chest surgery in any of their tweets. Do you have a reliable source to support such an assertion? That LoTT was examining this? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand you. The tweet right on the page mentions vaginoplasties, does it not? Reesorville (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you also misunderstand wiki OR policy. An original primary source is considered RS when someone is referencing what that source said or what their own position is. For example, I can quote the webpage of the White House if I am referencing their own policy statements.Reesorville (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Do any secondary reliable sources cover the fact that this is what LoTT are concerned about? I don't see it mentioned in connection to LoTT in any of the secondary sources listed here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I can quote the webpage of the White House if I am referencing their own policy statements. for uncontroversial statements which are not about third parties, yes. See WP:ABOUTSELF. This would A) be controversial, B) be also about Boston Children's Hospital. So it fails on two of the listed criteria. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:ABOUTSELF is that as long as the material is only being used to say what the author's own position is, then it is acceptable. I don't think you need to interpret it so literally as to think that a claim about a third party can't be included, but rather the meaning of the policy is that you are not using the text from that source in order to make a claim about a third party in the article. For example, I can quote a white house statement that it makes about Vladimir Putin and I can use this to say that what the white house's position is about Vladimir Putin, as long as the text in the article is making it clear that I am only just quoting this to say what their position is and not to say that this claim about the third party is itself true. Therefore, if I quote the twitter feed of LOTT to claim in the article that they made claims about vaginoplasties for minors at the hospital, and I am making it clear that this is just their statement and not something we are taking as fact (on that basis alone), it is entirely legitimate. Reesorville (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

How do you feel about the following draft, then?

In August 2022, Libs of TikTok claimed that Boston Children's Hospital was providing vaginoplasties and hysterectomies to underage patients.[SPS/Fox cite] According to a hospital spokesperson, institutional policy has always been that patients under 18 may begin the process of consultation with a surgeon, but are not eligible to undergo a gender-affirming operation until after they turn 18.[NatRev/WaPo cite] The hospital has since updated its Gender Multispecialty Service Program website to clarify any discrepancies.[WaPo cite]

Remember, consensus via compromise. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

the crux of the issue for me is that the article as it stands now doesn't give the reader any indication that LOTT's claims were actually based on something that existed. It gives the impression that LOTT completely fabricated everything and the hospital is an innocent victim of a misinformation campaign with no basis in fact. However, it appears that even though it contained a number of falsities, this was actually based on something factual in the beginning and the article is not presenting anything about that to the reader.

here is an example of what I would change from your draft:

In August 2022, Libs of TikTok made claims on Twitter that Boston Children's Hospital was providing surgery for transgender teens including vaginoplasties and hysterectomies to underage patients.[SPS/Fox cite] The hospital's website had included statements that 17 was the eligible age for vaginoplasty and 15 was the eligible age for mastectomy [cite Fox + internet archive of the original site]. Libs of TikTok made unfounded claims that young children were able to get hysterectomies at the hospital [cite CNN or any other source that reported it]. According to a hospital spokesperson, institutional policy has always been that patients under 18 may begin the process of consultation with a surgeon, but are not eligible to undergo a gender-affirming operation until after they turn 18. The hospital edited its Gender Multispecialty Service Program website to state that minors are not eligible for gender surgery.[WaPo cite]

Reesorville (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Your version includes a great deal of UNDUE and POV material which is not verified by reliable sources and increases the real estate of this controversy on the page until it becomes a POV COATRACK, and I thus cannot support it. It also does not appear to have consensus here on the talk page, at least not at the moment.

I would urge you to consider consensus via compromise. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or allow only your preferred position be the one you would accept in the article. As described above, I don't think any of this is DUE, but I am willing to accept a less strict interpretation of DUE if it means we achieve a compromise. If you aren't willing to do the same, I don't think we have much else to discuss until better or more numerous sources mention this material. Until then, I'm unwatching this thread. Tag me if something changes, and have a great day. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I've already stated what the primary issue is: the article as it stands is misleading. I think your draft proposal doesn't fix that. If there is no consensus for change, obviously this is going any further. We'll see if anyone else comments here. Reesorville (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I think Reesorville's wording is clearer and more informative than Shibbolethink's. The main problem I see with Shibbolethink's wording is the last sentence, "The hospital has since updated its Gender Multispecialty Service Program website to clarify any discrepancies" - the "has since" wording doesn't make it clear that the update was done in direct response to LoTT's criticism, while "to clarify any discrepancies" treats BCH's assertions as fact; in reality, we don't know whether their website change was a clarification or a cover-up. Reesorville's wording also includes relevant information on the different surgeries. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:RS appear to treat BCH's assertions as fact, what you are proposing is OR/SYNTH (it would also appear to be part of a larger fringe POV push, like above when you said that "mutilation" was more accurate than ""gender-affirming care""). We get it... You fundamentally disagree with the mainstream and the experts on the underlying issue, but we can't let that impact the article in any way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

First, it is not clear that the update on the website was a "response". Suggesting the LoTT attacks were "criticism" is a plain misreading of WP:RS, which agree across the board that they are "false claims". Implying that the website change is a "cover up"? What are you talking about? WP is not a place to spout or imply conspiracy. Reesorville's suggested change is clear WP:POVPUSHING and has no verification in WP:RS. "Unfounded claims" -> "false" in RS; suggestion that all patients under 18 were eligible until this website change --> is verifiably false, supported by both the website and RS covering the subject; "edited its page to state that minors are not eligible" --> also incorrect, this is not what the edit was and this wording suggests that a) the webpage is the "source of truth" for policy and b) previously <17yr olds were able to pursue surgery, which is also verifiably false; suggestion in language that the website is the core of this issue, when no RS agree with this; implications that the rules and regulations at BH were in disagreement with expert recommendations (i.e. 15/17 ages for consults/mastectomy), which is incorrect. If this content is included it needs to follow the WaPo cite, and wording needs to agree closely, not in this broad, vaguely synthesized way.

On Wikipedia, we follow WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:V as tentpole policy. RS support and verified the statements by BCH. Suggesting those statements are "assertions" is a transparently bad faith & POVPUSHING argument. This is a poor suggestion for inclusion which I vehemently oppose.

You don't get to both a) argue the website/hospital is a liar/cover up scheme and b) argue that on Wikipedia we are beholden to treat verifiably false claims about the hospital policies based on a bad-faith reading of the hospital website as "fact". Enough, again. I'm also dropping out of this thread at this point but again would support Shibbo's previous suggestion, which bridges the gap and covers this content in as DUE a way possible based on RS. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 15:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

here is the link to the fox news article for convenience: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/boston-childrens-hospital-deletes-references-vaginoplasties-17-year-olds-online-furor Reesorville (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Criticism can include false claims, so I don't see a contradiction there. And we can't know for sure whether BCH changed its website in response to LoTT's criticism, but readers should at least know that the change came relatively soon afterwards, i.e. within weeks - phrasing like "has since" could imply that it was done even years later, depending on when people read this article. It's also true that a web page is not necessarily a source of truth - although it's certainly meant to be seen as such, and helps give context to any false accusations. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I also found this article from RealClearPolitics that seems to provide more nuanced coverage that criticizes both fact checkers and conservative outlets and also mentions the Fox News article: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/08/26/confusion_surrounds_boston_childrens_hospitals_gender_clinic_148102.amp.html . Thoughts? X-Editor (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSP states on RealClearPolitics: Use as a source in a Wikipedia article should probably only be done with caution, and better yet should be avoided.. Let's stick with the WaPo cite, I do not think this citation should be used. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 22:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Siliconred: If we’re going to use WaPo as the source for the claims discussed, than what content would you suggest adding to the article? X-Editor (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

See above; I think Shibbolethink's proposal is the most reasonable. I would prefer to hear other editor's opinions as I am not convinced mentioning the website change is DUE. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 00:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki's 'Due' policy doesn't mean that a minority viewpoint in RS isn't worthy to be on main space: it rather means that minority viewpoints should have less coverage than majority viewpoints. I agree that the facts and conclusions cited about the hospital change of its webpage are less commonly found in the news than the narrative that the hospital was a victim of a misinformation campaign, however, the fact that we have RS citing these facts/conclusions including from media sources with viewership in the millions is sufficient reason why that can be included. I've already given the argument above why it is misleading to omit this, but in addition, in the interest of neutrality, we also shouldn't only present a single side in the dispute, as though we are saying that the hospital was the innocent victim and Lott was the villain. If there is an issue with Due policy, we could simply have a mention of the fact that the website previously held this material, while putting more text on the fact that LOTT presented false claims about hysterectomies and this resulted in a harassment campaign (which is what the majority of news sites seemed to cover about this story). Reesorville (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The usefulness of sources is based on reliability, not viewership; and the highest-quality sources simply don't cover this the way you're interpreting it. Arguing that neutrality requires that we include claims or interpretations that aren't treated seriously in reliable sources WP:FALSEBALANCE. Additionally, the insinuation that a hospital has done something wrong in that regard - ie. your personal opinion that they are not an "innocent victim" - is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that would require the highest-quality sources to include, which is certainly not what I'm seeing from the ones presented so far. --Aquillion (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I think maybe I didn't word this correctly, let me try to see if I can it make it clearer: I am not suggesting we write the article in a way to say that the hospital is 'guilty', and it is not in fact my personal opinion that the hospital is 'guilty': I don't know personally whether the hospital is guilty or innocent. What I am suggesting is that the material present in reliable that shows the hospital had in fact been publishing information prior to Aug 2022 that seemed to suggest it was doing trans surgeries on minors should be included. Fox News's coverage as well as that of some of the other conservative news sites can be considered reliable for this case (Fox news is only considered possibly unreliable for politics and science) and their coverage is not 'contradicted' by other RS, because the other RS appears to largely not even report on those details at all. 'Neutrality' implies we don't take sides, not in alleging that one is guilty and the other innocent, but rather in withdrawing from making those kinds of insinuations all together and simply reporting what is found in RS. Reesorville (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Fox news is only considered possibly unreliable for politics and science This is political subject matter. other RS appears to largely not even report on those details at all This implies adding this content is WP:UNDUE. In fact, I believe this is just about the policy definition of UNDUE. You're right, neutrality means we don't take sides. However, it does not mean that we create FALSEBALANCE by overweighting minor & exceptional attributes of the subject matter. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 12:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we have to regard this as necessarily 'political'. I am not totally familiar with what the arguments were for listing Fox News on the list when it was listed, but I am guessing from my own experiences with it is that it is because Fox News tends to treat what certain US republican politicians say as factual or credible (or at least trying to hint that they are) even when it contradicts basic facts or science. This particular case, however, isn't about politicians, political parties, elections, laws, etc... at least not directly, it is about a hospital that was subject to harassment after some commentators commented on them. It is related to politics indirectly, but it is not politics in itself. Fox News reports on shootings in major cities and there are political undertones related to it, but their reporting is generally quite accurate in stating the details. But I think really the fact that we can literally go back to the internet archive and see it for ourselves that that text was on the website is already enough reason why Fox News doesn't have to be considered an unreliable source on this story.

Maybe if I could put it like this: do any of the other RS explicitly deny that this report in Fox News about the website previously mentioning these details to be true? If that is the case, I'll drop the argument I am making here about why Fox News can considered RS for this.

I argue that a FALSEBALANCE would only be if we put this reporting on an equal or disproportionate footing to the other reporting. Simply mentioning this, even in just one sentence, while you have several paragraphs devoted to the information from the other sources isn't a FALSEBALANCE or a violation of DUE, in my opinion. Completely eliminating the minority and only having the majority, however, I think would be problematic. Reesorville (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• In addition to their reliability issues, RealClearPolitics is a WP:BIASED source, especially today ([18]). --Aquillion (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t think one RS is nearly enough to dismiss the usage of an entire news source. X-Editor (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

In an interview with Human Events (helpfully categorized as "conservative spotlight"), they said "We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives." At one point they described their own mission, on their web site, as follows: "RealClearPolitics attempts to counterbalance the common liberal bias of the mainstream press by providing a more realistic look at the issues. Above all, we believe in freedom, personal responsibility, and the free market capitalist system -- [but do] not receive monetary support from any political party or outside interest groups.]" They wear their ideological outlook on their sleeve and are therefore plainly a WP:BIASED source that can't be used for statements of fact about American politics without attribution. --Aquillion (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The second part of your comment is entirely original research and the first part is backed up by a generally unreliable source according to WP:RSP. I was hoping you would provide other reliable sources, not the exact opposite. The biased policy you link to says “Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate”, the key word being MAY. The idea that we have to, in all instances, attribute biased sources is therefore false. Lastly, all sources are technically biased, so saying that they cannot be used or have to be attributed because of bias makes no sense. No one is free from bias. What we should be most concerned with is accuracy, not bias. X-Editor (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:OR does not apply to talk page discussions, only article content. OR is precisely how we are supposed to judge source quality as editors. We also should be concerned with verifiability to RSes, not "accuracy". — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Even if OR does not apply to talk page discussions, it would be better if we verify the unreliability of a source by looking at multiple RSes rather than an unreliable source and a primary source. And as I pointed out above, a source being biased does not necessarily make it unreliable or unusable. RCP, Fox News and National Review all verify their claims with archives of the hospital website, so there’s your verifiability. I’m not necessarily suggesting that the content should be added to the article. I’m just saying that these specific arguments for not including the content are flawed. X-Editor (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• I think Shibbolethink's proposed draft wording works the best. It uses what LoTT said and then uses the actual reliable sources available to explain the facts of the website and what medical procedures were actually being offered. Silverseren^C 17:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I’m not entirely sure where I stand on this, which is why I invited discussion from RSN and NPOVN. Hopefully that will help us overcome the discussion deadlock we are currently in. X-Editor (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Silver seren and believe Shibbolethink's proposed draft works well. I also echo Shibbolethink's caution against using RCP on this issue. It is important to avoid including sources which have been noted by the community to be demonstrably unreliable especially in an arena where political goals are being advanced through nominal media organizations. Protonk (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic Korny O'Near (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Breast Augmentation, Reduction, and "Top" Surgery For those curious, the reason the age of chest surgery isn't raised might be because breast augmentation and reduction surgeries, even strictly cosmetic, have not been uncommon in the U.S. under age 18. Reduction: 18 average (mostly preventative), in Virg, 16 for most insurance, but sometimes 15; augmentation: FDA recommends 18+, but is not too uncommon younger. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC) If that’s the case, then breast surgeries for LGBT minors doesn’t seem particularly notable. X-Editor (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC) Thanks for this, but there is a question I want to ask, because I am not an expert- 'Breast reduction surgery' for cosmetic reasons: does it still leave the breast as a working organ for the future (ie. able to make breastmilk if the woman has a child)? And does a mastectomy for a transman leave it as a working organ? Reesorville (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC) That's a good question, and I'm surprised that no one seems eager to answer it, but yes, mastectomies (er, "top surgeries") do usually prevent lactation ("chestfeeding") in the future, due to milk ducts being removed/damaged, and the standard accompanying injections of testosterone further decrease the chance of lactation, according to various sources, including this Canadian clinic. In that way, such surgeries are extremely different from standard breast reduction or breast augmentation surgeries. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC) "In that way, such surgeries are extremely different from standard breast reduction or breast augmentation surgeries." just not true, a loss of ability to lactate is a complication of standard breast augmentation and reduction surgeries as well, its actually near guaranteed with many of the most common methods [19]. They're essentially the same surgeries, only the politics are different. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC) I think both cases are being overstated here, and we're a couple steps into forum-style debate, with the question being "why didn't LoTT complain about the chest surgeries"? Even if answered definitively, I don't see a way it will affect our article content choices. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC) Many of the answers above to @Reesorville's question are misleading if not incorrect (which is really disappointing, you all should be able to find good quality academic medical reviews on this...it's what we do on Wikipedia isn't it?). I was holding off on answering, thinking someone with more precise expert knowledge than I would respond. But I can't just say nothing when inaccuracies are being spread... I have had patients ask me this question when I was rotating on OBGYN and on general surgery - plastics, and have had to give them evidence-based guidance (as supervised by attending physicians), so I'm going to repeat a lot of that below. @Korny O'Near I would encourage you to not respond to things for which you do not have domain knowledge. Or, if you do so, at least use authoritative sources (MEDRS...) It's a multi-part question, which requires a multi-part answer. For breast reduction for cosmetic/back strain reasons: Yes, the patients mostly retain the ability to breastfeed, as the nipple is retained in place, and many surgeons (though not all, probably most at tertiary care centers in big cities, fewer at outlying hospitals) maintain at least some lactation ducts intact. Severed ducts will surprisingly reattach themselves over time, enabling milk production only slightly reduced when compared to what would have been possible before the surgery. Since any given cis woman will typically produce way more milk than necessary, this ends up not being a problem. When using "preservation technique", 75% and greater are able to successfully breastfeed adequately for their baby's sustenance. When not using that technique, it's only 4% or so[20]. Other sources: [21] [22] Breast reduction/mastectomy for cancer reasons: The above numbers change when the indication is "to remove cancer of the ducts" as you might imagine removing more ducts makes lactation more difficult. But a "lumpectomy" will mostly preserve a great number of ducts not around the lesion [23]. As with all things in medicine, there are exceptions: it gets murkier when ductal carcinoma is directly under the nipple, because these ducts are where milk converges and thus it is more difficult to preserve lactation. However while Ductal carcinoma in situ is the most common form of non-invasive breast cancer (60k cases/year), under the nipple is not the most common location of DCIS presentation, since most of the duct is closer to the lobule [24] [25]. Unfortunately, full mastectomies for breast cancer typically are not nipple- or duct-preserving (and therefore not lactation preserving) due to large margins to prevent any recurrent cancer. But mastectomies are becoming less and less common as lumpectomies are prioritized for first-pass resections today compared to 20 or even 10 years ago. Mastectomies are still the most common, but "breast conserving" lumpectomies are rapidly gaining ground, and are actually the recommendation for the most common types of breast cancer (mostly because our ability to catch it earlier and earlier has caused this shift in recent years, so lumpectomies are now more feasible). Most women still end up going with a mastectomy because it is the "definitive" treatment and much more heavily reduces the possibility of recurrence, at the cost of lactation. [26] [27] [28] [29] For cosmetic breast augmentation surgery: Also mostly yes. Studies differ and there are fewer systematic reviews, but most reviews indicate 60-70% of women are able to successfully breastfeed after these operations, compared to 80-90% of women without these operations [30]. Overall, it depends also on the type of implants, the surgical approach, and whether any complications are incurred. The safest and (most surgeons agree) most aesthetically pleasing implant placement has low risk of preventing breastfeeding (subglandular placement and inframmamary approach) but may have slightly higher risk of visible scarring [31]. Also, notably, patients must wait a few months (typically 3-6) before attempting breastfeeding. Which also makes sense because it is extremely rare that a surgeon will do this operation on a pregnant woman. Other sources: [32] [33] [34] For transmen who have had "top" surgery, the data is much murkier given the much smaller size of the population, and the even smaller cohort of transmen who will want to breastfeed enough to sign up for studies like this. However, it can and does happen. With assistive devices (i.e. breast pumps), transmen on testosterone can still breastfeed for the most part, straight up, just so we all are aware, even cis men can do so given the right circumstances. They will produce less milk, and will for the most part require supplementation with formula, but yes they can breastfeed. Those who are not on testosterone, or who delay or pause testosterone, will be more successful. Those who have not yet had top surgery will be more successful for the reasons discussed above (removal of some milk ducts is a part of any mastectomy, though many are preserved and still others reconnect as long as the nipple is maintained in a vascularized state). [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] In summary: yes, many can, although any type of breast surgery can impact the ability for a patient to do so exclusively (i.e. not formula supplemented). Overall, as far as preserving lactation: native un-modified breast > breast reduction > lumpectomy for cancer reasons > breast augmentation > gender affirming mastectomy > mastectomy for cancer reasons, though there is some variation depending on approach, any implants used, and whether the nipple is preserved in a vascularized state. For sure, no vascular nipple, no breastfeeding. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC) thanks, that's great! it's nice to have so many different talents and experiences mixed together on wiki... I really had no idea... if I'm understanding it right, and in relation to the original point, then the critical issue is whether or not the particular surgery leaves the nipple intact; in my opinion, if hospitals that do this kind of trans surgery are known to purposely remove them for some cases (also something I don't know?), then I think it is probably not correct to argue that hospitals doing the procedure it on minors is equal to doing the common cosmetic chest reduction surgery on minors. Reesorville (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC) First, thank you to Shibbolethink for the incredible source review. I've learned quite a bit reading it. Second, Reesorville -- a) What bearing exactly would any answer to your opinion have on article content? and b) What bearing do your I think and in my opinion arguments have on any aspect of this conversation when your assumption that gender affirming surgery is fundamentally different from other chest surgeries is demonstrated incorrect beyond any reasonable doubt by RS cited above? SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 02:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC) I'm not sure why you want to ask me this, but if you really want an answer: a) I suppose it is because in this thread we were discussing the question of whether to include what the hospital website said about having vaginoplasties for 17 year-olds and chest removals for 15 year-olds? given the nature of why people are outraged by this sort of thing (and some engage in harassment or threats) is obviously related to the question of whether minors are going through surgery that is rendering them as having permanent loss of function for the rest of their lives, if that surgery is the same as cosmetic surgery, as the editor above wrote, then it is not a very significant point and wouldn't make sense to add it to the article (even if you did accept what I wrote before about using the fox news source). b) maybe I read this incorrectly, but I didn't see in Shibbolethink's explanation that trans top surgery never includes this? I think you also misread what I wrote because I don't have an 'assumption that gender affirming surgery is fundamentally different', in fact as I wrote, I don't know whether or not that occurs. Reesorville (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC) Nipples are removed in some cases of chest (top) surgery to alter them slightly in size and appearance to fit a more masculine chest, but are then still replaced back onto the chest, unlike in a cancer-treating mastectomy where they are typically completely removed. Some cis children also undergo cosmetic nipple reduction or shaping for aesthetic reasons, as do many patients who undergo breast reduction or augmentation surgery. Sometimes it's because there's asymmetry in size of the areolas, or an unsightly mole. Aereolaplasty can be done while keeping some milk ducts attached and while keeping the nipple vascularized. There's really no good hard data on this, but anecdotally there was aereolaplasty done in probably 1/2 - 2/3 of the cases of breast reduction/augmentation I personally saw in the course of one month. From my recollection of talks by gender affirming surgeons I've attended and just hangin' around plastics people, I would guesstimate that Aereolaplasty is now close to "standard of care" for gender affirming mastectomy (and occurs in most cases) and is less common but still happens in a large number of non-gender-affirming cosmetic breast surgeries. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC) Shibbolethink - thanks for this detailed explanation. As you've confirmed, so-called "gender affirming" mastectomies are generally more severe in their long-term effects than standard breast reductions or augmentations. They're also different in that they're entirely brought about by the patient's mental state, as opposed to any physical condition. Of course, breast reductions and augmentations are almost always elective as well, but they presumably have to be based on some kind of physical indicator, at least for teenagers - I assume most plastic surgeons, if asked by a teenager to do a breast reduction or augmentation that was not obviously warranted, would refuse and possibly direct the person to a psychiatrist, or dietitian. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC) I think you are missing the critical point that the vast majority of folks and clinicians who opt for gender affirming surgeries are doing so after significant work towards affirming their long-term gender identity with care providers and, unlike you, do not see these surgeries as having "severe" long term effects or being brought on by a "mental state". All hospitals targeted by this account appear to be operating against well agreed upon medical expertise in this domain. Your assumptions about whether folks looking to affirm their gender identities through surgery should be able to do so are incorrect at best and harmful or dangerous at worst; certainly not ideas that would pass critical scrutiny to move anywhere beyond this talk page. [The Gender Health Program at Children's Minnesota] said care for transgender kids is wide-ranging, from efforts to help children socially transition to puberty-blocking medications, and is undertaken with the input of pediatric psychologists, clinical social workers, hormone experts and endocrinologists, as well as families.[40] SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC) Re: @Korny O'Near: breast reductions and augmentations are almost always elective as well, but they presumably have to be based on some kind of physical indicator, at least for teenagers - I assume most plastic surgeons, if asked by a teenager to do a breast reduction or augmentation that was not obviously warranted, would refuse and possibly direct the person to a psychiatrist, or dietitian You have no basis upon which to stake these claims. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC) "As you've confirmed, so-called "gender affirming" mastectomies are generally more severe in their long-term effects than standard breast reductions or augmentations. They're also different in that they're entirely brought about by the patient's mental state, as opposed to any physical condition." These are both misconceptions. Protonk (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Could you clarify that? So far there have been three people who have disagreed with what I wrote, without actually contradicting any specific thing I said. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Respectfully, @Korny O'Near, it appears you may not know enough to know what you don't know. There is no universally agreed-upon physical indicator upon which decisions are made for breast augmentation/reduction. [41] [42] Many have been attempted, but few have stood the test of time. There are a growing number of studies which demonstrate physiological differences in patients who identify as trans. e.g. [43] [44] [45]. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC) The links you found are interesting, but I don't think any of them contradict what I wrote. For the second set, are any of these potential physiological differences used in current practice, to determine who should get surgery? If not, then it's interesting, but unfortunately irrelevant to the current discussion. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC) If three separate people have told you you are off base maybe you should focus less on whether or not you have been explicitly contradicted than the possibility that you are off base. How should I "explicitly contradict" your bare assertion that transness is a mental state divorced from the body? There is a lot to unpack there but it mostly (to me) indicates that you need to listen to some trans people about their lived experiences or understand the deep connection between an insistence on the sole psychological basis for transness and limiting access to care. Educating you about that is outside the scope of this talk page discussion but it needs to happen if you are to productively participate, rather than just seeking confirmation for your priors. Protonk (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC) I'm not looking for confirmation, or contradiction - I just made some (I think) fairly obvious points that are relevant to this discussion, which no one has refuted yet. (As a side note, it's strange that you put "explicitly contradict" in quotes, since I never said that - I think you're quoting yourself.) Korny O'Near (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Sorry, you never said explicitly contradict. You just said "So far there have been three people who have disagreed with what I wrote, without actually contradicting any specific thing I said" and "The links you found are interesting, but I don't think any of them contradict what I wrote" both of which seem to call for explicit contradiction. I think what you imagine to be fairly obvious (e.g. "they're entirely brought about by the patient's mental state, as opposed to any physical condition" when referring to gender affirming top surgery) is actually a misconception which prevents you from productively contributing. Specifically contradicting that is not an exercise in getting you to agree to the outcome of a logic game but in you educating yourself out of a pernicious and damaging misconception about transness. Protonk (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Reading over what you've written, it sounds like your main objection to a statement like "transgenderism is a mental state" is not that it's wrong per se, but that it's harmful. If so, that may be true, but it's irrelevant here. (I assume if you knew of any actual physical indicators, you would have pointed them out by now.) Korny O'Near (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Thanks for removing some doubts that I had. Protonk (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC) WP:DROPTHESTICK. Korny, you're veering into particularly troubling territory at this point. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Breast surgery has nothing to do with any of this. LoTT never claimed that the hospital was giving breast surgeries to minors, she only claimed that they were giving a specific type of genital surgery. I'd suggest closing this discussion as WP:OFFTOPIC. X-Editor (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incorrect info

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

“In August 2022, Libs of TikTok received substantial media attention after falsely claiming that gender-affirming hysterectomies were being provided to minors at the Boston Children's Hospital and at the Children's National Hospital. This resulted in a harassment campaign against the Boston Children's Hospital.”

This is incorrect i can provide proof that they were offering hysterectomies to children its even on archive.org before it was changed 74.109.215.89 (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit war over content about hospital recording

@Korny O'Near, @Rab V, @Iamreallygoodatcheckers, and @Firefangledfeathers, since you've been edit warring over content regarding a hospital recording, I would suggest a discussion here instead to sort things out. X-Editor (talk) 07:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I noticed this eariler, and I'd like to weigh in. I believe that the prose, as originally written by @Iamreallygoodatcheckers, is NPOV and provided important context regarding the tweets made. Without the context, it would seem as if Libsoftiktok began a harassment campaign off of zero evidence, which is not the case. Other sections are provided similar context, and without it a reader may feel as if (and would most certainly be) lacking a critical understanding of what prompted the incident. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is the wording in question. I tried to get this text back in, but actually, I've changed my mind about this - I think I (and some other people, on both sides) were in error about the whole thing. The recording was done with Children's National Hospital, not Boston Children's Hospital - two different hospitals, and two different sets of tweets, at different times. The CNH recording is already mentioned in the section, though further down since it happened later, so there's no reason for this particular text to be here. (This whole section could still use work, since it seems pretty biased at the moment, but that's another story.) Korny O'Near (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

How would you suggest improving the text to be less biased? X-Editor (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Good question. Right now this section (and to some extent, the article as a whole) seems to focus more on harassment resulting from LoTT's statements than to the statements themselves - which I think gives the impression that LoTT is somehow directing people to do this stuff. I'm not saying the harassment, etc. shouldn't be mentioned, but it's given undue prominence. Some examples from this section:

• A great deal of detail about an August 30 (fake) bomb threat made against Boston Children's Hospital - "At 8 PM ...", "At 10 PM ...", etc. I tried removing this excess detail in this edit, but it was reverted here. No one knows whether this bomb threat was made as a result of LoTT's allegations, and even if it was, this wording would still be unnecessary detail, I think.
• The sentence "Users of Patriots.win (formerly The Donald), a pro-Trump message board, and users on far-right and conspiracy theory Telegram groups posted violent threats against the hospital and its doctors." If you read the Vice article that's cited, it's apparently one Reddit user and one Telegram user who called for violence. Do these internet randos deserve special mention here? I don't think so.

And there's also some general misleading wording:

• The phrase "has since targeted Phoenix Children's Hospital." That's a direct quote from this article, so it's plagiarism, but it's also biased wording. The "targeting" is this tweet, which shows a clip from a promotional video for the hospital about "medical transition" for "your child". Is the tweet fair? I don't know. But "targeting" is a misleading way to describe it.
• The phrase right before it, "has made similar claims about a children's hospital in Nebraska", seems also plagiarized and misleading - there, the issue apparently was a booth the hospital set up at a gay pride event, offering information about child gender transitions. Say what you will about this criticism, but it's not "similar claims".

Korny O'Near (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Haven't read this full thread, but I did want to chime in to say I support removing the patriots.win content. Unless it's mentioned by more than just the one Vice piece, it's too detailed and under-covered to be due. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I fixed the last three problems. Out of the six sources provided that mention the bomb threat, three mention Libs of TikTok.

The Guardian: "In recent weeks, the hospital has been the target of anti-LGBTQ+, far-right harassment, including debunked claims about its treatment of transgender youth, and graphic language posted online by an extremist campaign using the handle Libs of TikTok, claiming that the hospital offers complex gender affirmation surgery to minors."

NBC News: "NBC News previously reported that social media accounts such as LibsofTikTok have fanned the flames in recent weeks, making numerous claims including that Boston Children's Hospital is providing gender-affirming hysterectomies to children younger than 18. Conservative influencers have shared the allegations with their millions of followers without evidence."

New York Daily News: "Despite clear evidence that surgeries are only available for those 18 or older, accounts like Libs Of TikTok, identified recently as Chaya Raichik, continued attacking the hospital, leading to threats to staff."

These RS seem to suggest a connection, but the other three do not.

There's also another article from The Boston Globe, which links to another article from the Globe that says: "The attacks against Boston Children’s started last week when a Twitter account called "Libs of Tiktok" posted videos and screenshots from the hospital's website describing genital surgery."

If this connection turns out to be dubious, then the article will be updated to reflect that. X-Editor (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes - I think they're an improvement. For the first item, I'm not saying that the bomb threat shouldn't be mentioned, I'm saying that it can be summmarized in a single sentence, as I had in my edit. Do we really need to know what happened at 8 PM vs. 10 PM, etc.? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I've restored your edit about the bomb threat. Do you have any other issues with the article? X-Editor (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Great, thank you. I have other issues with the article, some of which have been discussed here before, but this doesn't seem like the place for a comprehensive listing. Actually, one big issue I see is just that I don't think Slate deserves to be considered a reliable source any more, but that's probably well outside the scope of this talk page. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest starting a discussion on WP:RSN if you think Slate is no longer a reliable source. X-Editor (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I feel we ought to be at least mindful of the broader context as we try to balance how we describe terrorist threats against a childrens hospital with, essentially, how justified those threats might seem within the narrative of the people terrorizing a childrens hospital. One editor notes above, "Without the context, it would seem as if Libsoftiktok began a harassment campaign off of zero evidence, which is not the case." The idea that gender affirming surgery for minors could be a justification for stochastic terrorism is implicit in our noting the connection repeatedly. Protonk (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The article does note the connection as a justification repeatedly, so I don't think there's much for us to do here. X-Editor (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. We ought to consider condensing how we lay out our summary of the claims made against these hospitals so that we are not implicitly offering that as a justification. To a compare and contrast, we are editing in this report on a phone call (this is not the text we have settled on but it isn't far off) and editing OUT a report on death threats being organized on a right wing website. The net result is to provide more justification to the reader for these acts of terrorism and harassment and to downplay (in this case deliberately minimize) actual organizing around making threats. It should send up a little warning flag to hear these described as "random internet comments" and at the same time the recording of a phone call to people whose connection w/ the hospitals gender services is unclear as important enough to require much elaboration. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it means to "organize" a death threat, but here, according to that Vice article, are the violent statements that have been made on the internet about Boston Children’s Hospital: one Reddit user wrote "Long past time to start executing these 'doctors'", while one Telegram user wrote "Demons like this do not deserve to breathe! Crimes against humanity=DEATH". Two random statements, out of who knows how many comments - and we know nothing about the people who made the comments; they could be trolls or even bots. I would say that to make any mention of these statements in the article is to wildly overstate their importance.

As for that phone call recording - whatever its merit, it was actually published by Libs of TikTok, so for that reason alone it's much more relevant to this article. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

We cover things according to their coverage in WP:RSes, not our personal opinions on them. Those quotes got significant coverage and were presented as examples of a larger problem, so they're worth mentioning in the article - saying "well, this isn't enough for me!" is essentially WP:OR. If you think the sources don't present enough evidence, contact them and ask for a retraction, but it's not really appropriate to use that argument here. --Aquillion (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Those quotes didn't get significant coverage - they were only quoted in one Vice article, as far as I can tell. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)