This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Internet C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet culture C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Conservatism C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. LGBT studies C‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

	Wiki Loves Pride
This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2022.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles

Hat speech and public blaming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The WaPo article shows that this is clearly not the case: "Her anti-trans tweets went especially viral. She called on her followers to contact schools that were allowing 'boys in the girls bathrooms' and pushed the false conspiracy theory that schools were installing litter boxes in bathrooms for children who identify as cats. She also purported that adults who teach children about LGBTQ+ identities are 'abusive,' that being gender-nonconforming or an ally to the LGBTQ+ community is a 'mental illness,' and referred to schools as “government run indoctrination camps” for the LGBTQ+ community." This is going far beyond simply reposting videos. X-Editor (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

conservative contains anti trans

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

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

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

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

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

Wait how many people were convicted of “insurrection” again? Also the left tried to overturn the 2016 election and set buildings on fire on Inauguration Day. Shouldn’t we call that an insurrection too? The American left is so far left that it makes Putin look like a centrist Dyldyl9 (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“Openly homophobic?” She literally just reposts the TikToks leftists post, the only argument ever made is from said videos. Just because it calls out pedophilia and teachers who groom children doesn’t mean its “homophobic? Dyldyl9 (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think it came from The article even included a hyperlink that exposed personal information including her address. The Washington Post later removed the link[9]. I somewhat agree with the complaint about "revealed" though, as it was not Lorenz who originally publicized this stuff, it was just her article that brought the information to the wider public's attention. Is there a better word to use here? Endwise (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are other sources on the topic -- ^{[1] [2]} are a few I've found so far (& the Daily Dot currently cited). I'm not strictly opposed to swapping out for the MediaMatters cites, but IMO MediaMatters provides useful context here and strikes me as reliable. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't necessarily agree that we should just wipe the sources and quotes as suggested here, but there must be more reliable commentary to include in the reception section. Including exclusively Spiked, The Federalist, Media Matters as the canon examples of commentary on the account does seem a bit off -- they're all pretty clearly partisan publications. Maybe including the commentary from NBC^[1], Newsweek^[2], The Week^[3], DesertNews^[4] (a less mainstream outlet, but perhaps useful), would improve the section. I'm not going to swap these in because I don't have a huge amount of confidence here, and it may be WP:TOOSOON for more reputable opinion pieces to come out. We also need to keep in mind WP:BALANCE, if the only prominent Conservative opinion pieces are coming from extremist publications, they shouldn't be overemphasized. Open to other thoughts & ideas. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@X-Editor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

@Zaathras:@Praxidicae: I reverted it to add back the non-conservative stuff that was accidentally reverted and then removed the conservative stuff immediately afterwards [10]. X-Editor (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am aware of Media Matters being determined to be an unreliable source for this article, meaning this recent study from them on its own would not be usable. However, two more reputable sources have republished their study's findings[15][16]. Can this study's findings be featured in the article if it comes from these more reputable references and also has in-text attribution to Media Matters? X-Editor (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With a secondary source that seems fine. I don't see any problems with something like According to analysis by the left-leaning media watchdog group Media Matters for America, the account has named more than 222 educational institutions in 2022 alone as of April 28.[17][18] Endwise (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]