This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Wes sideman decided to
move up the sentence The account spreads false claims and hateful commentary, especially relating to medical care of transgender children.
so that it's now the 2nd sentence in the intro. Whatever the merits of this move (I think it's ridiculous), it is useful in that it at least sheds a spotlight on this sentence, which has been in the intro for a long time. Looking at the sentence and its sourcing, I think it's clear that it should be removed entirely.
Let's specify what this sentence implies:
These are quite bold claims - so you would expect airtight references to support them. The sources provided are this Slate article, this PinkNews article, and this Boston Herald article. Interestingly, none of these sources back up these statements. The false claims cited here add up to a single false claim - that Boston Children's Hospital performs hysterectomies on children. And the word "hate" shows up in just a single one of these sources: the Slate article - which doesn't say that the commentary is hateful, just that the woman who runs the account is.
Now, I'm sure you could find citations for five more false claims and add them to the references for that sentence. But that would not be enough evidence either. In the article about, say,
The New York Times, you could easily find 50 references for false statements that have been made in the newspaper over the years. Would that be enough to justify a sentence like "The New York Times spreads false claims"? No - you would need to find reliable sources directly stating that the New York Times has a pattern of making false claims. It's the same thing here: you need to find sources directly backing up these serious charges against Libs of TikTok. As far as I know, there's only one source currently cited in the whole article that more or less backs it up:
this CBC article, and specifically this sentence: The accounts often target and spread disinformation about the LGBTQ community
. Is that enough to justify the sentence in the intro? I don't think so. (And the article says nothing about child surgery and the like - it seems mostly concerned with the word "groomer".)
As for "hateful commentary", there seems to be even less evidence for that: this sentence is the one place in the article where this charge is made directly in wikivoice. The sources are simply lacking to make these assertions. Korny O'Near ( talk) 15:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
spreads false claims- not just "has spread false claims in the past", but does so on a regular basis? Korny O'Near ( talk) 02:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. The Wordsmith Talk to me 03:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the right infobox template to use for this page? Among the options that have been cycled through recently are Infobox person, Infobox website and Infobox organization. Korny O'Near ( talk) 18:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
That's some unusual logic. No, it is reality. We don't traffick in alternative realities here, this isn't the Fox News desk. Zaathras ( talk) 00:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment with some background information that Korny has omitted. Korny changed the infobox yesterday to Infobox website because "website" doesn't have a field similar to "Movement:", which Infobox person did have. The field contained Far-right politics, anti-LGBT, and in line with all of their edits to this article (see above section), Korny wished to see that removed from the infobox. Infobox organization, which is what I replaced "website" with, seems to be sufficient. Wes sideman ( talk) 12:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Should Category:Critics of Black Lives Matter
be included in this article?
Iamreallygoodatcheckers
talk
20:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
defining characteristicof LoTT, and that does not appear to be the case. WP:CATDEF says
A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic. Despite me giving the affirmation a chance to provide sourcing, they have not, and merely saying sourcing exists without bringing it into the discussion is not adequate. They can't provide the sourcing likely because it doesn't exist. WP:BURDEN has not been met. There is no evidence that RS
commonly and consistentlyrefer to or even hint at LoTT being a critic of BLM. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 23:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Raichik later downplayed the attack, claiming it was peaceful compared to a "BLM protest", referring to Black Lives Matter.One oblique criticism, made as part of a comparison used to defend other people's actions, is not enough to justify this category. If additional relevant information is added to the article, I'd be happy to reconsider. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 18:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong. There are related comments a few sections above this. The objection was that criticism of BLM has not been consistently reported yet as central to LoTT. My quick search online turned up no related results in the first few pages. Senorangel ( talk) 23:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Category:Critics of Black Lives Matter. Also, your comment above to another editor that they "
should reconsider taking part in this RfCwas rude. Nemov ( talk) 15:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.There is WP:NODEADLINE, and nobody will be harmed by not having that category for a few days/weeks while the issue is discussed and consensus is obtained. The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers ( talk · contribs) reverted my removal of the pejorative nickname "Don't Say Gay bill" for Florida's 2022 Parental Rights in Education bill. If an abortion rights bill was frequently referred to in media as the "death to disabled babies bill", we would never use that nickname on Wikipedia, no matter how common in became, because it's an effort by activists to reframe the issue, and our responsibility as encyclopedia writers is to describe those efforts, not to adopt their chosen framing. The nickname for the Parental Rights in Education bill is the same, and I would like to see my edits reinstated by other editors. It is off-topic for this article to be describing or using activists' nicknames. Daask ( talk) 15:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I feel like the Reception
section as it currently stands is presenting a
false balance between positive and negative reception to Libs of TikTok. Notably, the Negative
subsection cites experts such as Donovan, Caraballo, and McNamara, whereas the Positive
subsection cites figures such as opinion columnists and political commentators, as opposed to academics and subject-matter experts.
CJ-Moki (
talk)
07:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I stumbled on this page, and, seeing the tag, thought I'd try to dive in. I made a bunch of minor edits, but I realize the net sum will seem major, so I wanted to explain most of my moves here, to at least show that I put some thought behind them.
full time" and "
lives in Los Angeles" line from the lead. First, I think the sentence was positioned awkwardly—it was a present-tense sentence sandwiched between two past-tense sandwiches. Second, ... I have to be honest, even if the "lives in LA" thing should be part of the article (and, to be frank, I have some doubts about that) ... the rationale behind it being in the lede seems pretty thin.
The account was created in November 2020 as a personal account with the handle @shaya69830552, and later @shaya_ray." ... is much easier to read if phrased as, "
In November 2020, Raichik created a Twitter account with the handle @shaya69830552, which she later changed to @shaya_ray." I hate to admit it, but I think there's still some inconsistency in how the account, and really Twitter accounts in general, are handled, and it creates some confusion. Sometimes, the account is an account that other people act on. But sometimes, it's its own entity—so we get phrases like "
Libs of TikTok deleted at least 20 tweets". Unless I'm mass reverted (in which case I'll assume these kinds of edits aren't wanted), I'll keep working on that tomorrow.
In May and June 2021, before and during Pride Month, Libs of TikTok started posting anti-LGBT commentary, including her first tweet using "grooming" as a pejorative for LGBT people." I'm ... not totally sure it's accurate to say that "grooming" is, specifically, a slur. I think it's more accurate to say that it's often a baseless action levied against gay people (not unlike the "They're Raping Our Women" accusations historically, and still today, levied at Black people). There was a wiki link in that sentence on grooming that I thought read smoother as titled, hence the change to "
first tweet promoting the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory."
According to The Daily Dot, Raichik also ran the now-defunct Twitter account @NewYorkIsShitty." Somewhat tellingly, this lone sentence was given its own paragraph because it didn't connect to anything. Maybe that account means something to people with more subject-matter expertise than me, but I've never heard of it—from an uninformed reader's perspective, it might as well said "she likes playing hackysack on the weekends." If the template at the top is concerned about extra details, I think that has to qualify.
I hope all of this is helpful/productive! If not, it should be very easy to revert :) -- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 23:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I just reworked the article a bit, and I wanted to justify that here.
From my perspective (and, based on the tag at the top, I think it's shared), there's a ton of extra information and redundancy here. I think one of the recurring issues is that we've taken virtually every anecdote featured in a reliable secondary source and included it here. In the context of those reliable sources, 3 or 4 anecdotes are used to helpfully illustrate a point. But, here, we end up with dozens and dozens of anecdotes all showing the same thing, turning segments into glorified lists. Similarly, in the old content section, it seemed like we were effectively listing virtually every explicitly ideological claim Libs of TikTok had ever made.
I realize that individual anecdotes have power that a summary does not ... but I think going into all of these details really detracts from the article's quality. Do we really need to read that the Proud Boys yelled horrific chants at an event ... right after reading that they tried to break into a bar at a different event and right before reading that their mere threatened presence at an event caused it to be cancelled and right before reading that one event was threatened by a pipe bomb? (I kept the pipe bomb story and summarized all but the longest of the proud boy stories.) I also think this presented an undue weight issue, particularly because the sources themselves would often only include a single line about Libs of TikTok.
I think there was also some redundancy in separately listing the content section from several of the major controversies that resulted from the account's content, so I tried to rework the structure of the article.
I don't want to do anything too quickly or radically, but I next plan to trying to reduce the section on the hospital-related tweets (including the reaction section) and the response section (which is often, though definitely not always, a bit redundant with our description of the content).-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 14:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
@ ScottishFinnishRadish:@ Wes sideman:@ Horse Eye's Back:@ Pokelova:@ Genos892:@ Sdmn2011:@ Tdl1060:@ CJ-Moki:@ AlonsoGC10:@ Peleio Aquiles:@ The Wordsmith:@ Lettherebedarklight:
Hi everyone! I started this discussion thread (and the others) last month, noting that I was trying to tackle the stye issues and the overly detailed tag that's been on the page since March. In my last edits, I trimmed the hospitals section, deleting quite a bit and moving some of it to the Reaction section. As I said above and below, I think the events described therein have enough commonalities that, to avoid redundancy and comply with summary style, summarizing them together makes sense—after all, the BCH and CNH events both occurred in the same month! User:ScottishFinnishRadish objected to these changes on my talk page, saying there was a lack of consensus, which surprised me a little only because I had only received a "go ahead!" here ... but I completely understand some people are very invested in this page, even if they don't always keep an eye on the talk page, so I've pinged all the most recent editors (if I've missed anyone, please add!) so we can have a discussion and come to a consensus version—and hopefully, eventually, be able to get rid of the overly detailed tag! Cheers.
-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand the undue weight tag in the positive reaction section. It seems like that was posted because the reaction section is too long, and the user that posted it maybe thinks there should be no positive reaction section? But I'm skeptical. We spend a lot of the early part of the article talking about the notability of Libs of TikTok, including its influence in conservative circles. Of course it has a positive reception within those circles (to be clear—I'm not saying among all conservatives, just among the conservatives for whom it's influential). It would be an NPOV issue to leave that out.-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 16:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I think there might be some controversy brewing over the BCH section, though I think the current version is acceptable to all? @ Wes sideman:, I saw that you, quite reasonably, wanted a refutation in the first paragraph, and I took issue with a bit of the wording changes, but I followed up your edit just to rearrange a bit more. (Refutation is still in paragraph 1)-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 16:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Update: Wes Sideman—I gotta make an WP:NPOV reference here. First, the source cited says:
[The hospital] said the threats began last week after Twitter accounts popular on the far right circulated what the hospital called misinformation about its transgender care.
We also—in the first paragraph!!—include USA Today's fact check, in which its reporters spoke to Raichik, and the fact check from Politifact and NPR, even though those institutions only rely on the website once it was updated after the tweet. All those changes were made so that the general consensus the claims were false would be up front, which you said you wanted.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello! The teachers section is what I am thinking I'll work on next, though I honestly don't know if I'm up for it. Still, I wanted to present my general concerns here first in case there was some feedback.
Chiefly, I'm afraid that the teachers section resembles, essentially, a list in prose form. That's not exactly uncommon and it's totally reasonable that it happened—people add news events to a relevant section as more news events occur. But it's probably time to cut back a bit and think about how to summarize the content, while perhaps highlighting the most illustrative events. There's quite a bit of overlap in the stories, and I think it's seriously worth asking whether separately detailing and explaining each event complies with summary style.
Separately, I'm also wondering if "Impact" is the best place for that section. With the exception of a couple sentences, the discussion isn't about impact on teachers or the teaching profession writ large, it's about various events. Given that teachers are so often targeted by Raichik ... wouldn't it make sense to discuss these events in the Content section?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 18:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's a list of every social media post. It's a section that reports every post that reliable sources reported on. It's well-sourced and I don't actually think it's too long a section. I'm removing the template complaining about that, as nothing's been said about it since June. Wes sideman ( talk) 18:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2023/08/25/libsoftiktok-posts-school-bomb-threats-davis-tulsa/70676277007/ Peleio Aquiles ( talk) 12:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I believe this is the first time the White House has directly commented on a news event Chaya Raichik has caused? https://www.advocate.com/news/white-house-libs-of-tiktok Peleio Aquiles ( talk) 02:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I went through the article and I don't see any overly-long quotations. As for the number of quotes, it's my guess that if editors didn't use actual quotes, they would quickly be accused of "stating things in wikivoice" and not properly attributing them, so the quotations are a safe way of beating off those accusations. I removed the template. Wes sideman ( talk) 18:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
https://domainnamewire.com/2022/04/20/reminder-theres-no-whois-privacy-for-us-domain-names/
-- Guy Macon Alternate Account ( talk) 06:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Another source for the claim "Some Libs of TikTok posts have resulted in harassment against teachers, medical providers, children's hospitals, libraries, LGBT venues, and educational facilities, with several of which having received bomb threats after being featured on a post":
-- Guy Macon Alternate Account ( talk) 18:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The current lead downplays and pooh-poohs the 33 bomb threat incidents as "some" and "several dozen", when it should be specified by number per NBC news and law enforcement sources. [2] Viriditas ( talk) 22:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I took off the content related to Seth Dillon's support since it apparently was very short term in nature. I'm not sure it really is notable if it was very short. Alternatively we could add that it ended within a few months, but I'm not sure the best language, open for feedback on that. Thanks,
Squatch347 (
talk)
20:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Libs of TikTok has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Link the name Chaya Raichik to the Chaya Raichik biography page. Purpleplatypusbear ( talk) 12:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Wes sideman decided to
move up the sentence The account spreads false claims and hateful commentary, especially relating to medical care of transgender children.
so that it's now the 2nd sentence in the intro. Whatever the merits of this move (I think it's ridiculous), it is useful in that it at least sheds a spotlight on this sentence, which has been in the intro for a long time. Looking at the sentence and its sourcing, I think it's clear that it should be removed entirely.
Let's specify what this sentence implies:
These are quite bold claims - so you would expect airtight references to support them. The sources provided are this Slate article, this PinkNews article, and this Boston Herald article. Interestingly, none of these sources back up these statements. The false claims cited here add up to a single false claim - that Boston Children's Hospital performs hysterectomies on children. And the word "hate" shows up in just a single one of these sources: the Slate article - which doesn't say that the commentary is hateful, just that the woman who runs the account is.
Now, I'm sure you could find citations for five more false claims and add them to the references for that sentence. But that would not be enough evidence either. In the article about, say,
The New York Times, you could easily find 50 references for false statements that have been made in the newspaper over the years. Would that be enough to justify a sentence like "The New York Times spreads false claims"? No - you would need to find reliable sources directly stating that the New York Times has a pattern of making false claims. It's the same thing here: you need to find sources directly backing up these serious charges against Libs of TikTok. As far as I know, there's only one source currently cited in the whole article that more or less backs it up:
this CBC article, and specifically this sentence: The accounts often target and spread disinformation about the LGBTQ community
. Is that enough to justify the sentence in the intro? I don't think so. (And the article says nothing about child surgery and the like - it seems mostly concerned with the word "groomer".)
As for "hateful commentary", there seems to be even less evidence for that: this sentence is the one place in the article where this charge is made directly in wikivoice. The sources are simply lacking to make these assertions. Korny O'Near ( talk) 15:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
spreads false claims- not just "has spread false claims in the past", but does so on a regular basis? Korny O'Near ( talk) 02:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. The Wordsmith Talk to me 03:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the right infobox template to use for this page? Among the options that have been cycled through recently are Infobox person, Infobox website and Infobox organization. Korny O'Near ( talk) 18:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
That's some unusual logic. No, it is reality. We don't traffick in alternative realities here, this isn't the Fox News desk. Zaathras ( talk) 00:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment with some background information that Korny has omitted. Korny changed the infobox yesterday to Infobox website because "website" doesn't have a field similar to "Movement:", which Infobox person did have. The field contained Far-right politics, anti-LGBT, and in line with all of their edits to this article (see above section), Korny wished to see that removed from the infobox. Infobox organization, which is what I replaced "website" with, seems to be sufficient. Wes sideman ( talk) 12:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Should Category:Critics of Black Lives Matter
be included in this article?
Iamreallygoodatcheckers
talk
20:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
defining characteristicof LoTT, and that does not appear to be the case. WP:CATDEF says
A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic. Despite me giving the affirmation a chance to provide sourcing, they have not, and merely saying sourcing exists without bringing it into the discussion is not adequate. They can't provide the sourcing likely because it doesn't exist. WP:BURDEN has not been met. There is no evidence that RS
commonly and consistentlyrefer to or even hint at LoTT being a critic of BLM. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 23:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Raichik later downplayed the attack, claiming it was peaceful compared to a "BLM protest", referring to Black Lives Matter.One oblique criticism, made as part of a comparison used to defend other people's actions, is not enough to justify this category. If additional relevant information is added to the article, I'd be happy to reconsider. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 18:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong. There are related comments a few sections above this. The objection was that criticism of BLM has not been consistently reported yet as central to LoTT. My quick search online turned up no related results in the first few pages. Senorangel ( talk) 23:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Category:Critics of Black Lives Matter. Also, your comment above to another editor that they "
should reconsider taking part in this RfCwas rude. Nemov ( talk) 15:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.There is WP:NODEADLINE, and nobody will be harmed by not having that category for a few days/weeks while the issue is discussed and consensus is obtained. The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers ( talk · contribs) reverted my removal of the pejorative nickname "Don't Say Gay bill" for Florida's 2022 Parental Rights in Education bill. If an abortion rights bill was frequently referred to in media as the "death to disabled babies bill", we would never use that nickname on Wikipedia, no matter how common in became, because it's an effort by activists to reframe the issue, and our responsibility as encyclopedia writers is to describe those efforts, not to adopt their chosen framing. The nickname for the Parental Rights in Education bill is the same, and I would like to see my edits reinstated by other editors. It is off-topic for this article to be describing or using activists' nicknames. Daask ( talk) 15:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I feel like the Reception
section as it currently stands is presenting a
false balance between positive and negative reception to Libs of TikTok. Notably, the Negative
subsection cites experts such as Donovan, Caraballo, and McNamara, whereas the Positive
subsection cites figures such as opinion columnists and political commentators, as opposed to academics and subject-matter experts.
CJ-Moki (
talk)
07:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I stumbled on this page, and, seeing the tag, thought I'd try to dive in. I made a bunch of minor edits, but I realize the net sum will seem major, so I wanted to explain most of my moves here, to at least show that I put some thought behind them.
full time" and "
lives in Los Angeles" line from the lead. First, I think the sentence was positioned awkwardly—it was a present-tense sentence sandwiched between two past-tense sandwiches. Second, ... I have to be honest, even if the "lives in LA" thing should be part of the article (and, to be frank, I have some doubts about that) ... the rationale behind it being in the lede seems pretty thin.
The account was created in November 2020 as a personal account with the handle @shaya69830552, and later @shaya_ray." ... is much easier to read if phrased as, "
In November 2020, Raichik created a Twitter account with the handle @shaya69830552, which she later changed to @shaya_ray." I hate to admit it, but I think there's still some inconsistency in how the account, and really Twitter accounts in general, are handled, and it creates some confusion. Sometimes, the account is an account that other people act on. But sometimes, it's its own entity—so we get phrases like "
Libs of TikTok deleted at least 20 tweets". Unless I'm mass reverted (in which case I'll assume these kinds of edits aren't wanted), I'll keep working on that tomorrow.
In May and June 2021, before and during Pride Month, Libs of TikTok started posting anti-LGBT commentary, including her first tweet using "grooming" as a pejorative for LGBT people." I'm ... not totally sure it's accurate to say that "grooming" is, specifically, a slur. I think it's more accurate to say that it's often a baseless action levied against gay people (not unlike the "They're Raping Our Women" accusations historically, and still today, levied at Black people). There was a wiki link in that sentence on grooming that I thought read smoother as titled, hence the change to "
first tweet promoting the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory."
According to The Daily Dot, Raichik also ran the now-defunct Twitter account @NewYorkIsShitty." Somewhat tellingly, this lone sentence was given its own paragraph because it didn't connect to anything. Maybe that account means something to people with more subject-matter expertise than me, but I've never heard of it—from an uninformed reader's perspective, it might as well said "she likes playing hackysack on the weekends." If the template at the top is concerned about extra details, I think that has to qualify.
I hope all of this is helpful/productive! If not, it should be very easy to revert :) -- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 23:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I just reworked the article a bit, and I wanted to justify that here.
From my perspective (and, based on the tag at the top, I think it's shared), there's a ton of extra information and redundancy here. I think one of the recurring issues is that we've taken virtually every anecdote featured in a reliable secondary source and included it here. In the context of those reliable sources, 3 or 4 anecdotes are used to helpfully illustrate a point. But, here, we end up with dozens and dozens of anecdotes all showing the same thing, turning segments into glorified lists. Similarly, in the old content section, it seemed like we were effectively listing virtually every explicitly ideological claim Libs of TikTok had ever made.
I realize that individual anecdotes have power that a summary does not ... but I think going into all of these details really detracts from the article's quality. Do we really need to read that the Proud Boys yelled horrific chants at an event ... right after reading that they tried to break into a bar at a different event and right before reading that their mere threatened presence at an event caused it to be cancelled and right before reading that one event was threatened by a pipe bomb? (I kept the pipe bomb story and summarized all but the longest of the proud boy stories.) I also think this presented an undue weight issue, particularly because the sources themselves would often only include a single line about Libs of TikTok.
I think there was also some redundancy in separately listing the content section from several of the major controversies that resulted from the account's content, so I tried to rework the structure of the article.
I don't want to do anything too quickly or radically, but I next plan to trying to reduce the section on the hospital-related tweets (including the reaction section) and the response section (which is often, though definitely not always, a bit redundant with our description of the content).-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 14:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
@ ScottishFinnishRadish:@ Wes sideman:@ Horse Eye's Back:@ Pokelova:@ Genos892:@ Sdmn2011:@ Tdl1060:@ CJ-Moki:@ AlonsoGC10:@ Peleio Aquiles:@ The Wordsmith:@ Lettherebedarklight:
Hi everyone! I started this discussion thread (and the others) last month, noting that I was trying to tackle the stye issues and the overly detailed tag that's been on the page since March. In my last edits, I trimmed the hospitals section, deleting quite a bit and moving some of it to the Reaction section. As I said above and below, I think the events described therein have enough commonalities that, to avoid redundancy and comply with summary style, summarizing them together makes sense—after all, the BCH and CNH events both occurred in the same month! User:ScottishFinnishRadish objected to these changes on my talk page, saying there was a lack of consensus, which surprised me a little only because I had only received a "go ahead!" here ... but I completely understand some people are very invested in this page, even if they don't always keep an eye on the talk page, so I've pinged all the most recent editors (if I've missed anyone, please add!) so we can have a discussion and come to a consensus version—and hopefully, eventually, be able to get rid of the overly detailed tag! Cheers.
-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand the undue weight tag in the positive reaction section. It seems like that was posted because the reaction section is too long, and the user that posted it maybe thinks there should be no positive reaction section? But I'm skeptical. We spend a lot of the early part of the article talking about the notability of Libs of TikTok, including its influence in conservative circles. Of course it has a positive reception within those circles (to be clear—I'm not saying among all conservatives, just among the conservatives for whom it's influential). It would be an NPOV issue to leave that out.-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 16:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I think there might be some controversy brewing over the BCH section, though I think the current version is acceptable to all? @ Wes sideman:, I saw that you, quite reasonably, wanted a refutation in the first paragraph, and I took issue with a bit of the wording changes, but I followed up your edit just to rearrange a bit more. (Refutation is still in paragraph 1)-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 16:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Update: Wes Sideman—I gotta make an WP:NPOV reference here. First, the source cited says:
[The hospital] said the threats began last week after Twitter accounts popular on the far right circulated what the hospital called misinformation about its transgender care.
We also—in the first paragraph!!—include USA Today's fact check, in which its reporters spoke to Raichik, and the fact check from Politifact and NPR, even though those institutions only rely on the website once it was updated after the tweet. All those changes were made so that the general consensus the claims were false would be up front, which you said you wanted.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello! The teachers section is what I am thinking I'll work on next, though I honestly don't know if I'm up for it. Still, I wanted to present my general concerns here first in case there was some feedback.
Chiefly, I'm afraid that the teachers section resembles, essentially, a list in prose form. That's not exactly uncommon and it's totally reasonable that it happened—people add news events to a relevant section as more news events occur. But it's probably time to cut back a bit and think about how to summarize the content, while perhaps highlighting the most illustrative events. There's quite a bit of overlap in the stories, and I think it's seriously worth asking whether separately detailing and explaining each event complies with summary style.
Separately, I'm also wondering if "Impact" is the best place for that section. With the exception of a couple sentences, the discussion isn't about impact on teachers or the teaching profession writ large, it's about various events. Given that teachers are so often targeted by Raichik ... wouldn't it make sense to discuss these events in the Content section?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 18:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's a list of every social media post. It's a section that reports every post that reliable sources reported on. It's well-sourced and I don't actually think it's too long a section. I'm removing the template complaining about that, as nothing's been said about it since June. Wes sideman ( talk) 18:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2023/08/25/libsoftiktok-posts-school-bomb-threats-davis-tulsa/70676277007/ Peleio Aquiles ( talk) 12:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I believe this is the first time the White House has directly commented on a news event Chaya Raichik has caused? https://www.advocate.com/news/white-house-libs-of-tiktok Peleio Aquiles ( talk) 02:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I went through the article and I don't see any overly-long quotations. As for the number of quotes, it's my guess that if editors didn't use actual quotes, they would quickly be accused of "stating things in wikivoice" and not properly attributing them, so the quotations are a safe way of beating off those accusations. I removed the template. Wes sideman ( talk) 18:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
https://domainnamewire.com/2022/04/20/reminder-theres-no-whois-privacy-for-us-domain-names/
-- Guy Macon Alternate Account ( talk) 06:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Another source for the claim "Some Libs of TikTok posts have resulted in harassment against teachers, medical providers, children's hospitals, libraries, LGBT venues, and educational facilities, with several of which having received bomb threats after being featured on a post":
-- Guy Macon Alternate Account ( talk) 18:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The current lead downplays and pooh-poohs the 33 bomb threat incidents as "some" and "several dozen", when it should be specified by number per NBC news and law enforcement sources. [2] Viriditas ( talk) 22:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I took off the content related to Seth Dillon's support since it apparently was very short term in nature. I'm not sure it really is notable if it was very short. Alternatively we could add that it ended within a few months, but I'm not sure the best language, open for feedback on that. Thanks,
Squatch347 (
talk)
20:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Libs of TikTok has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Link the name Chaya Raichik to the Chaya Raichik biography page. Purpleplatypusbear ( talk) 12:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)