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.

@ X-Editor: it looks like you've removed the descriptors in the lead. [1] [2]. I've restored the agreed upon version [3]. You're quoting MOS:LABEL, but these descriptors are not labels (have a look at the examples in use in that guideline page). There's clear consensus in the above thread Derogatory (again) . I would like to replace it with "critical" about using often with hostile, mocking, or derogatory commentary. Why did you remove this? You should discuss changes like this on talk; you were involved in the above thread so it's clear you have seen that discussion. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 12:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is the difference between a descriptor and label and how are they not labels? Only one source uses the hostile terminology directly, so that's an especially problematic label. X-Editor ( talk) 18:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

"Hostile", "derogatory", "mocking" aren't examples of loaded language. Wording cautioned by MOS:LABEL can (and is) usually be given an "-ist"/"-ism" suffix. Many editors have agreed that "derogatory" is an accurate paraphrase of RS, do review the above thread. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 18:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

(I don't think the current wording is perfect, but something to this end definitely must be included based on the breadth of sources which describe the material posted by this account in similar (but not identical) ways. I'd also advocate for The account mocks and maligns content created by liberals, leftists, and LGBT people on TikTok and on other social media platforms. as I did above.) SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 18:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a good alternative that I'd be willing to support, but we'd also have to hear what others have to say as well before potentially adding it instead. X-Editor ( talk) 18:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm keen to wait. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 18:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@ Wefa@ Shibbolethink@ Zaathras@ Korny O'Near@ Horse Eye's Back@ Siliconred@ NebY@ Aquillion@ Praxidicae thoughts on changing the second sentence to The account mocks and maligns content created by liberals, leftists, and LGBT people on TikTok and on other social media platforms. X-Editor ( talk) 03:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

What descriptors are RS using for LoTT's behavior of reposting liberals? Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^t@lk 04:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

From what I can tell from the previous discussion above, there is no one or two descriptors that RS agree on, so the best we could do is probably a paraphrase. X-Editor ( talk) 04:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think the current version is a better paraphrase. I also feel that "hostile" is neutral wording (it simply expresses the fact that the subject is hostile to the people they post, which is completely indisputable and accurately summarizes basically every other source); I would definitely prefer to keep that word in there somewhere. "Maligns" actually feels far worse to me from a neutrality standpoint - "hostile" or "derogatory" are sort of clinical summary of what the sources say, neutrally summarizing LoTT's perspective on their targets, whereas "maligns" is much more emotive and carries a connotation of spite. But I don't understand your objection to "hostile" - are you arguing that it is somehow in doubt that LoTT's coverage is hostile in tone? Or that that somehow fails to accurately summarize the sources? Because that seems, to me, to be one of the most basic facts regarding the subject's notability. I don't think I could support any change that removes "hostile" or "derogatory" unless they're replaced by words that essentially mean the same thing (and I don't think more neutral wording is likely to exist), since, again, LoTT's hostility to the people whose videos they host and the derogatory nature of that hosting is central to understanding the topic and why it's significant. -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• I agree in large swaths with @ Aquillion -- I don't think "maligns" or "mocks" are better than "hostile" or "derogatory". I think if we are faced with concerns about neutrality, adhering closely to the sources is the best way to go. I also think "derogatory" is probably the best possible descriptor here, which most accurately depicts what the account actually does. They selectively pick content and editorialize in a way which disrespects the original posters. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 12:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

A news story about the bomb threat made against Boston Children's Hospital mentions LoTT and calls the account "one of the primary drivers of the harassment campaign." Not sure what to do with this just now, but thought I should flag it. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 21:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

There's a dispute here about Libs of TikTok's statements about three other hospitals: "a Nebraska children's hospital" (actually Omaha Children's, I'm pretty sure), Phoenix Children's Hospital, and Lurie Children's Hospital, and whether we can call them false. The only source for this paragraph is these two Axios articles. The first article says very little about the statements about these hospitals. The second article, about Lurie Children's Hospital, says more but is in my opinion poorly written and ambiguous, maybe deliberately so: it's chock full of links, for example, but it studiously avoids linking to any of LoTT's tweets. Anyway, it does say there have been "false claims" about Lurie, but it never actually says that LoTT made any of these false claims. The article does list two "false claims", but neither are from LoTT: one is from "Billboard Chris" (not actually a false claim, just an opinion about age of consent, but that's another story), and another from the Twitter account "90sWillysWonder". So, to sum up, we have scant reporting on what LoTT has said about these three hospitals, and no evidence that anyone considers its statements on them to be false. Korny O'Near ( talk) 19:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Daily Dot has also run an article on this issue, naming Phoenix Children's, UPMC, and BCH as among hospitals targeted [4]. Becker's Hospital Review backs up other cites as well, and names LoTT implicitly as the cause, calling claims "incorrect" against several hospitals [5]. WaPo backs up claims around hospitals in Omaha and Phoenix, and calls claims against BCH "false" [6]. IntoMore ran a story about the Nebraska hospital [7], which appears to be different claims but similar harassment resulting.

We should consolidate the WaPo prose at the beginning of Children's hospital tweets (June 2022–August 2022) and the prose at the end. Since at this point, with deleted tweets and many sources covering these as just lists of named hospitals, it's hard to tell which campaigns were specifically started by LoTT, it might make sense to word slightly differently. RS agree across the board (and name LoTT) that this account has led to similar issues at other hospitals. How about:

The account's targeting has led to harassment against other children's hospitals based on false claims, including a Nebraska children's hospital, a hospital in Omaha, Phoenix Children's Hospital, Lurie Children's Hospital, UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, and others.

Using all cites named in my comment. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 19:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Broadly speaking this wording is fine. But I would additionally support "The account has made false claims about several other children's hospitals, leading to targeted harassment campaigns against each, including...." —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 20:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Support "false claims". It's quite clear what the sources say. LoTT has made similar false claims made against three other hospitals. It's a very clear WP:SUMMARY of what the sources say. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 19:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

SiliconRed - now I'm not sure what your goal is - you found a bunch of citations to ostensibly back up that these are false claims, but you no longer want the article to say "false claims"? Korny O'Near ( talk) 19:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC) [Note: the suggested wording above does say "false claims", but this was only added in later.

I think you are mistaking an attempt to compromise for a reversal of position. Don't assume what other users believe. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 20:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Several articles pinpoint the claims as "false", several as "incorrect", some hospitals it's not clear that LoTT started the harassment against explicitly (Nebraska). I'm happy to split this prose into multiple sentences and call out whether they are "false" or "incorrect" or not clearly instigated by LoTT on a case-by-case basis. I'd appreciate your taking my suggestion at face value. Stick to the discussion at hand. Edit: I've modified my suggestion above as cites are consistent in using the language "false". SiliconRed (he/him • talk)

If you want multiple sentences, could you include the full text you want? That would be helpful. Korny O'Near ( talk) 20:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I believe my above proposal best captures RS we have. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 20:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Shibbolethink - since you, at least, want the wording "false claims" in there: what are the false claims? Korny O'Near ( talk) 19:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Libs of TikTok has made similar claims about a Nebraska children's hospital and has since targeted Phoenix Children's Hospital. (There are links on both "Nebraska children's hospital" and "Phoenix Children's Hospital" which make it clear exactly what is discussed and exactly which hospitals are being referenced.) [8]

The false claims, according to Axios, Intomore, Daily Dot, WaPo, and Becker's Hospital Review, are broadly similar to: "the hospital "is now offering 'gender-affirming hysterectomies' for young girls." —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 20:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Suggesting that RS don't call claims against other hospitals "false" is a blatant misreading of provided citations. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 20:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

What are the citations? I've read all these articles, and I don't see a single reference to Libs of TikTok making a specific false claim about these hospitals - related to hysterectomies or anything else. Korny O'Near ( talk) 20:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

From above, most explicit: Daily Dot: Disinformation posted by transphobic and homophobic Twitter accounts about the types of gender-affirming medical care hospitals provide has prompted a deluge of harassment and threats against multiple children’s hospitals around the country. The hospitals being targeted include Boston Children’s Hospital, Phoenix Children’s Hospital, UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, and others. The effort is part of the broader trend of hateful rhetoric, legislation, and physical attacks increasingly targeting the LGBTQ community nationwide. [9] Axios: Pediatric facilities nationwide, including Chicago's Lurie Children's Hospital, are facing harassment and false claims about the gender-affirming care they offer. The harassment is driven by Libs of TikTok, a Twitter account whose posts are amplified by the conservative group Awake Illinois. [10]

You're probably right that these are the most explicit. Unfortunately, they're not explicit at all: they never specifically say that Libs of TikTok has said something incorrect, and certainly they don't point to anything specific that LoTT has said about these three (or however many it is now) hospitals. I think that ambiguity might be deliberate: these have the feel of hit pieces against Libs of TikTok, but the authors of the articles know there's nothing specific to back up the charge of disinformation, so they just speak about it generally, tying LoTT only to "harassment". Korny O'Near ( talk) 20:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree that these are "hit pieces" (& so does WP:RSP). It doesn't matter whether the sources, in the same sentence, say what the false claims are -- read Shibbolethink's comment above — it's clear in each article what claims are being referred to, and the salient point, made plainly obvious in my quotes above, is that they are "false". Multiple RS agree on these points, this is content well-defined within WP:V and WP:RS. If you're convinced the media is out to get LoTT and it's WP's job to correct that, go read WP:PRESERVEBIAS. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 20:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

From reading these sources, it's actually not clear what the claims are, it's not clear who made them, and it's not clear that they're false. I don't believe there's a single sentence in any of these articles that directly says "Libs of TikTok made false claims", let alone "Libs of TikTok falsely claimed that...". Korny O'Near ( talk) 20:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

My proposal above accounts for this lack of explicit finger-pointing. Note that RS are clear that false claims against hospitals are being propagated as a result of LoTT if not explicitly by LoTT. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 20:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Where do you see a quote to back that up? I don't see that being stated either. Korny O'Near ( talk) 20:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

If you read the first paragraph from Daily Dot: Anti-LGBTQ Twitter account Libs of TikTok, which is run by Chaya Raichik, is leading the charge against children’s hospitals. [11] I already quoted from Axios: The harassment is driven by Libs of TikTok, a Twitter account whose posts are amplified by the conservative group Awake Illinois. [12] Stepping away from this thread now unless other editors with new ideas decide to agree with you. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 20:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Overall, I have repeatedly gotten a WP:IDHT vibe from these discussions, it is not worth expending energy here, especially when there is clearly no consensus in favor of creating such blatant POV changes. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 21:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I can link to guidelines too - let me link to one now: WP:BLP. You're both talking about accusing a living person of spreading false claims, while admitting that there's no evidence for it. Actually, let me link to another guideline: WP:OWN. If you don't have the energy to discuss a change, then you shouldn't be enforcing that change either. Korny O'Near ( talk) 21:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, we have both linked to numerous RSes which support these claims. We have not "admitt[ed] that there's no evidence for it". Please do not state such things on behalf of other editors. If the evidence we have presented is not up to your particular standards, that is a different matter, and also why consensus is required on Wikipedia. Please remember to assume good faith and not assume what others think or believe. No one is proclaiming ownership over any article here. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 21:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

You're right, it was SiliconRed who basically admitted that there was no evidence for the "LoTT made false claims" charge. I hope you would too, since it's hard to proceed without agreeing on basic factual questions like this. Korny O'Near ( talk) 21:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

On wikipedia, we reflect what the sources say, not our personal interpretations of how much "evidence" those sources have for their assertions. See WP:NOTTRUTH. Overall, your tone here appears pretty combative. Why not tone down all these attempts at objective statements about the "truth" of x, y, or z "basic factual" thing and instead, wait to see if others even agree with you? —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 21:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• If anything we are underselling the sources. Axios says Pediatric facilities nationwide, including Chicago's Lurie Children's Hospital, are facing harassment and false claims about the gender-affirming care they offer. Why it matters: The harassment is driven by Libs of TikTok, a Twitter account whose posts are amplified by the conservative group Awake Illinois. I think it's reasonable to read this as combining the harassment and false claims into one "thing" after the first mention, and therefore saying that the account is behind both; but at the very least we cannot avoid stating that Libs of TikTok has been driving a harassment campaign at these hospitals, since the article says so unambiguously in as many words and we have no reason to doubt it. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think it's reasonable at all - as I noted, that Axios article specifically mentions two supposedly false claims, neither of which came from Libs of TikTok. If LoTT made any false claims, wouldn't the article have included those? Korny O'Near ( talk) 21:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 21:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Well, sometimes editors can reasonably disagree on how to interpret or read a source, but I'm just not seeing any support for your reading here, and I'm particularly skeptical of your argument that you can second-guess them using the examples they happened to choose (that's essentially WP:OR.) If you think the source's conclusions don't reflect the evidence, you're free to contact them and ask for a retraction or correction, but beyond that I'm 100% convinced, as I said, that these sources are more than enough to describe the accusations as false in the article voice. It just doesn't seem, to me, to be a particularly controversial or exceptional statement, given that it is well-established above (and in numerous other sources) that Libs of TikTok has posted similar false statements [13] [14] as part of this larger campaign of harassment against hospitals in the past. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  Are you 100% convinced that the statement "The harassment is driven by Libs of TikTok" is proof that Libs of TikTok made false claims? Korny O'Near ( talk) 21:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  This is what I would call a straw man argument. The claim does not rest entirely on that sentence. It rests on a collective summary of the above sources, placed in context. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 22:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  Aquillion specifically cited that sentence. Korny O'Near ( talk) 22:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  Did they say it was "proof" of anything? Or that it should be read as supporting a statement? (these are not the same thing, and on Wikipedia, we are not engaged in mathematical or formal logical exercises) —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 22:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think "proof" is a reasonable term, but feel free to use any term you want. I would love to hear an answer from Aquillion; though barring that, it would be great to hear from you also about what wording in the sources backs up the idea that LoTT made false claims about these hospitals. Actually backs it up, that is - not 3 or 4 sentences where, if you read them all together and squint your eyes just right, it sort of implies it. Korny O'Near ( talk) 01:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 03:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's exactly right, thank you - Aquillion seems to be synthesizing two statements - that these hospitals are facing harassment and false claims, and that The harassment is driven by Libs of TikTok - to make a third statement: that false claims are being made by Libs of TikTok. Korny O'Near ( talk) 13:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@ Korny O'Near: In this edit [15] you state "false claims" is not backed up by the sources - see talk page for that last one. This attributes consensus which is clearly not met here; you are the only editor making this argument and three editors in this thread have rejected this opinion. This is a red flag in terms of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Please abide by basic principles of editing here and do not apply contrived consensus to the article. At this point I am considering opening a notice on WP:ANI. Thanks. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Definitely feel free to open a notice - in the case of a WP:BLP, I don't think a simple majority vote applies, if it ever really does. Not that I think it's three-to-one any more, if it ever was, by the way - Aquillion seems to have left the discussion, and even you, in your rewrite of the text, kept out the statement that LoTT was making false claims about these hospitals (which is good). The current wording (The account's targeting has led to harassment against various children's hospitals nationwide based on false claims) could use some work in terms of legibility, but that's another story. Korny O'Near ( talk) 17:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that because an editor hasn't explicitly replied to you in the last 24 hours means neither that they have left nor that they suddenly agree with you. There is no consensus of agreement whatsoever with your opinions here, and there are at least three prior threads with where you have pushed WP:IDHT arguments, refused to understand WP:HORSEMEAT, or advocated for WP:OR. As this is unrelated to the topic of this thread I'll refrain from continuing this discussion here, but please consider improving your basic editing decorum in these threads moving forward. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 18:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

"Trying to go by what the sources actually say" is an interesting definition of "original research". Korny O'Near ( talk) 19:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

"How you have conducted yourself in this conversation" is an interesting definition of " assume good faith". —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 19:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The article's current wording to describe these three (now four) hospitals is this: The account's targeting has led to harassment against various children's hospitals nationwide based on false claims around gender affirming treatment. This is an improvement in terms of matching what the sources say, but unfortunately it's not very comprehensible. It's not clear from this sentence who LoTT targeted (was it these four hospitals, or the hospitals mentioned earlier?), who made the harassment, or who made the false claims. It also makes it sounds like all of the relevant claims are false, which I don't think any of the sources say. (Also, "nationwide" is U.S.-centric wording.) I propose rewriting it to something like this: The account has criticized other children's hospitals in the U.S., including [list here], for allegedly providing gender-affirming treatment to under-18-year-olds. The criticism has led to "a flood of online harassment and phoned-in threats" at some of these hospitals. The quote is from the WaPo article. Any thoughts? Korny O'Near ( talk) 14:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I tried to fix the "nationwide" problem. I think an order change could help with readability. Something like "The account made false claims about gender-affirming treatment at various U.S. children's hospitals—including Phoenix Children's Hospital, Lurie Children's Hospital, and UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh—leading to harrasment and threats." Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 14:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I've done a source review and I would recommend: The account has targeted other hospitals with false claims about gender-affirming care, including a children's hospital in Omaha, Nebraska and UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh. Other pediatric facilities, including Chicago's Lurie Children's Hospital and Phoenix Children’s Hospital, have been similarly harassed. [16] [17] [18]. We have three solid sources. WaPo describes Nebraska/Pittsburgh as directly targeted, DailyDot/Axios link harassment against Chicago/Phoenix to LoTT. ("Target", "harassment", and "false" are verbatim language in use by all three sources to describe what's going on.)

I will also note that I do not think we should use "criticized" in a paraphrase here unless supplemented by other language. The only source using "criticized" is WaPo, but they use "attack" in the next sentence to describe the same thing: After gaining a large Twitter following in the spring as she baselessly accused LGBTQ teachers of being pedophiles and “groomers,” Raichik began criticizing children’s health facilities earlier this summer, targeting a hospital in Omaha in June and another in Pittsburgh in August. The attacks resulted in a flood of online harassment and phoned-in threats at both hospitals. [19]. "Attack", "target", "harass" etc. is more common in RS and to my reading more accurate language than "criticize", unless we're using that word similar to WaPo (i.e. supplanting with "attack" or "baselessly accused" or similar) . "Alleged" is outright incorrect; there's nothing to allege as RS are in complete agreement that all attacks have been based on falsehoods. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 14:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I thought we'd fully gone over this, but: far from "complete agreement", actually none of these sources say that Libs of TikTok has made false claims about any of these four hospitals; the false claims are all attributed to other people, like "Billboard Chris", and presumably thousands of social media users. I think the only specific LoTT claim cited by any of them is in the Daily Dot article, which notes that Libs of TikTok wrote that Phoenix Children's Hospital "allows ‘gender affirming’ surgeries for minors", before admitting that, yes, this is true for the case of "chest surgery". Let's stick to what the sources say, please. Korny O'Near ( talk) 14:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Pediatric facilities nationwide, including Chicago's Lurie Children's Hospital, are facing harassment and false claims about the gender-affirming care they offer. [20] Disinformation posted by transphobic and homophobic Twitter accounts about the types of gender-affirming medical care hospitals provide has prompted a deluge of harassment and threats against multiple children’s hospitals around the country. The hospitals being targeted include Boston Children’s Hospital, Phoenix Children’s Hospital, UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, and others. [21] Hospitals have responded by releasing statements correcting the lies, contacting police, and locking down their social media accounts. [22] These sources are not mincing words. I have no idea how you've drawn that reading of the Daily Dot, unless you're conducting a WP:BADFAITH reading of their summary of WPATH guidelines. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 14:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for putting all of these quotes in one place. We've established that (a) Libs of TikTok has criticized all these hospitals, (b) the criticism has brought the hospitals to many people's attention, especially on social media, including a lot of bad actors, and (c) harassment and false claims about these hospitals have run rampant as a result. These are all important facts to note in the article. However, what none of these quotes say - and none of the sources say in general - is that the false claims have come from Libs of TikTok itself. That's an important distinction to make, because something that one does oneself is obviously quite a bit more relevant than something that one's followers do. Korny O'Near ( talk) 15:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

How do you get from "Disinformation posted by transphobic and homophobic Twitter accounts" to "Libs of TikTok has criticized"? Disinformation =/= criticism and from the context LoTT is clearly among the "transphobic and homophobic Twitter accounts" even leading them as claimed in the paraghraph which follows the quoted one: "Anti-LGBTQ Twitter account Libs of TikTok, which is run by Chaya Raichik, is leading the charge against children’s hospitals." Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The article never explicitly says whether Libs of TikTok is one of the "transphobic and homophobic Twitter accounts" it's talking about. And it's not at all obvious - if you read the Daily Dot article, LoTT is listed among non-Twitter personalities like The Gateway Pundit, not alongside other Twitter accounts. And the one claim that LoTT is quoted as making is acknowledged to be true. Korny O'Near ( talk) 15:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This article describes them as an "Anti-LGBTQ Twitter account Libs of TikTok ... leading the charge against children’s hospitals" not as a non-Twitter personality. How does one lead a charge one is not a part of? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It led the charge, which was then joined in by some prominent right-wing pundits and (apparently) thousands of social media accounts, and other random people. Some of these accounts posted disinformation, but we don't know if LoTT is one of them. Korny O'Near ( talk) 15:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying they led a disinformation charge against children's hospitals but that their claims against children's hospitals weren't actually disinformation but instead completely accurate criticism? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't a disinformation charge, it was just a charge. I think the main gist of the Daily Dot and other articles is that the harassment, threats, etc. against these hospitals is bad, regardless of whether it's based on falsehoods or not. Korny O'Near ( talk) 16:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you need to read that article again, the gist is clearly that its based on falsehoods... They aren't subtle... From top to bottom we have "Disinformation" "baselessly" "lies" "hateful disinformation campaign" "false assumptions" and "false claims" Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The article does indeed say all of those things, and it even lists a few of the false claims, like pedophilia and "hysterectomies for children". But none of the false claims mentioned come from Libs of TikTok. It's very important - especially in a BLP, but also in general - to stick to what the sources actually say. Korny O'Near ( talk) 16:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:CRYBLP isn't an argument to ignore RS, which, like it or not, is what you're doing. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm reading the reliable sources closely. Korny O'Near ( talk) 16:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

No, you're reading them selectively. You appear entirely able to comprehend information which supports your position but entirely unable to comprehend anything which does not support your position. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

More like they are rejecting the inferences being made. To make sure we are not engaging in Original Research the material needs to be explicit in the source. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 19:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

They're straight up rejecting what the source says, not any inference being made... "The hateful disinformation campaign is based in part on such facilities following the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) guidelines for treatment of transgender youth. On Tuesday, Libs of TikTok tweeted, “[Phoenix Children’s] Hospital boasts about doing medical transitions on kids. They also follow WPATH guidelines which allows ‘gender affirming’ surgeries for minors.”" Means that Libs of TikTok is involved in a hateful disinformation campaign... Thats not an inference, thats what the source is in a very obvious and direct manner stating. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that's an inference. You're taking sentence 1 and sentence 2 and coming up with the conclusory sentence of Libs of TikTok is involved in a hateful disinformation campaign. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 19:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying that you've read that article and your conclusion is that they're not saying that Libs of TikTok is involved in a hateful disinformation campaign? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think there's a lot there to try to get a person to come to that conclusion. But I don't think they are actually saying it in a way that meets our content standards and not be original research. Lots of easy inferences, but lacking in direct statements. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 20:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think there's a lot there to try to get a person to come to that conclusion. I just read this sentence three or four times and frankly am a bit flabbergasted. So... you understand the conclusion of the reporting, but still refuse it? (Not to mention that you're just wrong, there are a lot of direct statements. Having ideas in two sentences next to each other is a valid way to communicate a point. Not everything must be in one sentence for it to be verifiable... which seems like what you're after. The quote referenced above has no ambiguity.) SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 20:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

First, I believe that is the conclusion the reader is intended to come to. However, that conclusion itself is not presented in the source so stating that conclusion in the article is original research. It's us reading this passage and coming to a conclusion. Second, stating the two sentences are next to each other is misleading, they are presented as two independent paragraphs in the article. This makes them two separate points. I don't doubt they were put together so people come to the conclusion you present. However that is not an explicit presentation as required in OR. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 20:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Kyohyi - you may be right about the motivations. There's an obvious agenda at play in the Daily Dot article, evidenced by, among other things, use of the word "hateful" (a meaningless word - they may as well say "dastardly"). So, to the extent that the article kinda sorta implies things about Libs of TikTok, but doesn't actually say them, that may well be on purpose - they want people to think certain things about LoTT, but know that the evidence doesn't back it up. Korny O'Near ( talk) 20:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, thats just not a credible interpretation of the source. Those sentences are part of a string of single sentence paragraphs that are clearly all building on each other. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 20:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Separate parts can be a part of a string. They can also be arranged so that we come up with our own string. In Wikipedia's case the string has to be explicit for us to cover it. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 20:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

They can also be arranged like that, but they aren't here. We have no such tradition, guideline, or policy at Wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 14:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think WP:SYNTH applies, and it matches what Kyohyi said. Korny O'Near ( talk) 15:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

We already know that you think SYNTH applies. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

And I suspect that KO is very intent on applying SYNTH to summary statements. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 16:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

This section of the article now states, The account has targeted other hospitals with false claims about gender-affirming care, including a children's hospital in Omaha, Nebraska, UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, and Phoenix Children's Hospital. Other pediatric facilities, including Chicago's Lurie Children's Hospital, have been similarly harassed. So, to sum up, the article states as fact that Libs of TikTok has made at least one false claim each about three different children's hospitals. Other hospitals did not get a false claim, though they did get harassment (from whom?), which was similar (to what?). There's no point asking what the false claims are, since that would be original research, which is bad. Instead, we'll assume that the proximity of several sentences in one Daily Dot article means that we can conclusively state that there have been three or more false claims, despite the fact that the Daily Dot doesn't even mention one. I think it's time to go back to the drawing board on this one. Korny O'Near ( talk) 14:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's time to go back to the drawing board on this one.

Disagree, I think what we have is fine. It has been repeatedly pointed out that your interpretation of the sources is not in line with consensus of editors participating here. At this point, you appear to be WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion to get your preferred wording. You have made 30/67 replies to this discussion, from my count. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 16:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You make a reasonable point about ^who? and ^{clarification needed}, if not about how to read the sources. I have modified the wording to reflect our RS [23]; I encourage you to refer to the quotes from each cite which are included as reference in the article. As Shibbolethink says, I think it's time you WP:DROPTHESTICK as your interpretation is not in line with consensus. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, let's see what others say. By the way, I find it interesting that none of the "consensus reached!" people seem at all curious to see what Libs of TikTok has actually said about these hospitals. It's not in the sources, but it's still easy to find; here, for example is what LoTT said about Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh. Korny O'Near ( talk) 17:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks like disinformation to me... They're trying to frame an educational video as "promotional" with all of the attached grooming conspiracy theory implications. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That appears to be highlighting the problem. Editors are taking their own opinions and trying to find justification for injecting them into the article. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 17:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Objectively the video is not a "promotional [video] on puberty blockers" theres just no two ways around that one. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

"Promotional" a definition: relating to the publicizing of a product, organization, or venture so as to increase sales or public awareness. So publicizing a product like puberty blockers to the public to raise awareness or even educate them is inherently promotional. Objectively. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 18:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

One could argue that the hospital is promoting itself, but puberty blockers aren't a product of the hospital (nor were any of the puberty blockers on the market endorsed so no actual mention of a product). Also beyond the literal you understand that LoTT's definition of "promotion" is a bit larger than that and can't be disentangled from the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory which LoTT promotes, right? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The product doesn't need to be one the entity offers for it to be promotional. And I don't care what we think LOTT's definition of promotional is. The way they used it was objectively accurate. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 18:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

"puberty blockers" aren't a product, they're a broad class of drugs. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

And drugs are a product. Making puberty blockers a particular type of product. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 19:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Type of product =/= product. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Type of product is a broad class of things, you don't need to individualize the item being promoted if you just promote the class. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 20:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Like I said before I see an argument that the video promotes the hospital or its services, but to stretch that to promoting puberty blockers requires something more... Like the insane conspiracy that IRL LoTT subscribes to, we don't need to speculate about whether or not they're a kooky conspiracy site because the WP:RS say that they are. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 20:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

This discussion took a strange turn. Obviously the hospital is ultimately promoting its services around puberty blockers - but to do that, it first has to promote the benefits of puberty blockers, and that's what's happening in this video. There's nothing inherently nefarious about it: puberty blockers are an allowed treatment, and the hospital clearly thinks they're beneficial. Still, there's nothing incorrect about Libs of TikTok's description. Korny O'Near ( talk) 23:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

puberty blockers are an allowed treatment, and the hospital clearly thinks they're beneficial

It is at this point that your opinion may be overshadowing what science/medicine actually knows. It's not just that the hospital "thinks they're beneficial", the peer-reviewed scholarly research agrees. [24] [25] [26] (the same research publications we use to determine the consensus view on Wikipedia)

Puberty blockers reduce suicidality (and suicide attempts/successes) stretching on into adulthood, improve affect and psychological functioning, and improve social life on objective measures. These things are not "supposition" or "hunches." We have peer reviewed scholarly publications which are then summarized in systematic reviews demonstrating that puberty blockers provide benefit to the well-defined subpopulation of children with gender dysphoria. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 12:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

relating to the publicizing of a product, organization, or venture so as to increase sales or public awareness

By virtue of that definition, every single CDC video, every single government video, on any drug, treatment, or surgery is "promotional." A definition so broad as to lose all difference from "educational." By that definition, a video about heroin and its effects on the body would be "promotional." —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 12:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Educational and promotional are not mutually exclusive concepts. I'm not sure why you would think that they are. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 17:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever said they were mutually exclusive. However, I do firmly believe that they are not complete and total synonyms. And I also believe your definition of promotional (chosen from a variety available) is not a very useful one for our purposes. Compare to:

• Cambridge - designed to advertise something in order to sell it
• Merriam Webster - the act of furthering the growth or development of something, especially: the furtherance of the acceptance and sale of merchandise through advertising, publicity, or discounting
• Collins - material, events, or ideas are designed to increase the sales of a product or service.

I'm not sure why you would pick a definition so broad. Or why you would skip perhaps the most important part of interacting with others on Wikipedia: citing your sources (OED). —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 17:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You really think that "Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh (@ChildrensPgh) is now putting out promotional videos on puberty blockers for kids." and "Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh (@ChildrensPgh) is now putting out educational videos on puberty blockers for kids." are the same statement in this context? And remember this context includes the source making the statement being one which promotes conspiracy theories about the LGBTQ community and liberals in general... You can't overlook that part, LoTT is a fringe conspiracy account and thats the reality we are working from. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

They're not synonyms, but they're also (as Kyohyi said) not mutually exclusive. In this case, much like most infomercials, this video is meant to both educate and promote - since the hospital profits off of puberty blocker treatments.

As for the whole "conspiracy theories" bit - that's a textbook example of the ad hominem logical fallacy. Either the claim is false or it's not. Korny O'Near ( talk) 00:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Infomercials aren't meant to both educate and promote, their informative and objective nature is a false veneer meant to disguise their promotional nature (a ruse, puffery, or fraud if you will). Also we aren't talking about a for-profit hospital. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 01:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Call it what you will, but the hospital receives money in exchange for providing such treatments. Korny O'Near ( talk) 02:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

That they provide healthcare or educate the public is clearly not the point that LoTT is making... Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 05:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

That's true but irrelevant. (You could say the same of a lot of the mainstream press, that their straight reporting is actually meant to make a political point.) All that matters is, is the claim true or false? Korny O'Near ( talk) 13:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The mainstream press are not conspiracy mongers. Can we separate the claim about a hospital promoting healthcare from the larger claim about a conspiracy to turn kids lGBTQ? The claims are patently false, there is no widespread conspiracy on the part of doctors, gays, and libs to promote puberty blockers. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 14:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you can separate two different claims made by the same Twitter account - each one can be judged on its own to be either true or false. Korny O'Near ( talk) 15:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thats not what I'm asking, I'm asking whether you can disregard context when evaluating a claim. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Depends on the context - but the context of "other things this person/account has said" can be disregarded, yes. Korny O'Near ( talk) 16:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The context here is what WP:RS have said about LoTT, which is that its a conspiracy outlet which specifically pushes a conspiracy centered on children and LGBTQ topics... Such as for example puberty blockers. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

RS have evaluated these claims by this Twitter account as "false", "disinformation", etc. so yes, we can patently determine, under Wikipedia standards, that they are "false". Various source reviews above show this. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 15:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

This is an amazingly dogmatic reading of the sources. (Also an incorrect reading, in my view, but that's another story.) I guess it's a good thing Libs of TikTok didn't write "Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh is a children's hospital located in Pittsburgh", or else we'd have to rewrite some other articles. Korny O'Near ( talk) 16:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Libs of TikTok has appropriated the term "groomer" as a pejorative to characterize...
A single media source which is part of a larger trend, does not itself "appropriate" a term. They may popularize or facilitate its increased use, but they do not "appropriate" it. And, even if there are sources claiming such appropriation, influencing the widespread use of a word in a particular manner is not what the meaning of the word "appropriate" is. Also, the LOTT Twitter stream (its primary forum) is not the genesis of the pejorative implications attaching to the word "groomer" and even our Wiki article does not claim it was.
We should re-write this sentence. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf ( talk) 14:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

What do you recommend changing it to? SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 14:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Libs of TikTok has, among its followers, helped popularize the pejorative term "groomer", which is aimed at...
Tondelleo Schwarzkopf ( talk) 14:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Looking at older versions its was popularize at one point [27]. I think you make a good care for returning it to that language, it does appear to be more accurate+supported than appropriated. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yup - this language is definitely more effective and accurate than "appropriated". I would recommend removing the clause "among its followers" s.t. it reads: Libs of TikTok has helped popularize the pejorative term "groomer", which is aimed at... seems WP:DUH that language used by LoTT would be popular among people who follow it, and RS agree that the term was generally popularized by the account. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 19:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd prefer Libs of TikTok helped popularize use of the term 'groomer' as a pejorative for LGBT people […], to better reflect that child grooming predates the antiqueer use of the term. Madeline ( part of me) 20:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm in favor of this wording. "Aimed at" is quite weird wording as I re-read it. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 20:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Calling my proposed language "weird" is unkind and beneath the dignity of pleasant discourse. That said, I support the re-write being proposed by the editors here now, so perhaps we should change it now? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf ( talk) 00:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

My bad, it’s nothing personal, I’m just referring to phrasing 😊. Maybe “awkward” would have been a better choice of adjective on my part. Sorry again! SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 02:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes I like this as well: Libs of TikTok helped popularize  use of the term 'groomer' as a pejorative for LGBT people […] —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 20:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Madeline ( part of me) 06:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Not true, and not backed up by the sources. I think the evidence shows that Libs of TikTok has always used the term to describe (rightly or wrongly) people, gay and straight, who work with children in some capacity; and never, say, gay accountants. Korny O'Near ( talk) 13:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Now, that is an assertion not backed up by sources. Chaya Raichik has never used the term groomer to refer to anyone but LGBT people and their supporters. Peleio Aquiles ( talk) 17:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

If by "supporters" you mean straight people, that doesn't contradict what I said. The key is that it's just a subset of these groups. Korny O'Near ( talk) 22:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

That the only straight people Chaya Raichik calls groomers are supporters of LGBT people, isn't the great argument you think it is. You wanted to downplay Wikipedia's acknowledgment of Raichik's palpable homophobia, but you're just making it clearer that her homophobia is so intense, it ultimately involves even heterosexuals who just happen to support LGBT people. Peleio Aquiles ( talk) 23:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Attacking the subject of the BLP on the talk page is no better than directly doing it in the article. If this keeps up we'll be finding this at AE. Discuss changes to the article and the sources supporting them, not your beliefs on the subject. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 12:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Raichik/LoTT is homophobic, thats an objective fact supported by the sources. There is no other side to it. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 14:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the reasonable argument about what it means to be "anti-LGBT", there are reliable sources that directly call LoTT "homophobic" or "anti-gay" including San Francisco Chronicle, Slate, Advocate, and Los Angeles Blade. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 15:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

First, thanks for actually providing sources. Second Homophobic is a WP: LABEL, which means the sourcing needs to be widespread and it's use needs to follow in text attribution. Editor's applying the label and calling it a fact is not appropriate. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 15:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The source is widespread, it does not need to be individually attributed if it is widespread enough. Or else, consider the consequences. You would say: "As described by the SF Chronicle, Slate, the Advocate, and LA Blade......" The list becomes overly long and cumbersome. You would instead say "Described by several media outlets as..." —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 15:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The MOS applies to articles, not talk pages. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussions and suggestions on the article, not for editor's to present their views as fact. This includes value laden labels. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 15:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The labels are factual and supported beyond any reasonable doubt, they do not present an editor's views as fact they present fact as fact. There is no problem with using them on the talk page in such a context. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

That you find WP: LABEL as fact is an WP: NOTADVOCACY problem. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 16:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

WP: LABEL is part of WP:MOS, this is a talk page... The MOS does not apply here as has been pointed out to you by multiple editors. Have a fun time heading over to Talk:ISIS and telling everyone using the WP:LABEL "terrorist" that they have a WP:NOTADVOCACY problem and should not be presenting their personal opinions as facts. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Going to the archives there, since the only example on the talk page is an IP who people have not responded to. I find administrators noting that WP: LABEL applies and being called Terrorists is attributed in the article. There is also the very big difference of this article and the ISIS article, seeing that this is a BLP, which requires stricter adherence to our policies. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 16:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Terrorists are covered by WP:BLP too. WP:LABEL applies to the article, not the talk page. On the talk page you can call a terrorist a terrorist, a homophobe a homophobe, and a racist a racist as long as a reliable source supports that use. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Individuals are covered by BLP, Groups like ISIS are not. And labeling people on talk pages is not an appropriate use of talk pages. They are for discussing article content and improvements not voicing opinions, even if you can find sources that agree with your opinion. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 16:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You understand that labels can be factual right? Like for instance this label "homophobic" which accurately depicts the anti-gay sentiments of the subject. Do you really believe that the anti-LGBT nature of LoTT is an opinion and not a fact because that would raise serious WP:COMPETENCE concerns. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You understand that the values in Value laden labels are not fact right? And that what counts as "homophobic" is value dependent, which is what makes it not a matter of fact, but of opinion. If you can't get that, then you're projecting your competence concerns. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 17:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You understand the difference between value laden and value based right? Something can be value laden and fact based. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You do realize it is the application of the values which removes something from being fact right? -- Kyohyi ( talk) 17:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

No I never knew that. Probably because it is not true. Hitler was a racist, that is both a fact and value laden. Having fulfilled Godwin's law I will bid you adieu. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Editor's were presenting it as fact, not as a description used by media outlets. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 15:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV: Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. When high-quality sources make sources that are uncontested in WP:RSes, we are required to cover it as fact. Attributing such statements introduces WP:POV into the article by incorrectly implying that factual coverage from high-quality sources is mere opinion. -- Aquillion ( talk) 13:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Value laden labels are not factual statements. They are loaded language that contains Value judgements and opinions inherent in their usage. Per WP:NPOV However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. And per WP:LABEL {{Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.}}. It is not appropriate to treat a value laden label like it is a factual assertion and not a value judgement. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 13:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:LABEL really doesn't apply on a talk page. Other editors have already made this point to you, though -- so at this point you're just WP:IDHT when it comes to your application of policy. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 13:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not even particularly pushing for 'homophobic' in the article, but mentioning the account's homophobia as a reason to support or oppose article content is a legitimate use of this talk page. MOS:LABEL doesn't apply here. Maybe we can all move on now. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 15:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that adding homophobic, transphobic etc is of little use when we already use the more academic (and RS used) anti-LGBT. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, editor's need to be checking their opinions on article subjects at the door. Otherwise we end up with WP: IMPARTIAL problems. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 15:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and WP: NOTADVOCACY problems. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 16:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You appear to think that calling the account "homophobic" is an idea pulled out of thin air by editors here. It is not, obviously. There's no issue with IMPARTIAL, or LABEL, or NOTADVOCACY in other editor's arguments here, and that insinuation is pretty ridiculous. Those issues might just apply to your arguments, though, based on your aggressive resistance to how RS describe this account. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 18:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be not understanding anything that I've typed. There are label issues when statements are not attributed, which they initially were not. There are notadvocacy issues when editors don't check their beliefs at the door and present WP: LABELS as fact. And WP: IMPARTIAL becomes an issue when we don't control for notadvocacy and label issues. The idea doesn't have to be pulled out of "thin air" to be an issue. The issue is treating a value laden label as a fact. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 18:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between a user disagreeing with what you have typed, and "not understanding" what you have typed. That difference is WP:AGF. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 21:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Starting a comment with "you appear to think that" is not some form of disagreement. It is ascribing, in this case incorrectly, intent on another person. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 21:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

??? Very confusing comment lol. ITT you have repeatedly, half-hazardly changed other peoples' comments to "redact" sourced descriptions of the article subject. Check your SOAPBOXing at the door, I mean, c'mon. And definitely don't accuse other people of it... SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 21:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

And yes, in the context of a user leaving a comment on a talk page, "homophobic" is absolutely a synonym for "anti-LGBT". To argue otherwise is ludicrous. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 21:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't a sourced description of the subject. It was an editors description, it wasn't ascribed to a source. So I didn't redact a sourced description as you assert. And I see you have problems with fallacies of division as well. No "homophobic" is not a synonym for "anti-LGBT" and to argue so is a fallacy. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 12:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The missing part is that the people being called groomers are those who want to teach (or are actively teaching) kids about sexuality. It's not just LGBT people, and not just their supporters. That's a crucial distinction to make, whether or not the "groomers" description is at all accurate. Korny O'Near ( talk) 13:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Chaya Raichik has called for any LGBT teachers who are out to their students to be fired from their jobs. You know very well by this point, as this has been in the entry for months, and I have drawn your attention to this fact before. And before you move the goalposts, being out is not the same as "educating about sexuality". In addition, she has also accused the people behind the Trevor Project of grooming for reaching out to struggling LGBT youth, even though the group likewise does not offer education on sexual matters. What Chaya Raichik opposes is not offering information about sexuality to kids (a ridiculous stance of its own), but the mere fact of LGBT people existing outside the closet in view of children, an even more extreme position. That's what informs her crusade against drag queens for reading books in libraries — not the false fact that these drag queens were offering sex lessons to children. Peleio Aquiles ( talk) 18:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not your descriptions of these statements are accurate (I don't think they fully are), you correctly note that they all have to do with people who come in contact with children for a living. Again, no gay accountants are being described as groomers. So maybe the wording in the article should make this point clear? Korny O'Near ( talk) 18:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Your feelings don't matter here. Reliable sources agree with my description Chaya Raichik's comment, as, really, there's no other cogent way to interpret them. And yes — in order to be accused of wrongdoing with children, one needs to be in contact with children. That's quite a banal point, though. The idea that Chaya Raichik isn't calling for every gay person to be fired from their jobs, only those who work with children, is not the sympathetic defense you think it is. The statement you're feebly trying to remove, therefore, should stay, as Chaya Raichik uses the term groomer to target all out LGBT who exist near children. Peleio Aquiles ( talk) 22:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Even just adding the phrase "who work with children" to the article would be a big step up. Korny O'Near ( talk) 13:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@ Bill Williams: making sure you're aware of this discussion. I think Bill's point about lack of support for "popularized" is a good one. I'm not sure how best to capture that her use of the term has been influential. A couple of the cited sources mention the account's influence on Florida press secretary Christina Pushaw, and the Slate source describes the account as "pushing discourse" around that use of the term. Are there other sources that go beyond just mentioning she uses the term? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 13:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, I had not seen this discussion, I just noticed it in the lead of the article. Not a single one of those sources claims that she popularized the term, they simply claim she uses it. "Uses the term" at least is more relevant to the sources, since she does discuss LGBT topics often and utilizes that term much of the time. Bill Williams 15:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I would be okay with "pushing discourse" around the term or "drove discourse" —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 15:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Libs of TikTok has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add citation to the sentence including "falsely claiming" Jbaird1 ( talk) 06:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{ edit semi-protected}} template. Covered in detail under Libs of TikTok#Children's hospital tweets (June 2022–August 2022). Per MOS:LEADCITE we don't always cite everything in the lede since it is going to be elaborated on further in the article. If there is consensus to include sources it would be an easy thing to just repeat one or two of them. Cannolis ( talk) 06:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Add citation to the "falsely claiming" sentence

Such a claim after voice recordings from hospital staff indicate the opposite should be cited Jbaird1 ( talk) 06:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

— Jbaird1 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 13:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The source is a mess. It says the first hospital employee said there might be certain departments that do not take patients older than 18, the second one says she has personally seen all age groups, even children younger than 16, going in for hysterectomies, and their website explicitly advertised such operations for minors. It seems a stretch to say this was a simple case of a misunderstanding regarding the minimum age. I do understand Wikipedia's job is not to right great wrongs but merely to provide a synopsis of the journalistic consensus, but I cannot help but feel that this is outright lying in the most blatant way possible. RRorg ( talk) 12:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

— RRorg ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 13:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

In the German Wiki, I've been editing Hiphop related articles since 2016.

You're allowed to respond to the arguments made and don't need to go straight for the user history though, this is not Reddit. RRorg ( talk) 19:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Its common practice. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 20:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Common practice especially when it's a hot button topic, and when we have had so many repetitive conversations about this topic after establishing a pretty good consensus in favor of the current language! —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 20:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@ X-Editor: I don't want to start an edit war, and I think this content should be discussed here before even being considered for addition on the namespace. For context I am referring to [28]. You're suggesting we put in a quote from a WP:FOXNEWS host right at the top of the section, a quote where he is not even discussing the article subject, Libs of TikTok, and there is no connection to Libs of TikTok made by the citation, and in fact the cite notes that the response was spurred by a different commentator entirely, Matt Walsh.

This is clearly not WP:DUE and has no bearing when put in a response section where other attributed quotes, which all lean in the opposite direction, come from reputable sources on the subject matter, including local law enforcement, the FBI, and multiple academics. It's bad, bad WP:BALANCE. The Carlson quote is tangentially related at best and has no place at the top of this section. I'd encourage a WP:SELFREVERT unless there is consensus after discussion to include this quote in the section. I am strongly opposed. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 00:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@ Siliconred: I'll revert my edit this is on the iffy side, but the source does not say that the response was from Matt Walsh, in fact, the source explicitly says "Boston Children’s Hospital was forced to lockdown after a bomb threat following a campaign of lies about its trans youth healthcare services programme. Carlson accused the hospital of “playing the victim” after receiving the horrific threat." X-Editor ( talk) 01:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand Carlson's commentary included a comment about BCH, but the "rally" was instigated by a different topic: Carlson rallied against the Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) in Tennessee after right-wing pundit Matt Walsh posted a series of tweets accusing the hospital of opening its transgender healthcare clinic because it was profitable. [29] Generally my issues are outlined above and I don't think I can add much to this discussion unless other editors have thoughts so I'll step aside for now. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 01:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. I have nothing to add either. X-Editor ( talk) 02:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

As of today libs of tik tok has 1.4 millions followers, terrible!. Anyway, could someone change that in the article, please. 186.169.194.211 ( talk) 02:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to link to the libs of Tiktok twitter page? It clearly falls under WP:PROBLEMLINKS. Is there any good reason to keep it in? Only one I can think of is "it's easy to find on your own" and I don't necessarily think that's enough to keep it around, considering the nature of the activities they're engaged in. Licks-rocks ( talk) 10:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

This isn't like Kiwi Farms, this is just a twitter account, and whatever they post is still going to be mild to stay under Twitter's own ToS. Let's not get too ridiculous with Think of the children pleas here. Zaathras ( talk) 13:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't nessecarily describe accusing entire demographics of pedophilia as "mild", to be honest. Licks-rocks ( talk) 16:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Not really relevant, the Wikipedia is not the Internet Police of Bad People. Also, "PROBLEMLINKS" is only a guiding suggestion, it is not binding policy. Zaathras ( talk) 20:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a behavioural guideline based on very solid, well established policy. Which is why I am asking if there's a good reason to have the link, as would be required by the policies the guideline is referring to. So far I haven't heard one. I've heard a lot of accusations about my supposed pearl clutching, but I haven't heard a policy argument. Unless that changes, I will be removing the link.The onus is on you to prove why it should be included despite the harassment concerns. Licks-rocks ( talk) 21:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The onus most goddamn certainly isn't on me to keep what is already in the article, I'm afraid, and your attempted removal will be reverted. Wikipedia articles provide links to the subject's official websites and/or social media when relevant (and since this is an artivcle about a social media account, it is relevant. As a matter of general principle, unless there is a very, very solid reason to not do so. In similar discussions, I've seen people link to an old, failed policy proposal WP:BADSITES. You're trying to revive something that appears to be long-dead and rejected. Zaathras ( talk) 21:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you think harassment of Wikipedia editors comes into it? It should be noted that the parts of WP:Badsites relevant to this discussion were incorporated in WP:PROBLEMLINKS, as stated in the infobox at the top of the page, so even if there WAS any harassment of Wikipedia Editors the rejection of WP:BADSITES still wouldn't be relevant here. Furthermore, with regards to ONUS: I have provided a very clear policy based reason to exclude, and the guidelines say err on the side of caution. Either there is a good argument to keep it in, which is what I asked for in my original comment, or there isn't. If you don't want to answer the original question, why are you responding other than to stall? Licks-rocks ( talk) 12:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:PROBLEMLINKS is not a policy and is not really meant for this situation at all. It's meant for links that would be included on say, a talkpage. If an editor's dox is posted to an external site, then obviously linking that would be problematic. However, that guideline doesn't focus on linking official websites of an article subject, and in the paragraph where it does mention it, it suggests still including links in those cases, though possibly making them non-clickable.

The argument to keep the link is that it's relevant and useful to our readers. The same reason we use external links for any other site or social media account. Elli ( talk | contribs) 21:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, there was never a discussion to gain consensus for making this a guideline. It was done so in a BOLD edit in 2007 and no one objected, likely because it was and still is a relatively unknown page. Elli ( talk | contribs) 21:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The first section after the introduction is on links in articles. So clearly it was thought of. It even suggests a good compromise, as you point out here. Since the guideline has stood for 15 years now I am going to have to assume the consensus for it was fairly decent. I don't think "don't link to harassment of living persons" is a particularly objectionable thing to strive towards either. I am okay with making the link non-clickable. But considering it's a twitter account, I don't think the link is very worthy of inclusion to begin with. Licks-rocks ( talk) 21:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The consensus wasn't "fairly decent"; the guideline was never even approved via any sort of consensus process. It's a very rarely cited guideline, so rarely cited that it was not even brought up in the discussion on Kiwi Farms. Elli ( talk | contribs) 21:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It was, by the closer. The reference to the guideline was then upheld at the admin noticeboard, where it was explicitly pointed out that the consensus did indeed reflect the guideline as written down in PROBLEMLINKS, even if problemlinks was not mentioned explicitly. Licks-rocks ( talk) 22:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't brought up in the actual discussion; the closer bringing it up doesn't count. My point here was that the guideline is not very well known, and no one except the closer bring it up is evidence in favor of that. Also, the AN thread is rather poorly-attended and I wouldn't say that counts as "upholding" the close so much as there not really being much interest in overturning it. Elli ( talk | contribs) 22:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

So, because there wasn't any interest in overturning a decision that means the decision doesn't reflect consensus? Pardon me if I feel that logic seems to be more than a little bit backwards. Licks-rocks ( talk) 17:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

My friend, the Wikipedia is not a court of law. Closing an RfC is not done by a judge, closes are not precedents for other slightly similar situations. Problem links is an essay, it carries no weight. IMO, even citing it at all in a close was extremely ill-informed. Zaathras ( talk) 00:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Raichik remained anonymous until her identity was revealed in April 2022 by both software developer Travis Brown and Washington Post journalist Taylor Lorenz. Some conservatives accused Lorenz of doxxing as a result, while others defended Lorenz from criticism

You can't give a 1:1 description of doxing and then claim that it wasn't. recentlyryan RecentlyRyan 09:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia repeats what reliable sources report, which in this case is that it is disputed whether the reveal was doxxing. It would be original research to assert that the report was doxxing based on our own interpretation of the circumstances. ■ ∃  Madeline ⇔ ∃  Part of me ; 09:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It needs to be included in the entry that Chaya Raichik has a long history of posting people's personal and employment information online to provoke harassment from her followers, something that Taylor Lorenz never did to her, and that she only stopped so doing after lawyering up. It is not neutral to write line after line describing her and her followers whining about her being "doxed", when her own blatant participation in this practice is left without acknowledgement. Peleio Aquiles ( talk) 17:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

yes, on wikipedia "neutrality" means "as far left as we can make it" these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:A000:721E:E83F:799B:7352:9277 ( talk) 13:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Please see the block at the top. Comments like this do nothing to help improve the article. You are of course entitled to have opinions about Wikipedia, but this is not a discussion forum so take them elsewhere. Jibal ( talk) 01:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)